Another Shooting

C

Cackalacky

Guest
BleedBlueGold said:
Trump looking to make bump stock ban an EO? Did I hear that correctly?
Click to expand...

He said he would on Friday via EO.

Then he had a meeting with the NRA over the weekend.

Now he is backing away from that. I seriously doubt he does anything because he is just a terrible deal maker and will really just do whatever the last person to tell him to do somethings wants him to do.

Keep in mind they gave him $30 million in donations.
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Cackalacky said:
He said he would on Friday via EO.

Then he had a meeting with the NRA over the weekend.

Now he is backing away from that. I seriously doubt he does anything because he is just a terrible deal maker and will really just do whatever the last person to tell him to do somethings wants him to do.

Keep in mind they gave him $30 million in donations.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this shit?

Trump campaign contributions, including Super PACs:

mGkwWYQ.png


https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=N00023864

NRA contributions, 2016 election cycle:

6mxRkUS.png


https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082
 
Last edited:
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
IrishLion said:
Yes, but does that mean we should stop trying to make it harder for them to do harm with guns?
Click to expand...
That's literally nobody's position.

"We shouldn't make it harder for people to shoot up schools."
- Nobody ever

"That particular policy proposal wouldn't actually do anything to make it harder for people to shoot up schools, regardless of the well-meaning intent of those proposing it."
- Lots of people
 
Bishop2b5

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
IrishLion said:
Yes, but does that mean we should stop trying to make it harder for them to do harm with guns?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The problem is that many of the suggestions for stopping them are nothing more than feel-good measures that let people pat themselves on the back for "doing something," but will actually do nothing to make us safer and may, in many cases, make the problem worse or create other major problems. On top of that, if you're focusing on an ineffective policy, you're NOT doing anything about the real, underlying issues where some effective measures could be taken.
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/GOxOhJlap4">pic.twitter.com/GOxOhJlap4</a></p>— dave (@nochiefs) <a href="https://twitter.com/nochiefs/status/968514846265192448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
IrishLion

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
wizards8507 said:
That's literally nobody's position.

"We shouldn't make it harder for people to shoot up schools."
- Nobody ever

"That particular policy proposal wouldn't actually do anything to make it harder for people to shoot up schools, regardless of the well-meaning intent of those proposing it."
- Lots of people
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that's everyone's position. I'm looking for dialogue from North Dakota (or anyone) who have ignored Phork's question and continue to say things like "bad people are going to find ways to be bad."
 
GowerND11

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
3,296
NorthDakota said:
Feel free to look up the Bath school bombing. When people want to do harm, they find a way.
Click to expand...

Oh yes the classic argument. Yes no shit, people who want to do harm can (and do) find a way. However, there have been FAR FAR less bombings at US schools (elementary through universities) than shootings. Why? Because it's hard to acquire the necessary tools and equipment to build and detonate a bomb.
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
IrishLion said:
I'm not saying that's everyone's position. I'm looking for dialogue from North Dakota (or anyone) who have ignored Phork's question and continue to say things like "bad people are going to find ways to be bad."
Click to expand...
I recommended a 544 page book for Phork to peruse at his leisure. It's a deeper and much more complicated issue than I'm prepared to answer off the top of my head.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,707
Reaction score
6,014
IrishLion said:
I'm not saying that's everyone's position. I'm looking for dialogue from North Dakota (or anyone) who have ignored Phork's question and continue to say things like "bad people are going to find ways to be bad."
Click to expand...

before adding a bunch of new legislation that isn't going to do anything, I'd ask the government to do a better job on their end.

Some people here are asking the same Federal government that couldn't find a youtube user named "NikolasCruz" to have annual mental health checks so people can own firearms. Thats actually retarded.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
wizards8507 said:
Where do you get this shit?

Trump campaign contributions, including Super PACs:

mGkwWYQ.png


https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=N00023864

NRA contributions, 2016 election cycle:

6mxRkUS.png


https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082
Click to expand...

Please stop. There is an ongoing investigation by the FBI looking into dark money provided to Trump by the NRA which isn’t required to be disclosed.
FBI investigating whether Russia funneled cash to NRA to aid Trump's campaign | McClatchy Washington Bureau
However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.
Click to expand...

