The Crane Pool Forum

Your 'I think Swalwell called for confiscation' is not true and part of the goddamn problem.

Here is an example of an "extremist Democrat."

Must I use the "sarcasm" emoji? There is no defense of Trump or Trump apologists. The GOP is completely MIA in governance. The GOP takes their beloved leader's advice to wait and see what happens. This is what happens, GOP.

"Only in the Panhandle." Looks like another gimme cap logo for Trumpies.

41Forever wrote:The domestic terrorists need to be stopped. But we had 10 shootings in five days in my city. None of those shooters used military grade weapons. How do you stop that, too?

I’d start with not saying “how do we stop everything?” Of course you can’t stop every shooting from ever happening.

But you start with the terrorists first, don’t you? You start by declaring that an AK-47 (and all such similar weapons) are illegal to sell, import, or possess. You allocate funds so that anyone who has one gets fair compensation when they have to turn theirs in. And you revise the criminal laws for individuals and civil liability laws to ensure that noncompliance is so strict that it discourages all but the most recalcitrant. Same thing with high capacity magazines.

You can move on afterwards to background checks, licensing restrictions, bullet control, overruling Heller and so much more afterwards.

You start with the weapons that are designed to kill lots of people quickly.

Gwreck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:22 pm

41Forever wrote:The domestic terrorists need to be stopped. But we had 10 shootings in five days in my city. None of those shooters used military grade weapons. How do you stop that, too?

I’d start with not saying “how do we stop everything?” Of course you can’t stop every shooting from ever happening.

But you start with the terrorists first, don’t you? You start by declaring that an AK-47 (and all such similar weapons) are illegal to sell, import, or possess. You allocate funds so that anyone who has one gets fair compensation when they have to turn theirs in. And you revise the criminal laws for individuals and civil liability laws to ensure that noncompliance is so strict that it discourages all but the most recalcitrant. Same thing with high capacity magazines.

You can move on afterwards to background checks, licensing restrictions, bullet control, overruling Heller and so much more afterwards.

You start with the weapons that are designed to kill lots of people quickly.

Those are all great points.

Thanks.

Why do you think Congress is unwilling to act?

Because McConnell is blocking everything. The House has passed legislation, and there are two bipartisan Senate bills. McConnell refuses to bring any of them to the floor for a vote.

metsmarathon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:44 am and all that bullshit about a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

That has been a standard NRA cry - "If they had guns, they could defend themselves".
But Texas is an open carry state, and the El Paso shooter is from Texas. He knew that there could be many people with guns in the Walmart and the mall, and it did not deter him one bit.

Later

McConnell broke his shoulder today in a home slip-&-fall. Too bad he did not land on his head.

41Forever wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:51 pm

Gwreck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

41Forever wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:29 pmIf both sides of the aisle are willing to ignore their extremists

What do you define as extreme positions that elected Democrats hold with respect to guns?

On health care, taxation, trade policy, immigration, how to address climate change — essentially, the other major issues of the day — I have little trouble identifying extreme positions from both parties. (This is not, of course, an endorsement of any one position).

But here? It is difficult to identify extreme positions from the Democrats. The country is besieged by domestic terrorists killing people en masse. Republicans are unwilling to act.

I am happy to be educated on this if I’m missing something.

Background checks, to me, are a no-brainer.

Oh please, already. One of the campaign promises of that piece of shit in the White House was to repeal an Obama policy that heightened background checks for gun buyers and made it harder for people with mental health issues to buy guns. He promised to repeal that. And when he got into office, true to his word, he repealed that policy with an Executive Order. Because Obama. The scumbag ran the most virulent anti-gun control campaign in our nation's history and as far as we know, took more money in campaign donations from the NRA than any other Presidential candidate ever. And you voted for this disgrace of a human being. Bipartisan? The GOP controlled everything for the first two years of this President's term. And what? And it wouldn't have made a difference had the GOP held the House last year. Instead it would've emboldened your party to engage in even more outrageous and despicable conduct. When the pendulum swings back and the Democrats are in solid control, then maybe we'll get some meaningful solutions to this problem. Your party is beholden to the NRA and terrified of the scumbag in the White House.

