Really? "Cut out some of the loopholes"...while creating how many new ones? The effect is the same.
Promised growth never happens in these plans, except in a select few pockets.

Funny, Trump's tax promise was "you'll do your taxes on a postcard", not "I'll make taxes more convoluted and cut hundreds of billions a year for multi millionaires and businesses while actually raising them for the poor."

Did you do your taxes on a postcard in <5 minutes? Will you save the >$4000 he promised?
Winning.

I gave it an upvote, but I have to wonder how cherry picked this was. I mean, if you did a similar documentary here in the USA, you could easily find examples of stalker-ish guys who exploit legal loopholes to make their ex's lives nightmares.

"Oooh, loophole!" Ha!

Next year, Krampus.

As they mentioned, Warren Buffett famously bragged for years that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. The rich get such value on deductions, loopholes, capital gains rates, etc. that they can avoid taxes overall.
I'm in the bottom 20%...my uncle Sam has never even sent me a birthday card, he sure hasn't ever paid me a dime of assistance. Has Trump ever taken public funds for his projects? Hmmmm.

Another fail, Dimitri.

Why not take two steps in the right direction?

Taking the texting while drunk driving analogy - you'd ban both wouldn't you?. To simply ban the texting is surely tacit approval of the DUI.

I understand the sort of pragmatic approach and I'm not even sure I'd be against it... I just think you have to be careful not to imagine it as a step in the right direction because, frankly, it's not a step at all. To me it is closer to addressing a loophole in the preexisting law and it doesn't really facilitate or encourage further gun regulation. If banning bumpstocks is your end goal then great, but if you want more then I think you need to be asking for more, even (or perhaps especially?) if it means fighting for it.

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.





All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).




A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.



Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.





The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :
http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).

-schehearzade

In open warfare of govt vs people, drones don't matter, just like jets don't matter. I already covered this above.



Nowhere is an oppressive dictatorship - until it is.
[redacted]
I feel like people are too distracted with instagram and other B.S. to bother learning about how the world works.
History is long. The current peace is an anomaly. When things go bad, there is little warning. If you're lucky, a year or so of build up. If you're not lucky, weeks or days. Shit likes to spiral.
In bad times, you have only what you have on hand.


Most western countries with [regardless of gun ownership] don't have a population that's F'd in the head.
Nothing stops a German gun owner from taking his AR15 and shooting up a concert.
Storing his guns in a safe that he can open doesn't mean anything.
Paying for a new license card for every few guns doesn't alter the guns.

Gun laws, as proposed, are fluff. Nothing that makes people safer, nothing that prevents ownership, but plenty to crap on collectors.
* 10 round limit = 2 second pause to reload
* Gun show loophole is a misnomer.
* (re. above) Only private sales (gun show or not) don't require checks - but you still end up in court if the buyer does something bad.
* Assault weapons ban only bans pistol grips and threaded barrels. Cosmetics. Just google "California compliant AR15" (they already have a de-facto AWB).
* There's already laws against straw purchase.
* There's already laws against crazy people buying (already part of the background check)
* Registration is pointless as gun control. Doesn't alter the guns or who has them (background check already tells gov who, when, and where bought a gun).

(I'd sooner vote for mandatory roll cage and 6 point harness in every car. Could eliminate 90+% of car fatalities in one rule - if people cared enough.)


By the way, gun owners hate people like the Vegas shooter even more than anti-gunners hate people like him.
Precisely because assholes like that shooter make anti-gunners turn on their frustration on innocent gun owners.

The call to "do something" is the phrase that perfectly describes the sentiments that led to actions, that in turn became described by either "famous last words" or "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".





We had shit health insurance before Obama. We had shit insurance during Obama (only you're required by law to buy it, even if it's not a good value), we continue to have shit health insurance during Trump, and no matter what trump does, it will still be shit.
Problem is that the insurance company lobbyists draft the language of the law (no matter the party in charge), and it's not for our benefit.





Re. Minorities, most are living normal lives. The white eutopia that the few vocal people complain about, doesn't exist. At least I have yet to see it. Don't let a few thousand people in a nation of millions guide your thoughts about overall social norms.

I'm happy to see them protest. Frankly, I wish white people had the same solidarity that black people have. When a black gets shot by a cop, they come together. When a white is shot by a cop, other whites say "he probably deserved it". I wish the black community good luck and success.





Yes, I wish we weren't jailing more people than anywhere else on the planet, over things that harm nobody.
I wish we had the drug laws of Portugal (decriminalization)
I wish we had the legal system of Sweden (no jail before conviction).

Know how I said that most countries don't have as many people that are F'd in the head? Same applies for people in government.
None of this shit will get fixes.
Republicans are bible thumping retards that funnel money to defense contractors and campaign donors.
Democrats are buck-passing censors that funnel money to insurance companies and campaign donors.
And people just pick a team and bark at the other team, while each gets fleeced by their very own side.

-scheherazade

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

Makes you wonder why the big G left so many loopholes in the whole pleasure for pregnancy incentive. And, I mean, forget the contraceptives too, if my (hypothetical) wife and I knock boots at any time other than those special few days should we not be experiencing any pleasure?

Thank thee Lord for blessing my cock with rigidity and sensitivity at this most horni... holiest of times. I come in jaysus name. Amen.

Not true.
The treasury borrows money from those with money to invest, other nations, and corporations by issuing and selling treasury bonds...interest bearing IOUs. That's why, when Trump suggests defaulting on them, it's a disastrous suggestion. If we even hint we won't pay on our debt, no one will buy bonds anymore (they aren't a great investment, but are considered "safe" as is, but not if we default) and our government grinds to a halt with no cash and no credit.

The federal reserve is not the only agency to lend money, the treasury prints more of it for the government, making every dollar worth less, but creating the numerical dollars needed to pay for our debts without actually collecting any. This is actually a flat tax, because it takes the same amount of every dollar that exists with no loopholes or escape for anyone with a dollar. If we want to stop this type of taxation, we need to return to the gold standard and stop playing fast and loose with the value of a dollar....imo.

Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

I was about the reply to Bobknight - to say basically the same thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of us who are "liberal" can't understand this. There is truth to it, I'm not going to say that it isn't batshit crazy but for instance, I worked 5 days at a design temp job (before I quit and got the job of a lifetime a week later) and the owner was an older lady. She listened to FOX news ALL DAY long, totally in the box and in the zone for the alt-right mentality.

She, as a small business owner, who probably has other "conservative"(extremist) friends on the Chamber of Commerce (of which she was a part of) really believed that Trump as a "BUSINESS" person would be a great president in creating a better economy for"business"(tax loopholes everywhere, YES!!! No living wage or minimum wage increases, YESSS!!! fucking dicks the lot of em). I had to listen to this shit for those 5 days, but yeah - people really believe(d) it. There are business people out there, who aren't Bobknights eating doritoes in that wheel-less, rusted, mobile home in the trailer park waiting for the next tornado to plop down on tornado alley and give them the ultimate ride to the otherside, that believed in having a business person in the white house a good thing (fucking capitalists and terribly ignorant poor people IMO lol).

Media is in a real shithole these days. I mean, I still listen to Democracy Now! & NPR... but everything is slanted one-way or another...

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents.

That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt.

I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core; Washington has just had a lot of time with not enough scrutiny to find the loopholes to exploit) would be better at mitigating the damage of President Trump than President Hillary. She's too insidious of an evil -- covert and connected. Trump is the polar opposite of covert.

The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary.

So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em.