RANDOM THOUGHTS

MikeyC wrote: Finally Senate will vote on making gun regulations stricter. Hopefully "assault" rifles are not outright banned though, that would prove to be a bad mistake

NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls for that to happen.

Whatusername wrote:

MikeyC wrote: Finally Senate will vote on making gun regulations stricter. Hopefully "assault" rifles are not outright banned though, that would prove to be a bad mistake

NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls for that to happen.

For which to happen? The former, I think they are willing to compromise. It's just a general stricter background check for guns, and does not allow for people on the FBI watch list to purchase guns.

The latter, you are probably right. But I don't think it would be a good idea to outright ban them anyways. 8 millions AR's in circulation (that's just AR 15's and their variants) that are registered. Then add to that all the ones that aren't registered and you got a lot of guns that can potentially enter the black market, which is already flourishing from the amount of marijuana being produced in legalized, and medical states. Not to mention, I don't think many states will abide by that federal law? Marijuana is federally illegal but some states continue to produce it. Many people who have connections to cartels, and gangs, are moving into my state due to the potential to obtain and then ship marijuana to more profitable regions. In fact, murder rate has gone up 72% and general crime has risen since the legalization of marijuana (more than 200k people moved here this past year). So even if the AR's were banned, there might still be a few states that will produce them anyways. Perhaps it is not the right way to look at it since a federal wide "assault" rifle ban might be more widely enforced than marijuana. But, I do believe that with all the people who fervently believe in owning guns to "protect themselves as a well-armed militia", guns will be produced no matter if they are legal or illegal.

I think its safe to say the general population wants stricter regulations to happen, gun owners and non-gun owners alike. If it does not, then it only goes to prove even more that the current "democratic" and legislation system in the U.S is broken. You say NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls, but I don't even think they have any.

Oneofakind wrote:

HakunaMatata wrote: Why do I crave wanting to go out and meeting people. Not even a wk later and I'm already annoyed I really think I just need to leave Florida for awhile

Go back to CA or WI mamita

Why Wi lolol

MikeyC wrote:

Whatusername wrote:

MikeyC wrote: Finally Senate will vote on making gun regulations stricter. Hopefully "assault" rifles are not outright banned though, that would prove to be a bad mistake

NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls for that to happen.

For which to happen? The former, I think they are willing to compromise. It's just a general stricter background check for guns, and does not allow for people on the FBI watch list to purchase guns.

The latter, you are probably right. But I don't think it would be a good idea to outright ban them anyways. 8 millions AR's in circulation (that's just AR 15's and their variants) that are registered. Then add to that all the ones that aren't registered and you got a lot of guns that can potentially enter the black market, which is already flourishing from the amount of marijuana being produced in legalized, and medical states. Not to mention, I don't think many states will abide by that federal law? Marijuana is federally illegal but some states continue to produce it. Many people who have connections to cartels, and gangs, are moving into my state due to the potential to obtain and then ship marijuana to more profitable regions. In fact, murder rate has gone up 72% and general crime has risen since the legalization of marijuana (more than 200k people moved here this past year). So even if the AR's were banned, there might still be a few states that will produce them anyways. Perhaps it is not the right way to look at it since a federal wide "assault" rifle ban might be more widely enforced than marijuana. But, I do believe that with all the people who fervently believe in owning guns to "protect themselves as a well-armed militia", guns will be produced no matter if they are legal or illegal.

I think its safe to say the general population wants stricter regulations to happen, gun owners and non-gun owners alike. If it does not, then it only goes to prove even more that the current "democratic" and legislation system in the U.S is broken. You say NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls, but I don't even think they have any.

The latter, the ban won't happen any time in the near future, or maybe not at all ever.

But they do have most of them by the balls. NRA has lobbyists and huge amount of money. If not getting the money and support of NRA is not scary enough, there's the threat of NRA funding another candidate to run against them. Even Trump, who usually couldn't give two fucks, kisses their ass. Yes, majority of the population wants reasonable restrictions, yet Republicans refused up to this point to even talk about it. They're not representing their constituents, but they're repesenting someone (NRA, who gun manufacturers support financially).