First of all, the extremists are Republicans. They're not just American extremists, they're global ones. No country promotes gun ownership like America does. Maybe Somalia, but that's not exactly a role model.

Guns are a national security threat. If a foreign army killed tens of thousands of Americans every year, we'd be using everything we could to defeat them. But we do it to ourselves so there's a collective "whaddyagonnado?"

If you can't feel safe in a Wal-Mart or a nightclub or a church or a local garlic festival, something has to change. I say this knowing full well that absolutely nothing will. Moscow Mitch will ride out the Senate recess and when they get back, miraculously, nothing will get done. Because we'll have moved on, again.

41Forever wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:29 pm People are focusing on Trump misspeaking with the name of the city (and Biden on the state) but he seemed to open the door to something substantial. He already pushed through the bump stock ban through executive order.

He tweeted:

We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying.... this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!

If both sides of the aisle are willing to ignore their extremists and come with something substantial they both can take credit for, there could be an opportunity here.

If you were at the table, what would you want? What's realistic?

Of all the duplicitous, cynical, statements the head of the GOP has said about this event, this one takes the cake:

Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying.... this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.

In other words, we'll pass meaningful gun legislation if you give me my wall. If you vote down my wall again, you Dems, it will be YOU stopping us from having gun control. Wow. Just as i think the Idiot-in-Chief has found a new low, he finds a way to slither even lower. The upfront malevolence of this strategy, its sheer brutality, inspires awe. And Moscow Mitch will do his bidding.

It will take a few years, but eventually every Republican will try to distance themselves from this monster, while doing his bidding and enabling him all throughout.

Anything to sleep at night.

30 seconds after he leaves office, it'll be "Donald who?". They did the same thing with Bush in 2009. They also became deficit hawks again about 30 seconds after passing a $2 trillion tax cut for corporations and billionaires. It's a skill Republicans have- selective amnesia.

Trump was reading the teleprompter yesterday. When he's forced to act human for the cameras it always comes across like a hostage video. He'll be back demonizing people in a few days.

Meanwhile Moscow Mitch is training the next generation of Baby Trumps in how to treat women.....

41:

I'm glad you answered Gwreck, but I'd really like to hear you honestly answer a few questions in this thread you didn't address.

Gwreck asked why you think Congress is unwilling to act. I'd like to hear your answer, as well.

Before I started calling Trump names, I mentioned that the House passed background checks in Feb, but McConnell blocked the legislation and the White House threatened to veto it anyway. Why do you think McConnell and Trump would support background checks now?

You said Trump "seemed to open the door to something substantial" when he said Republicans and Democrats could perhaps marry background checks "with desperately needed immigration reform"? Why do you think Trump doesn't or hasn't pushed for background checks alone?

And Swalwell called for an assault weapons ban but you referred to him as an extremist who you think "called for confiscation during his presidential bid", which is false (if you have a quote from him calling for confiscation of guns, please share it). You often talk about integrity in reporting on this forum (be it baseball or otherwise), so can you see how running with that can spread disinformation and can be damaging to any discourse? If not, why? I'm trying to be cool with my tone here so that you read and actually respond.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:38 pm 41:

I'm glad you answered Gwreck, but I'd really like to hear you honestly answer a few questions in this thread you didn't address.

Gwreck asked why you think Congress is unwilling to act. I'd like to hear your answer, as well.

Before I started calling Trump names, I mentioned that the House passed background checks in Feb, but McConnell blocked the legislation and the White House threatened to veto it anyway. Why do you think McConnell and Trump would support background checks now?

You said Trump "seemed to open the door to something substantial" when he said Republicans and Democrats could perhaps marry background checks "with desperately needed immigration reform"? Why do you think Trump doesn't or hasn't pushed for background checks alone?

And Swalwell called for an assault weapons ban but you referred to him as an extremist who you think "called for confiscation during his presidential bid", which is false (if you have a quote from him calling for confiscation of guns, please share it). You often talk about integrity in reporting on this forum (be it baseball or otherwise), so can you see how running with that can spread disinformation and can be damaging to any discourse? If not, why? I'm trying to be cool with my tone here so that you read and actually respond.

I would love, LOVE to hear honest answers to these questions.

