Englebert

That's why I keep asking for solutions. My responses to you are really meant to be generalized to the Left (especially the Liberal politicians) who passionately advocate for gun confiscation in the form of gun control. I realize you are not part of that particular group, but I respond to your posts because you seem to be the only one from the Left that has the guts to post on this topic. I apologize if you are anyone interpret my responses as an attack on you. I'm really just trying to provoke the Left into revealing their true agenda. If only they would respond.

Guns are made for the purpose that the owner wants it to be. My guns are made for self-protection. Some guns are made to kill animals for food. Some guns are made for sport. Some guns are made to kill. It all depends on the person operating the gun. If a person drives a vehicle to work, is that vehicle made to kill? If a person drives a vehicle into a crowd of people, is that car made to kill? Is the purpose of a tool defined by the tool or the person using the tool?

There is a whole topic on this issue for you to elaborate your ideas for tighter regulation. Why don't you venture over there and articulate some of these solutions. If you don't have any, then you fit right in with the rest of them. Is all talk and no solutions the new normal. (Sorry PamFam, I had to steal that line.)

If a person purposely drives a car into a crowd of people, killing some of them, are you going to blame the car? Will you shout to the rooftops about "car control"? I don't know about all guns, but my guns were designed, manufactured, purchased, and used for self defense. And cars do not have a whole amendment protecting their right of ownership and use. The comparison is obvious between the two. Many, more so on the Left, are livid about "lives being taken by guns", but casually accept the fact that (many more) "lives are being taken by cars". Why the outrage for one but not the other? As you stated, many safety features have been added over the years to make cars safer to operate. What features do you propose should be added to guns to make them safer to operate? I started this whole topic asking for solutions. The Liberals are the ones who show indignation for anyone that doesn't accept their solutions for gun control. The problem is that they have never offered any sensible solutions. So yes, pointing out Liberal rhetoric in this discussion is fair...and necessary. It is the Liberals that are co-opting the topic to a purely political one. By forcing them to articulate their solutions, they can be stripped of their asinine talking points and be exposed to offer viable solutions. Letting Liberals solicit votes from a tragedy will not fix anything.

Yes, rhetoric. My post specifically asked for solutions and you offered none. Your post implicitly stated that you are not happy about the current gun laws, and you chose to convey that point without offering any solutions...just as everyone else does that screams "gun control". So yes, rhetoric. Is it the new normal? What are your suggestings as solutions for it not becoming the new normal?

So no answers, no solutions, just more rhetoric? Here's your opportunity to offer a solution.

Since the latest school shooting, I've been (predictably) hearing many Liberals spouting their tired old rhetoric about gun control. Not only are they blaming "gun nuts" for not offering any solutions, many have even implied and outright stated that these "have blood on their hands". My question is "What have you proposed? Who really has blood on their hands?" This topic is an open invitation for anyone (on either side) to propose gun legislation ideas that will curtail gun violence in America. Please give your ideas for solutions. If you propose stricter background checks, please explain what questions/checks should be included to identify those you deem not worthy of exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If you propose banning gun ownership for the mentally disturbed, please provide guidelines for sane people to identify those unfit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. If you propose banning certain guns, please clarify which guns should be banned versus those that should be kept legal for those exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Liberals keep chanting "We want sensible gun legislation". Here's your chance to outline these sensible ideas. Why do I have a feeling none will be forthcoming? Ah, yes...history.

Just as expected. All talk and no answers, but yet will blame the other side for no answers.

Please elaborate on who you think are irresponsible. Please give a definition with criteria so we can ban these people from owning guns. I bet you will ignore this simplistic question just like you did my other one. The fact is that you spout "gun control" but will not dare offer any solutions when questioned. And what is sickening is that you will ignore these simple questions, but probably be leading the charge to mouth "gun control" the next time this happens, while blaming "gun crazy" people for their lack of solutions. Please prove me wrong and offer a proposal.

