To be fair, the electoral college system does make a lot of votes pointless. A Texan Democrat and a Californian Republican don’t really have a say. It’s just a fundamentally broken system and should be scrapped immediately.

There really is no defence for it.

This. Self defence instructors seem to be pretty universally agreed on step 1 in confronting someone with a knife:
1: Run away

They are also pretty universally agreed on the best way to win a knife fight if running isn't an option, bring a gun.

@MilkmanDan, excellent points all round.

I'm not a gun owner, and I have no interest in buying one for self-defence, but I have fired guns a few times (at shooting ranges or clay pigeon shoots) and it's an undeniably fun activity. I could also see myself going hunting for food at some point.

Jim Jeffries makes an excellent point in his gun control rant.
"fuck off, I like guns" is actually a reasonable argument. If you like something and you're not harming anyone with it, why should it be taken from you? After all, many "anti-gun" (or more accurately "pro-gun control") people will make the same argument FOR drugs. "I'm just smoking some weed/having a beer in my house. I'm not hurting anyone, just leave me alone".

But the thing is unless you're a hardcore libertarian, almost everyone agrees that there should be some sensible limits on drugs. Even for legal drugs like alcohol, we mandate that you must be a certain age (older than you have to be to buy a gun, which is lunacy to me) and that you can't drive drunk, etc.

The sad thing is, there's near universal agreement on this, even in the US. The vast majority of people are in favour of the kind of simple, common-sense regulations you mention.

It's just that the politicians are in the pocket of the NRA. As one of shooting survivors pointed out "We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy", and I cannot say how much I want to stand up and applaud that epic burn.

Except NZ's gun laws were already stricter than Australias. To get an AR15 here, buyers must have a standard, current firearms licence and an approved police order form. If the clip has a higher capacity than 7 rounds, you need a special endorsement. Also, you must have proper storage for firearms which the police will inspect before granting a licence.

Oh, and you will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

a history of violence
repeated involvement with drugs
been irresponsible with alcohol
a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

That's a direct quote from the police licence page

I don't really have a problem with owning guns and it's certainly not "all or nothing".

My issue with the gun arguments in the states is that they're asking the wrong questions. The problem isn't the guns, it's why you seem to think you need them.

No other developed nation has this issue. The rest of the world all have guns, we're just responsible with them. We're ok with reasonable legislation and we don't have a lunatic fringe screaming about tyranny if we can't own assault rifles.

Most importantly, no civilised country thinks you need a gun for self-defence. A) we have police for that and b) most of us just aren't afraid that someone is coming to kill us... because they aren't.

I don't think there's an easy fix to America's gun problems. Fundamentally I think the issue is cultural rather than regulatory, but honestly, at this stage, you're like a bunch of kids, who need their toys taken off them until they can prove they're mature enough to use them properly.

If someone is an alcoholic, the most important thing isn't taking the booze away, it's getting them to admit there's a problem. But sometimes, you need to take the booze away long enough for them to sober up and admit there's a problem.

Semites are a race that includes the Arabs the Nazi's allied with so... not so much Semites that Nazi's were against as Jews.

And, your only defence is to basically insist on a variation of, but your accusations against cops are true and fair, but the Nazi's conveniently mischaracterized the all Jews as Zionists.

Or am I wrong and suddenly your pro-zionist all of a sudden here?

You insist that MOST cops are liars, murderers and supporters of same, to the point that exceptions practically can't exist and from postings in other threads it seems not much short of quitting the force in protest is enough distance to escape the taint.

Trump's a buffoon randomly dancing around from one tire fire to set off another. This is no defence of him or any 'thought', motive or goal behind anything he does.

I'm just pointing out that the world's reaction of horror and outrage to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is naive and hypocritical. It is naive in that clearly the peace process has been dead since WW2.

I'm going to list points that seem to clearly indicate the peace process didn't exist and tell me anything you disagree with cause I suspect we are working from different 'facts'.

Israel clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Hamas clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Fatah clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
The Muslim world clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with an Israeli state.
The Israeli state clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state.