Campaign financing is the fundamental issue of this country. Corporations, who are very anal about profit margins, don't dontate hundreds of millions to campaigns for charity and out of the goodness of their heart. As long as the campaign financing law doesn't change, the government will always favor their donors over their constituents - because money wins elections, especially in the representative branch. The turn out for mid term election is so low that name recognition and attack ads can secure most re-elections. Your average voters don't research the voting record of their rep or senator, and whether they agree with their polices. Most people have trouble reserching facts about two people in the presidential elections, and go by feeling or what they see in their own media bubble instead.

(This won't ever happen, because it requires people in the current government to change the law, and that change will end their career) If campaign finance is changed to limit donations to individuals only, and perhaps with some additional equal funds for all candidates set aside from the government budget, then we'll see much more competitive races and a government that more accurately reflects the will of its people.

Of course the "first past the post" voting system where the most vote wins has fundamental problems of its own. It will inevitably end in a two party system, because voting for a third party only help the candidate that you actually disagree with the most. There are other voting methods such as rank your candidates, so that if your first choice gets eliminated, your vote will go to your second choice. Such system will allow people to vote for the less popular candidate that they most agree with, while not have to worry about taking votes away from their second choice. But of course that system, for some reason, is not used in any major countries, and likely won't gain ground any time soon.

I could ramble on, but I shall go to bed instead.

Whatusername wrote:

MikeyC wrote:

Whatusername wrote:

MikeyC wrote: Finally Senate will vote on making gun regulations stricter. Hopefully "assault" rifles are not outright banned though, that would prove to be a bad mistake

NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls for that to happen.

For which to happen? The former, I think they are willing to compromise. It's just a general stricter background check for guns, and does not allow for people on the FBI watch list to purchase guns.

The latter, you are probably right. But I don't think it would be a good idea to outright ban them anyways. 8 millions AR's in circulation (that's just AR 15's and their variants) that are registered. Then add to that all the ones that aren't registered and you got a lot of guns that can potentially enter the black market, which is already flourishing from the amount of marijuana being produced in legalized, and medical states. Not to mention, I don't think many states will abide by that federal law? Marijuana is federally illegal but some states continue to produce it. Many people who have connections to cartels, and gangs, are moving into my state due to the potential to obtain and then ship marijuana to more profitable regions. In fact, murder rate has gone up 72% and general crime has risen since the legalization of marijuana (more than 200k people moved here this past year). So even if the AR's were banned, there might still be a few states that will produce them anyways. Perhaps it is not the right way to look at it since a federal wide "assault" rifle ban might be more widely enforced than marijuana. But, I do believe that with all the people who fervently believe in owning guns to "protect themselves as a well-armed militia", guns will be produced no matter if they are legal or illegal.

I think its safe to say the general population wants stricter regulations to happen, gun owners and non-gun owners alike. If it does not, then it only goes to prove even more that the current "democratic" and legislation system in the U.S is broken. You say NRA has got too many senators and reps by the balls, but I don't even think they have any.

The latter, the ban won't happen any time in the near future, or maybe not at all ever.

But they do have most of them by the balls. NRA has lobbyists and huge amount of money. If not getting the money and support of NRA is not scary enough, there's the threat of NRA funding another candidate to run against them. Even Trump, who usually couldn't give two fucks, kisses their ass. Yes, majority of the population wants reasonable restrictions, yet Republicans refused up to this point to even talk about it. They're not representing their constituents, but they're repesenting someone (NRA, who gun manufacturers support financially).

Campaign financing is the fundamental issue of this country. Corporations, who are very anal about profit margins, don't dontate hundreds of millions to campaigns for charity and out of the goodness of their heart. As long as the campaign financing law doesn't change, the government will always favor their donors over their constituents - because money wins elections, especially in the representative branch. The turn out for mid term election is so low that name recognition and attack ads can secure most re-elections. Your average voters don't research the voting record of their rep or senator, and whether they agree with their polices. Most people have trouble reserching facts about two people in the presidential elections, and go by feeling or what they see in their own media bubble instead.

(This won't ever happen, because it requires people in the current government to change the law, and that change will end their career) If campaign finance is changed to limit donations to individuals only, and perhaps with some additional equal funds for all candidates set aside from the government budget, then we'll see much more competitive races and a government that more accurately reflects the will of its people.