You are really fucking bad at this;

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/the-nra-placed-big-bets-on-the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/
 
Last edited:
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Cackalacky said:
Please stop. There is an ongoing investigation by the FBI looking into dark money provided to Trump by the NRA which isn’t required to be disclosed.
FBI investigating whether Russia funneled cash to NRA to aid Trump's campaign | McClatchy Washington Bureau

You are really fucking bad at this;

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/the-nra-placed-big-bets-on-the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/
Click to expand...
Holy shit, dude. A pro-2A group running its own ads independent of any candidate or PAC against an anti-2A candidate is not the same as the NRA "giving" Trump $33 million.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
wizards8507 said:
Holy shit, dude. A pro-2A group running its own ads independent of any candidate or PAC against an anti-2A candidate is not the same as the NRA "giving" Trump $33 million.
Click to expand...



I don’t know what else to tell you if you cant see how the NRA spending $30 mil on Trump support doesn’t lend its self as Trump being a do boy. You think they they gave that money away for shits and giggles and they don’t expect a return on investment? Lol.

But you are playing on the difference btw donations versus political campaign support during an election. That is what I meant. And they did spend over $30 mil supporting Trump in the election.
 
phork

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
wizards8507 said:
I recommended a 544 page book for Phork to peruse at his leisure. It's a deeper and much more complicated issue than I'm prepared to answer off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Just asking your opinion, doesn't need to be deep or anything.

NorthDakota said:
before adding a bunch of new legislation that isn't going to do anything, I'd ask the government to do a better job on their end.

Some people here are asking the same Federal government that couldn't find a youtube user named "NikolasCruz" to have annual mental health checks so people can own firearms. Thats actually retarded.
Click to expand...

So legislation that isn't going to do anything? Australia would beg to disgaree with you. If you want to be serious about it, it can be done. But NRA.

I am still waiting for an answer to a very simple question. Its not complicated. Logic in your brain is short circuiting your thought process because while NRA and 2nd ammendment and bad guys are bad arguements are valid, you know deep inside what the answer is. But you will die on that hill like you always do, with your guns in your cold dead hands.
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Cackalacky said:
I don’t know what else to tell you if you cant see how the NRA spending $30 mil on Trump support doesn’t lend its self as Trump being a do boy. You think they they gave that money away for shits and giggles and they don’t expect a return on investment? Lol.
Click to expand...
That's not how political contributions work. As Marco Rubio said, groups "buy into an agenda." Planned Parenthood doesn't command Nancy Pelosi to be pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood supports Nancy Pelosi because she's pro-abortion. They don't set candidates' agendas, they support candidates whose agendas align with theirs in the first place.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
wizards8507 said:
That's not how political contributions work. As Marco Rubio said, groups "buy into an agenda." Planned Parenthood doesn't command Nancy Pelosi to be pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood supports Nancy Pelosi because she's pro-abortion. They don't set candidates' agendas, they support candidates whose agendas align with theirs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Lolololololololololololololololooooooooooooooollllllllllll
 
phork

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
wizards8507 said:
That's not how political contributions work. As Marco Rubio said, groups "buy into an agenda." Planned Parenthood doesn't command Nancy Pelosi to be pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood supports Nancy Pelosi because she's pro-abortion. They don't set candidates' agendas, they support candidates whose agendas align with theirs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Right, because they build their platform with what they actually believe and not checked off a list of biggest donars. Got it.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,707
Reaction score
6,014
phork said:
Thanks. Just asking your opinion, doesn't need to be deep or anything.



So legislation that isn't going to do anything? Australia would beg to disgaree with you. If you want to be serious about it, it can be done. But NRA.

I am still waiting for an answer to a very simple question. Its not complicated. Logic in your brain is short circuiting your thought process because while NRA and 2nd ammendment and bad guys are bad arguements are valid, you know deep inside what the answer is. But you will die on that hill like you always do, with your guns in your cold dead hands.
Click to expand...

Austrailia is soft. Like the rest of the commonwealth.

What legislation do you think can honestly be applied in the United States? Like... effectively. Not some "feel good" nonsense.
 
phork

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
phork

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
NorthDakota said:
Austrailia is soft. Like the rest of the commonwealth.

What legislation do you think can honestly be applied in the United States? Like... effectively. Not some "feel good" nonsense.
Click to expand...

What you call soft I call a collective "What the fuck are we doing?" Senses came to, guns handed in on a buy back. And no mass shootings since.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top