It also requires registration. I'm going to take a step back here. I said they are rare, but I actually don’t know how many civilians own machine guns. The assumption is that it's very rare, but there is no published data that I’m aware of. If a few people do own them, that’s good enough for me, even if only a certain 'class' can afford it. It may not be perfect, but it’s effective.
It's not effective in the sense of reducing firearm deaths. It only effective in making gaure a certain class of people can afford it. Id rather machine guns be available for all wealth classes than only one wealth class. I think making background checks for private sales at a federal level is the best solution we have to gin control in this country that doesn't strip away rights of the non wealthy.
"I support policies that provide life saving healthcare for all humans, even prisoners" "she wants to make detained illegals trans!" Yes Trump lied.
it depends on what the definition of "big" is, I suppose. but insisting on this distinction is bigly embarrassing for the Seattle Times.
Look dude maybe I'm paranoid because of my experience due to being brown and around dudes who wax lyrical about dousing 5.56 rounds with pigs blood to shoot up Muslims when I was in Marine infantry but ya I'm concerned with the disproportionate stock pile of firearms right wing ideological groups have compared to immigrant and minority groups. I think it's a genuine concern but it can be skewed being around some unhinged people in my life.
Yeah, Trump started dodging direct questions further along in the debate (it was still early when I posted). Coding is necessary. Regardless, using a 10% exception to justify the other 90% is disingenuous at best, and a heinous lie at worst. What exactly do you mean? As stated... I talked about the portion of the debate I saw up to that point.
“It was a pretty negative performance, pretty pessimistic, cynical, contemptuous,” Frank Luntz told Morgan in the interview, highlighted by Mediaite, adding, “and I think that this will cost him, yes.” Luntz hesitated, appearing to choose his words carefully. “I’m trying to decide if I want to go on record, and the answer is yes,” he continued. “I think that, that he loses because of this debate performance.”
You should vote your conscience, absolutely. But, I'm predicting you will never, ever break the duopoly so long as the constitution remains in effect. It's structural. Given the rules of the game, the only stable format is having two parties position themselves to garner roughly half (not much more and not much less) of the vote each. Maybe once in a century a new party will rise and an old one will die, but equilibrium will be found in a new duopoly. Besides which, only one candidate is so bad as to be disqualifying. Harris is no better or worse than ~40 other presidents we've had. Maybe nothing to be proud of if you look at them in a cold light, but an adequate compromise that keeps the ship from completely sinking.
I mean you see the same thing even in parliamentary systems. Eventually even in those systems the various different parties coalesce into coalitions when elections happen in those forms of government. Ranked choice voting might be the only viable option to end two party stranglehold.
These laws force parents, most likely going through one of the worst things a parent might ever experience, to have a child that is going to die anyway due to defects be kept alive and suffering just to "live" on a ventilator for a couple extra hours. To claim it's just allowing the killing of a baby is absolutely ignorant, offensive, and taking the suffering of people who go through pregnancy complications and forcing them to go through even more trauma just to appease you ignorant culture warriors. You dream up fake scenarios in your head and you make laws to prevent those fake scenarios and real people suffer for it. I'm absolutely sick of it, the world isn't a comic book and the opposition to laws like this aren't coming from evil people who just want to kill babies. Maybe go actually read the damn consequences of when you put unnecessary regulations onto medical care, instead of giving into delusions that there's evil people and evil doctors that I guess you think we must stop These are extremely rare situations and not a single one of them has ever involved a healthy baby getting killed. Spinning it like this is despicable, I'm begging you to actually go get educated on what parents go through in these types of situations And no, it's not a "post birth abortion".
Pushing laws that your tweet you shared is, absolutely. Good reasoned response, good discussion, glad you have conviction in the harmful BS you believe
These dudes trying so hard to defend Epatein’s best friend are making me roll in laughter. Especially the person who claims he isn’t supporting trump while working full time to share pro Trump tweets.