Of course the "first past the post" voting system where the most vote wins has fundamental problems of its own. It will inevitably end in a two party system, because voting for a third party only help the candidate that you actually disagree with the most. There are other voting methods such as rank your candidates, so that if your first choice gets eliminated, your vote will go to your second choice. Such system will allow people to vote for the less popular candidate that they most agree with, while not have to worry about taking votes away from their second choice. But of course that system, for some reason, is not used in any major countries, and likely won't gain ground any time soon.

I could ramble on, but I shall go to bed instead.

Unfortunately, NRA isn't the only one that has senate by the balls. Money is what determines a lot of legislation too (what you were saying about senate). A lot of helpful legislation don't even see the light of day because many of the people in senate have been and are in their positions due to those corporations buying them out for their own interest in the future. They play such a big role in the types of legislation that even get voted on, shut down or passed according to wills of the entities the senate/politicians are, in many ways, employed by.

Not to mention many of those corporation's representatives are some of the few that are privy to even see what exactly goes on in Federal Supreme Court cases. These hearings are not video recorded for the general public to see, and only about a dozen people are allowed to observe them occur, some of which are those who work for these corporations. This gives them a head start on how certain rulings will impact their own interests, and legislation that can and can't be passed in the near future. Since none of it open for the public to see, and most people are not about to read the script, the public is commonly only aware of these rulings when it is reported by a large media outlet. It is much like how Congress hearings used to be before they became video recorded, I believe that was a pretty recent change actually.
So this only ups their advantage by helping form the types of legislation that happens, and privy to early knowledge of executive orders. Luckily, it is harder to buy out judicial members but it still does happen no doubt.

But that being said, with all the mass shootings that have been occurring. I do have a feeling the NRA will have to cave into some type of compromise at some point. Which will hopefully make it easier for some type of legislation to tighten up gun laws to be passed. More and more gun owners are becoming open to the idea of some type of tighter restriction, and hopefully more members of the NRA will start to feel the same.

And voting for the "least worst" candidate seems to be a common term used now. Especially for this election. Many do not want to vote for the third party for exactly the reason you are saying. It only helps the candidate you disagree with (if they are one of the two main parties) Most people are aware that it is extremely unlikely the third party is going to win. Although I would have to say if Bernie dropped went on as an independent it would be closer than it has ever been.

Which actually brings me to mention that I find it sad people are now "forced" to vote for Hillary Clinton due to this fact, or at least that is what I seem to be hearing a lot now. Seeing how her and Donald Trump to me are just two sides to the same coin.

Never ever ever EVER take a flight on Spirit Airlines. It's the only airline where you can show up 90 minutes before your flight after checking in online... only to find out they gave away your ticket because you were "late" by being only an hour and a half early.

THIS.

rekt sah rekt hahahahah

Just driving to work this morning and it hits me that there's a incredible ball of fire in the sky that's warming my skin and lighting up the streets and trees. And at night the sky glows from the reflection off another nearby rock. Just circling around. Just because.

That somehow we managed to create songs and music to dance to. That feeling of dancing and bliss. And to feel heartbreak to. And longing through song. And some moths are fluttering somewhere. While some child is just gazing at them hipnotized. Just the little blades of grass movie slightly in the wind.

It all amazes me. Just the perfect randomness of it all. And I feel fortunate to be alive in this world. With all its beautiful and sad complexities. How incredible it all is and so meaningless yet so grand and full of emotions and deep hearts.

I want to live it fully. Just because I can. And I miss those who are no longer here to breath this air that we need to survive. To keep falling in love and keep breaking as well. Miss you my dear sister. You are my inspiration to endure

Frances Bean Cobain, daughter of the late musician Kurt Cobain, is blaming his fans for his suicide, saying they put too much pressure on him by somehow making him the voice of their generation.

why doesn't she just fall off a bridge? and then the clown goes on to say we only worship him because he's no longer here and because he died young (and beautiful, basically). ok, loser, his contributions and gifts to his fans are less important since we'd rather see him in a coffin. yeah, sure. [expletives]

why do they even bother giving these kids of celebrities a microphone?