With the above, and Israeli's militarily dominant position over the Palestinians the only 'peace' process is going to be whatever Israel decides it wants that to be. Morality, wishes, blundering American 'presidents' and anything else we want to pull out doesn't really matter in the face of that. Israel has the might and the ability and so they will do what they want. My hope is to influence the Israeli state towards equitable, fair and compassionate treatment of Palestinians. If Israel decides to create a one state solution, but abides by that fine. Two states with borders unilaterally laid out by Israel, fine. So long as popular opinion in Israel can be won in favour of fair, equitable and compassionate treatment of Palestinians then that's the most I hope or wish for. I think it's a realistic goal that can be realized.

Way to ignore point one...the illegal hacking of what he hoped contained top secret information by a hostile power at Trump's public direction.

The fact that you would even try to contend that the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is not adversarial makes anything else you say moot, because you have already proven to either be a liar or insanely naive. It is, and since ww2 has been adversarial. Your contention that responding to an illegal-by-treaty Russian military build up and invasion on it's borders with a long term international defence program stoked the Russian invasions of Crimea and the Ukraine shows you bought the Putin propaganda, and your follow up that it's an excuse for them installing their candidate in a hostile nation, as if that's proper, shows you aren't being rational at all. What we were required by treaty to do was protect the Ukraine...all of it...with our full military force, securing their borders....we balked and Russia just walked in.

Really, you think collusion with a foreign power to perform illegal acts against private citizens and the government and the interests of the U.S. isn't a crime? Sorry, but it absolutely is here in the U.S., where he did it.

So far, "he" isn't charged with a crime (only because it's likely he's so incompetent that he actually didn't know his entire staff were covert foreign agents....some have admitted as much when confronted with proof)...what his cabinet is charged with varies but all of them perjured themselves to congress about the crimes, who they work for, who paid them, and who they owe millions... so that's felonious.
Just a few crimes (of many) that the campaign is accused of is working with Russian diplomats for the benefit of Russia and against the interests of the U.S., hiring foreign agents, and hiding tens if not hundreds of millions secretly paid to the managers by Russia.
The campaign managers did directly receive money, all of them it seems, tens of millions...and lied about it over and over. What's more, they have admitted (only after recordings were produced) having subverted government policy by making arrangements with Putin before taking office that were diametrically opposed to the current (at the time) policy...again, that's treason.

Bert listens to Civil Defence Radio.

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Yeah, he isn't resisting much and it does make her look stronger and the throws look cleaner than they really would in reality... there is an element of choreography, but in most cases it's for practical purposes, to avoid unnecessary injury, not for aesthetics.

But then i quite like the aesthetics too. It's dancing. I think I always enjoyed Ju Jitsu more for the workout, history and artistry of it than for actual self defence.

I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. It's just... hyperbole - using literally in a sentence that should not be taken literally. To me it's exactly like somebody saying "no exaggeration..." and then exaggerating wildly. Would people not expect to be called on that shit? It is too much like lying! It will turn into an arms race - we'll have to develop other means of saying "literally" when we really mean it and in turn those means will be turned against us until ALL LANGUAGE DIES!!!1

but then. Sarcasm. My standards are double. I can offer no defence.

but also, quantum leap. It might be an abrupt change, possible overcoming some sort of previously imagined impenetrable barrier... but it surely must still be a very small change

Never mind, I'm an idiot. It's actually Alden Ehrenreich

In my defence, they're both unusual names with the initials A.E.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are places where they could add something like driving without due care and attention to, say, a speeding charge by claiming that the driver had no idea what speed they were going.

As for 'Hello, how are you', I can imagine that an officer could claim your speech was slurred (especially if you had something in your mouth at the time) and that gave them a reason to search the car for drugs or alcohol.

I'm not saying that either of these are likely, but in a situation where a cop is out to get you for any reason, pretty much anything can be used against you, so your best defence is to say nothing.

@bobknight33 it seems you are becoming increasingly unhinged in your defence of your guy in here. To people reading, it might look a bit like desperation, so if you're gonna spin this then you need to turn the intensity down a few notches.

I didn't catch all of it as there's a lot of UK politics going on, but from what i saw, he seemed very precise and forthcoming with detail. I cannot imagine for one second that this guy has any doubt in his mind what lying under oath would mean for him. He doesn't have a history of lying that i could find, and Trump himself praised him highly on selection. Combination of these things make me very skeptical that he's lying.

I can't rule it out, but there's an easy way to test this, surely? You have Trump go through the same thing, same consequences, and let his truth come out. It would clear this whole mess up, simple. In the past bob has said of fleeing black suspects "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", so i suppose he'd be supportive of this?