No one should have a billion dollars. Do you realize how many lives could be saved if that wealth was redistributed. No one should own more than 5 guns. Why do you need them? No one should own more than 5 cars...again, why do you need them. What is the purpose? No one should own a car that goes 0-60 in 2.4 seconds. No one should own a Jetski that goes 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. Does anyone realize how dangerous, not to mention excessive that is? No one should own a house that has more than 5 bedrooms. Again, what is the purpose? I could go on for years about why someone should not indulge in excesses...but then again, that is not my prerogative to quantify. Let's just say I would be happy with my decision of a high caliber, high capacity self defense mechanism if the need should ever arise. If the need (hopefully) never arises, I'm still happy playing with my toy. God forbid I sell it and go buy another hand gun. Remind me again of the stats on those? What laws would you propose enacting to curb such violence? Keep in mind that banning AR-15s and/or AK-47s would not reduce the gun violence a fraction of a percent. So please, put some thought into a response and propose a solution. Typical Liberals will run their mouth with asinine platitudes that are meaningless. Let's see if you follow that pattern or actually propose "sensible" legislation that will reduce gun violence while simultaneously adhering to the 2nd amendment right of self protection. I started a whole topic on this very issue last year, and as of today, the "sensible" responses advocating gun control have totaled up to a whopping big fat zero.

Is anyone trying to claim that all drunk drivers are illegals? Is anyone trying to claim that deporting illegals would solve all of our problems? You seem to be claiming that people think this way by the wording of your post. If you don't really believe people are claiming this, then your post is a big "well duh" that Captain Obvious would be embarrassed about. If you do believe it, call out some of these people.

I haven't given this topic very much thought, or tried to weight the pros and cons, so my stance is not firm. But my initial feeling is to do as our current system says...lock them up until sentence is served, then deport. I don't know if our current system has this, but I would be in favor of adding mandatory prison sentences (followed by re-deportation) to anyone caught illegally in our country that has already been deported, and even longer mandatory sentences if the illegal has previously been convicted of a crime in the U.S. I'm not a big fan of mandatory sentences, but I don't think I would object to setting them for these cases. Again, this is just initial thinking and I would need to ponder the subject more before advocating a hard stance.

Why are you trying to suppress my first amendment rights? Why are you so intolerant of people who don't think exactly like you do? Why are you such a wannabe bully? Why you mad? Don't bother attempting a weak answer...we already know.

The premise, as I understand it, is that the Liberals portray ALL illegal immigrants as hard working, law abiding, wannabe citizens that do nothing but improve the value and prosperity of this country. Stories like this seem to be suppressed by the Liberal media, and are in dire need of more exposure. Nobody on the Right is trying to make the argument that all illegals are bad, or that deporting all illegals will solve all of our problems. That is a fallacy perpetuated by Liberals. It is amazing that so many have fallen for this outright lie. But then again, Man-Made Global Warming is also a very popular deception...so, nevermind.

The Republican memo states that McCabe said, in a still classified interview, that the FISA warrant could not have been obtained without the Trump dossier. The Democrat memo is refuting that claim. I have no idea, but should be easily verifiable with the declassification of the interview. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

You've already proven on several occasions in this thread alone that you are incapable of deciphering who is crazy/stupid. Why do you continually, and willingly, expose your shortcomings? You made accusations (actually you just mimicked wing-nut Liberal talking points), you were called out to provide evidence of these accusations, then went straight to personal attacks as a way to deflect...due to your inability to defend your proclamations. But yet, mysteriously we are the crazy ones. I would ask you to provide evidence as to why you think we are crazy, but recent history as shown how that will go. We've seen this scenario too many times from the Liberals. It's oh so funny yet oh so boring at the same time. I really hope you don't consider your posts as "arguing". You did no arguing or debating, only ran like a frightened schoolgirl when called out. Again...typical, comical, and boring all at the same time.

Your profiling skills are atrocious. You make bogus claims with zero evidence, then when called out, you have to resort to childish antics because you can't back up your statements. Instead of focusing on me, how about you make just a slight effort to defend your claims. As childish as they are, it's clear to everyone why you abstain from any rationale debate. And based on your profiling skills, I'm comfortable acknowledging you have no clue as to what "people of my ilk" actually are. Like you referenced, your mind is made up and there is no amount of contradictory evidence that will change it. And just like so many Liberal followers, you project your shortcomings onto others. Does antics like this make you feel better about yourself? Is this an attempt to normalize your irrational conduct? Did you look up the word "sheeple"?

