Las Vegas Shooting: 50+ Dead 500+ Injured at Jason Aldean Concert

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wonder how much has to do with binary choice of the two party system. Having a real third option allows one to not be one of "them", while still allowing disagreement from your own party. In America, if you're a Democrat you can't really disengage from your party or your "one of them" and vice versa

Part of the problem with that though is that because of the binary team based allegiances we have, there is the desire from each side not to break up their team as then the other side would just take over everything. The level at which that fear is based in reality is certainly debatable, but I do think a lot of that exists.

[Hack&Lube]

If you can't take the guns off the street, how about taxing ammunition until it's no-longer affordable in large quantities? It has worked when taxing other vices and undesirable behaviors like tobacco.

You can't argue that you have taken away the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense. You just make it economically unfeasible and make people think twice about using firearms in an attack. The police, military, and approved ranges can still have cheap ammunition but you simply can't acquire it cheaply for personal possession.

You cannot claw back or register the 300 million firearms in the United States. You can prevent their use however because the US only has a 3 year supply of ammunition at the current rate that people are shooting. People will certainly hoard at the beginning but eventually supplies will dwindle.

[Lubicon]

Nice article on SI.com about the Golden Knights home opener.

https://www.si.com/nhl/2017/10/11/ve...ts-home-opener

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If you can't take the guns off the street, how about taxing ammunition until it's no-longer affordable in large quantities? It has worked when taxing other vices and undesirable behaviors like tobacco.

You can't argue that you have taken away the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense. You just make it economically unfeasible and make people think twice about using firearms in an attack. The police, military, and approved ranges can still have cheap ammunition but you simply can't acquire it cheaply for personal possession.

You cannot claw back or register the 300 million firearms in the United States. You can prevent their use however because the US only has a 3 year supply of ammunition at the current rate that people are shooting. People will certainly hoard at the beginning but eventually supplies will dwindle.

This is the exact train of thought that people tried to use to justify that poll taxes aren’t voter suppression. Attempting this with ammunition would be seen as trying to circumvent the 2nd amendment and you’d have thousands of lawsuits immediately. There’s a zero percent chance it would be allowed to happen or be seen as constitutional.

The only way it changes is if somehow the SC changes their stance and remembers the “well regulated militia” portion of the amendment. It won’t hapoen, no changes are coming, the gun nuts won.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

This is the exact train of thought that people tried to use to justify that poll taxes aren’t voter suppression. Attempting this with ammunition would be seen as trying to circumvent the 2nd amendment and you’d have thousands of lawsuits immediately. There’s a zero percent chance it would be allowed to happen or be seen as constitutional.

The only way it changes is if somehow the SC changes their stance and remembers the “well regulated militia” portion of the amendment. It won’t hapoen, no changes are coming, the gun nuts won.

Get into a foreign war, allocate all ammunition made to military use only. It would either make bullets prohibitively expensive to buy and hoard or simply remove the supply.

[Ducay]

I have no skin in the gun game, but I think we can all agree it is time to start taxing or banning these high capacity assault trucks. No civilian needs these. The founding fathers (Henry Ford, Dodge Brothers) did not have this sort of horespower in mind when they first came up with the designs.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I have no skin in the gun game, but I think we can all agree it is time to start taxing or banning these high capacity assault trucks. No civilian needs these. The founding fathers (Henry Ford, Dodge Brothers) did not have this sort of horespower in mind when they first came up with the designs.

Because, like guns, trucks are only designed for killing and can't have any other purpose.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I have no skin in the gun game, but I think we can all agree it is time to start taxing or banning these high capacity assault trucks. No civilian needs these. The founding fathers (Henry Ford, Dodge Brothers) did not have this sort of horespower in mind when they first came up with the designs.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Because, like guns, trucks are only designed for killing and can't have any other purpose.