If something deserves more attention than the president calling Dayton "Toledo" — mistaking two cities in a state that helped throw the election to him — it better be as big and as active as a volcano, because that's a massive, massive unforced error that shows how incapable he is of paying attention, let alone feeling or pretending to express empathy.

It's not isolated incident, either, when you recall that Paradise, California was renamed "Pleasure" by a president who could only remember that it was a town that sounded like one strip club or another.

He is more dangerous every day.

The Senate doesn't reconvene until September 6th. That's a whole month for this to fade from the headlines.

I don't think an assault weapons ban is extremist. I don't know of anyone in America who's not active military needing to own one.

Centerfield wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:57 pm

A Boy Named Seo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:38 pm 41:

I'm glad you answered Gwreck, but I'd really like to hear you honestly answer a few questions in this thread you didn't address.

Gwreck asked why you think Congress is unwilling to act. I'd like to hear your answer, as well.

Before I started calling Trump names, I mentioned that the House passed background checks in Feb, but McConnell blocked the legislation and the White House threatened to veto it anyway. Why do you think McConnell and Trump would support background checks now?

You said Trump "seemed to open the door to something substantial" when he said Republicans and Democrats could perhaps marry background checks "with desperately needed immigration reform"? Why do you think Trump doesn't or hasn't pushed for background checks alone?

And Swalwell called for an assault weapons ban but you referred to him as an extremist who you think "called for confiscation during his presidential bid", which is false (if you have a quote from him calling for confiscation of guns, please share it). You often talk about integrity in reporting on this forum (be it baseball or otherwise), so can you see how running with that can spread disinformation and can be damaging to any discourse? If not, why? I'm trying to be cool with my tone here so that you read and actually respond.

I would love, LOVE to hear honest answers to these questions.

From that guy? Don't waste your time. He starts a gun control/mass shooting discussion with the phrase "extreme Democrats" and calling for bipartisan support -- from the Democrats! And when someone asks him if he thinks Trump is racist, he responds by posting a picture of some black dude running for Michigan's GOP US Senate seat. He voted for Trump but thought that Al Franken was the one who needed to resign.

The GOP controlled everything for two years and all they did was pass a tax cut for Betsy DeVos. There's your intelligent answer about what needs to be done about gun control.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:38 pm 41:

I'm glad you answered Gwreck, but I'd really like to hear you honestly answer a few questions in this thread you didn't address.

Gwreck asked why you think Congress is unwilling to act. I'd like to hear your answer, as well.

Before I started calling Trump names, I mentioned that the House passed background checks in Feb, but McConnell blocked the legislation and the White House threatened to veto it anyway. Why do you think McConnell and Trump would support background checks now?

You said Trump "seemed to open the door to something substantial" when he said Republicans and Democrats could perhaps marry background checks "with desperately needed immigration reform"? Why do you think Trump doesn't or hasn't pushed for background checks alone?

And Swalwell called for an assault weapons ban but you referred to him as an extremist who you think "called for confiscation during his presidential bid", which is false (if you have a quote from him calling for confiscation of guns, please share it). You often talk about integrity in reporting on this forum (be it baseball or otherwise), so can you see how running with that can spread disinformation and can be damaging to any discourse? If not, why? I'm trying to be cool with my tone here so that you read and actually respond.

New York Times piece makes it sound like there could be some action from the GOP on some of these issues.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAFqNjB

You need to remember that I am with you on these issues, and you are asking me to defend people I disagree with. I also worked for a guy who was criticized by many in his party for vetoing several pro-gun bills. I favor taking strong action, which is why I was asking people here what they thought could and should be done. (And I appreciate the people who responded.) It was a mistake to try to join the discussion. Apparently I need to be reminded of that every six months or so.

Why has Congress been unwilling to act? Technically the House has acted, but the Senate has not. I don't know for sure why they won't act. I can speculate like everyone else. Strong lobbying, constituent pressure, polling, rigid ideology might be some of the reasons. They get entrenched, especially in the run up to an election year. Dysfunction.

Why would they act now? Again, just speculation. Constituent pressure after the recent events. Maybe they want to get on the right side of an issue ahead of the elections and show they can make progress. The Times piece seems to imply some movement, at least on the red flag issue. Some of the right-leaning editorial pages are coming out in favor of action. From the Times story:

With President Trump endorsing the idea, a number of Republicans — including Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican — are embracing the concept. Mr. Thune told his hometown newspaper, The Argus Leader, that he was “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called red flag issue.”

