A Political Thread

[die_mole]

yeah the ones asking for a discussion over policy are the ones throwing a tantrum but not the ones who just say "no" over and over again.

 

[die_mole]

Awww thanks babe

 

[GarethGriffiths]

The ones who say no know that whilst they have Trump in the White House, and the NRA backing, they will not have to demonstrate and throw as big tantrums like the anti-gun people are.

I did hear that on InfoWars, some Republican gun owner was threatening to turn to the Dark Web to buy guns, should they ever be made illegal (either wholesale or individual models). Shows where his/her loyalties and priorities are, if that is true.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Awww thanks babe

No worries, we are just point scoring now aren't we?

Besides, you aren't the only person whose comment I down-voted on here so no need to get precious. Similarly, people are free to disagree with me and down-vote what I say, couldn't give a toss if they do.

To clarify, my final thoughts on this are:

* What has happened is a tragedy, but school shootings happened under the watch of Obama, Bush, Clinton etc. Whichever side gets in, they seem unable to deal wholly with this issue.

* Banning or curtailing the sale of guns might appear to be a good idea, but the NRA are too powerful and you would be opening up a black market to cartels prepared to smuggle guns into the USA. Better monitoring of who is sold what and having to fill in a MHIA form (Mental Health Impact Assessment) and with a Doctor/Medical person co-signing that he/she agrees the person buying the gun is mentally sound. It might not work in ALL cases (and there will always be those who 'slip through the net') but it is better than doing nothing.

* The shooter (Cruz) is known to have had mental health issues, and there were missed attempts to intervene. He was (and I quote The New Yorker) 'the kid who would shoot up a school' yet his classmates who ridiculed/bullied him and his teachers did nothing to help.

* The only way, in my opinion, that further tragedies can be avoided is if everybody comes together and sorts this out. All sides need to be involved and all sides need to be listened to - it cannot be just a verbal slanging match. It is not for one side to demand adherence from the other, that simply will not work and may set any potential progress back many years.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Now we might be getting somewhere:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

Hit them in the pocket and they'll have to listen.

 

[Majorhound]

Given what I've read this weekend about the protests over gun control in the US, if I were running the NRA I'd be looking to compromise from a relative position of strength. Give a little, because if they don't I predict there'll be such a surge in anti gun sentiment, they'll end up having to give a lot.
Anyone who's seen Ken Burns's excellent documentary on Prohibition will know that the various organisations wanting keep it were unwilling to compromise, so instead of having something of what they wanted, they ended up with nothing.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Given what I've read this weekend about the protests over gun control in the US, if I were running the NRA I'd be looking to compromise from a relative position of strength. Give a little, because if they don't I predict there'll be such a surge in anti gun sentiment, they'll end up having to give a lot.
Anyone who's seen Ken Burns's excellent documentary on Prohibition will know that the various organisations wanting keep it were unwilling to compromise, so instead of having something of what they wanted, they ended up with nothing.

Great comment, I definitely agree.

 

[Majorhound]

The ones who say no know that whilst they have Trump in the White House, and the NRA backing, they will not have to demonstrate and throw as big tantrums like the anti-gun people are.

I did hear that on InfoWars, some Republican gun owner was threatening to turn to the Dark Web to buy guns, should they ever be made illegal (either wholesale or individual models). Shows where his/her loyalties and priorities are, if that is true.

Canada is a very similar country to the US, in terms of it having wild areas, and isolated communities where some kind of firearm is probably necessary. They haven't banned them, you just have to pass various tests in order to possess them. Their gun crime stats are a fraction of the those in the US. From a safety point of view, what would be wrong with that? No need for the dark net. No need for a ban. Just sensible regulations.

And let's be honest, no one apart from a soldier needs an AK47 assault rifle. (or similar)

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[McTallshort]

Ha! Of course Trump would have run in there....like he ran to join up for Vietnam.

 

[Which Tyler]

Ha! Of course Trump would have run in there....like he ran to join up for Vietnam.

#CadetBoneSpurs

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Labour appoint Munroe Bergdorf as adviser: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43211136

Somebody who is a known racist, sexist and homophobe.

Blimey, they almost outdid UKIP in one go!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Sexist and Homophobe?
How's that work?

 

[Groundhog]

Sexist and Homophobe?
How's that work?

You're a Prissy Tr(f)oll(y), how's that work?
Consider yourself officially cyberbullied nerd.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You're a Prissy Tr(f)oll(y), how's that work?
Consider yourself officially cyberbullied nerd.

Coming from the #1 Cuck?
You're off your TROlyy

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Sexist and Homophobe?
How's that work?

Glad to help you out here:

Sexism (and Racism) against the Suffragettes and their movement: '18 Feb 2018 - FYI - The Suffragettes were white supremacists who were fighting for WHITE women's rights - they specifically left black women out of the movement. It is not 100 years since women got the vote it's 100 years since WHITE women got the vote. Black women couldn't vote until MUCH later.'

No historical proof exists that they were racist, it's just the say so of Munroe. Yes, the United Kingdom was predominantly white back then, but there is no history that there weren't black Suffragettes (quite possible that there were a few).

Homophobia: She has called out gay people who support the Tory Party, calling them "special kind of dic-head".

He/she seems to be the left-wing version of Jayda Fransen - hardly the sort of person that the all-tolerant, all-loving, all-wonderful Labour party should be adding to their ranks IMO.

 

[ncurd]

That's because the Labour are not all tolerant and all loving. Don't get me wrong a lot of their supporters are but they've never really been on the side of Liberalism.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

That's because the Labour are not all tolerant and all loving. Don't get me wrong a lot of their supporters are but they've never really been on the side of Liberalism.

Traditionally not even that many of their supporters are all loving either.

 

[McTallshort]

Traditionally not even that many of their supporters are all loving either.

Apart from Corbyn and Abbott..

 

[Which Tyler]

What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...udi-reactors-enrichment-a-worry-idUSKBN1E92M1

The Trump administration briefed congressional staff this week on how the White House was considering non-proliferation standards in a potential pact to sell nuclear reactor technology to Saudi Arabia, but did not indicate whether allowing uranium enrichment would be part of any deal, congressional aides said.

Non-proliferation advocates worry that allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich fuel in a nuclear power deal could also enable it to one day covertly produce fissile material and set off an arms race with arch-rival Iran that could spread more broadly throughout the Middle East.
...