Target driving, self defens(ive) driving, the list goes on and on really of valid uses for cars and trucks. If the original design was for a 12 horsepower 2 seater and it still gets you from point A to point B, why do we need $1m 600hp supercars or 3 trailer road-trains? Where does it end?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I have no skin in the gun game, but I think we can all agree it is time to start taxing or banning these high capacity assault trucks. No civilian needs these. The founding fathers (Henry Ford, Dodge Brothers) did not have this sort of horespower in mind when they first came up with the designs.

Banning might be too much too soon. But I think a sensible first step would be to have people require some sort of license to operate them. You could even have it so that people would require more stringent licensing if an individual wants to operate a higher capacity vehicle.

Maybe even start to fine those who operate them improperly.

Lastly require operators to carry some sort of insurance...

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by firebug

Banning might be too much too soon. But I think a senseable first step would be to have people require some sort of license to operate them. You could even have it so that people would require more stringent licensing if an individual wants to operate a higher capacity vehicle.

Maybe even start to fine those who operate them improperly.

Lastly require operators to carry some sort of insurance...

Whoa whoa whoa, what are these suggestions? Communism? Next you're going to be suggesting single payer trucks or universal trucks. Where does that end?

Cuba, that's where

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SebC

Then why do they elect Republicans?

The simple and most uncomfortable answer Is that they dont.

At the executive level in the last 20 years 2 Republicans have been awarded the presidency after losing the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million votes and Hillary won by millions. That is 12 years out of a possible 22 served by presidents and a party that came in 2nd place.

At the federal level it is worse.

Right now in Wisconsin thr GOP have 60% of the seats after receiving only 49% of voters.

Since 2012 in Ohio, Republicans have had 75% of the seats while securing roughly 50% of votes.

Only one part actively seeks to prevent large swathes of otherwise eligible voters from voting. This latest election was the first time in 50 years the votings rights act, specifically created to give blacks equal opportunity to vote, was NOT fully in effect.

Last I read, HALF of the black men in Florida were ineligible to vote for one reason or another.

The reason why the GOP doesn't care about trump's disapproval rating is because it doesn't matter. In many states they literally have a 10-15% seat advantage for the same amount of votes, and that doesn't take into account the rampant voter suppression that is routine in US political races. Laws designed to target blacks have a generational impact on voting.

The system is rigged in their favour. They can win elections with a 35% approval rating.

Imagine a scenario where the population of metro Vancouver carries more weight than the entire province's of Alberta and Saskatchewan and you have the current US political system.

[Kjesse]

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/las-...-shot-america/

This tragedy puts a focus on gun issues but in the week since over 800 people have been shot in the US and almost 250 of those have died. Its part of the fabric of their culture. Awful.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Whoa whoa whoa, what are these suggestions? Communism? Next you're going to be suggesting single payer trucks or universal trucks. Where does that end?

Cuba, that's where

You are an idiot.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I have no skin in the gun game, but I think we can all agree it is time to start taxing or banning these high capacity assault trucks. No civilian needs these. The founding fathers (Henry Ford, Dodge Brothers) did not have this sort of horespower in mind when they first came up with the designs.

This is the kind if thing an effing moron says.

Congratulations on signalling to the rest of us your irredeemable qualities.

Ignore list.

[OMG!WTF!]

I thought he was green texting. I've never known anybody who thinks like that. Even if not, he's allowed.

[wwkayaker]

I respect that he can have his own opinion. If his opinion is as stated, then I stick to my opinion of hm.

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah that's the problem. Pretty soon we're all going to be hanging AK's out the window. Just start calling him "little gun man" and then you can nuke em.

[wwkayaker]

I want to laugh at your comment but the reality of it stings a bit. Dotard and Little Rocket Man are slightly terrifying,

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Whoa whoa whoa, what are these suggestions? Communism? Next you're going to be suggesting single payer trucks or universal trucks. Where does that end?

Cuba, that's where

You're not as witty or funny as you think.