Why hasn't Trump pushed for taking action alone? Not a clue. He should have, and others should have joined him.

Why did I think Rep. Swalwell had gone further on this issue than other presidential candidates? I saw this NBC News story: "Dem congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., drops a grenade into the middle of the gun debate." (Using a grenade metaphor was awful, by the way.) I didn't realize it was a year old when I read it. I don't know if he's changed his position since.

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.

(snip)

While politicians and activists, including President Barack Obama, have cited Australia’s success in curbing gun violence as an inspiration, almost no prominent figures have proposed instituting similar laws up to this point.

Some gun safety groups, such as the Giffords Law Center, have suggested tougher background checks and reporting requirements on existing assault weapons after a new manufacturing ban — but they have not called for owners to sell or destroy them. Many policy experts supportive of stricter gun laws have warned a mass gun confiscation policy would be difficult to enforce given limited federal resources and the widespread popularity of the affected rifles.

I don't think the other candidates have expressed those thoughts. NBC seemed to paint him as standing alone. "Extremist" might be a bad label and I shouldn't have used it. As I told Gwreck, the point I was trying to make was that, finally, there might be some movement on some of these issues.

41Forever wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:04 pm [

New York Times piece makes it sound like there could be some action from the GOP on some of these issues.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAFqNjB

When the NRA runs out of money to stuff into the GOP's pocket, then maybe your party will do something.

41Forever wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:04 pm

You need to remember that I am with you on these issues, and you are asking me to defend people I disagree with.

You disagree with them so much that you voted for them. You voted for Trump, who ran the most pro-gun campaign ever and then came to this forum early in the morning when most of the States were called by the press to celebrate , or maybe even gloat over Trump's apparent victory.

41Forever wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:04 pm
Why has Congress been unwilling to act? Technically the House has acted, but the Senate has not. I don't know for sure why they won't act. I can speculate like everyone else. Strong lobbying, constituent pressure, polling, rigid ideology might be some of the reasons. They get entrenched, especially in the run up to an election year. Dysfunction.

The House acted. Not technically. And what's the difference why the GOP controlled Senate won't push for gun control or why they've shirked their oversight responsibilities altogether? Is there any answer that would make the GOP's actions, or inactions as is the case here, acceptable? Give us all a break, already, ferchrissakes. The answer is to vote Democrat.

41, I understand why it can be uncomfortable to wade into these waters. But this is entirely a Republican problem. If they were willing to take action, things would get done.

Federal action needs to be taken. California has strict gun laws, but the shooter in Gilroy bought his gun legally in Nevada. It doesn't matter how strict gun laws are in Chicago when Indiana, with its loose gun laws, is just a few miles away.

Presidential adviser Sean Hannity has a solution: military occupation.

“I’d like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police . . . military and I want guys to donate 15 hours,” Hannity explained.
“I think we could cover every school, every hour — add a metal detector. And I think we’re going to have better schools."
“Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter and inside every hall of every mall.”

And they could wear arm bands.
Later

Lefty Specialist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:43 pm Presidential adviser Sean Hannity has a solution: military occupation.

“I’d like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police . . . military and I want guys to donate 15 hours,” Hannity explained.
“I think we could cover every school, every hour — add a metal detector. And I think we’re going to have better schools."
“Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter and inside every hall of every mall.”

Yet another reason to bless my luck that I finished school before dimbulbs such as Hannity were around to mess up our lives. I cannot fathom going to public school in a war zone. As well, I remain grateful that I never spawned so that I don't have to apologize to my offspring that such a ludicrous situation as we have today has bloomed. I always get annoyed when someone wants to blame the Baby Boomers for our present destructive situation but Trump's a Boomer and so is Hannity. I am deeply ashamed of them and anyone who purports to defend them. You vote R or you vote for some tag-end misfit, you are part of this problem. Additionally, I cannot wrap my head around how anyone with a shred of regular education embraces this fascist in the White House. Don't tell me you are against him if you voted for him and still support the Republican Party. There is no plausible explanation for that level of pretzel logic.

What is a tag-end misfit?