Again, you write some ridiculous assumptions based on zero evidence. Let me point out some more, and asked for some supporting evidence...which you failed to give in your response. What Trump flaws did you point out? What "Trump Supporters" are mad? You make bogus claims, get called out, and retort with "y'all just mad". Can you back up any of your claims? Why do you say I hate Obama? Where is evidence for this? I hated his policies, but show me where I have ever said anything negative about him personally. Zero evidence. Why are you mad? What factors do you attribute to the Trump administration that makes it a "comedy"? We've already pointed out your flawed and utter lies about his imagined racist tendencies, now lets continue with his policies. And from your subsequent posts, you seem to be radicalized on the Liberal talking points. I'm guessing that no amount of contradictory evidence will open your eyes, just like your bogus racism claims. And considering just your latest flawed attempts at profiling, I find it extremely hilarious that you would even consider to proclaim such an absurd one such as conspiracy theories, especially when you spout claims based on zero evidence (and are just talking points from the Liberal platform). Does the term "sheeple" ring a bell?

Did you actually say Ty Cobb was being intellectually dishonest, then preceded to list things that are at best intellectually dishonest? How do you get racism out of Trump saying the Mexican government was sending their rapist and murderers to the U.S.? Please explain how such rationale can be gleaned from his statement. If you knew the history of his statement, (or you know the history but willingly choose to ignore it in hyper-partisan fashion), then you fully understand this was not a racist statement at all. Trump was simply saying that the Mexican government was encouraging their criminals and rapists to leave their country by way of the U.S., similar to what Castro did with his criminals. [Hidden Content] This is racist how? You know the leader of the birther movement was Hillary Clinton don't you. Her campaign was the originator of this, but I bet you wouldn't dare call her a racist, because that would lead to having to deal with the cozy relationship Bill shares with a racist. When Trump made his statement about the 5 young men accused of rape, they weren't accused...they were convicted. And his full page ad was not specifically at "people of color". It was a call to bring back the death penalty, which would include all people. At the time he made these statements, New York was a rough place, to say the least. He used this case to bolster his perception that much needed to be done to clean up the city. But ooops, he chose a symbolic case that involved people of color, allowing race baiters the spew their hate. And the sham continues... How do you claim Trump "repeatedly discriminated against renting to Blacks and Mexicans"? I only know of the 1973 case in which Trump settled out of court. Do you have any examples of any case in which Trump was convicted of racial discrimination? Since you used the word "repeatedly" in your assertion, I'm sure you have plenty of examples. Please list some of them. In Charlottesville there were good people on both sides. Not every attendee was a Nazi or a Klansmen or Black Panther or Black Lives Matter member, or a member of any race hating organization. I have no idea why he made the statement, or in what context, but it is clear that race baiters will use anything to claim racism. I have no idea where you are trying to go with the rest of your post, but I'm guessing the significance is just as weak as your earlier proclamations. And I noticed you failed to mention all of the awards and acknowledgments Trump has received over the years from the NAACP and other minority groups. Why did you leave these things out of your analysis? Was it because you possibly just choose to ignore them because they blow your narrative clean out of the water?

Who did originally hire the British spy? And speaking of strange folks, who are the ones that need a safe space replete with Play-doh and puppies? Who are the ones that schedule a gathering to scream at the sky? Who are the ones that wreak violence at gatherings then try to place the blame on the other side, or at least attempt an equivalency ploy? Who are the ones that scorn one side about accepting the results of a pending election, then refuse to accept the election results? Who are the ones that will shut down the government to harbor law-breakers? Who are the ones that will do everything possible to confiscate your hard earned money, then deride the other side as "handing out crumbs" when they give some money back? Who are the ones that continually treat with disdain every law enforcement agency, then chastise the other side for questioning obvious corruption within an organization? Who are the ones that constantly disparage the sitting president with obscene and baseless accusations, then deride those who question the motivations of some agents...questioning based on verifiable evidence. Who screams "constitutional crisis" when the other side dares question motives of some government employees, but look the other way when IRS agents target American citizens based on political ideology, look the other way when they are lied to about what caused the death of four Americans, look the other way when voter suppression is not prosecuted, look the other way when the president (Bill and Obama) lie directly to their face. But yet somehow the "Trumpsters" are the ones who deserve the "strange folks" moniker. This deserves your proverbial LOL.

I agree. Along with your post about the FBI and DOJ, the Obama administration also weaponized the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, put our healthcare system in the hands of the Federal Government, and started the path for controlling the internet. He didn't need to do anything with educational institutions, as they are already bought and paid for. What other facet of life do the Liberals want to control?

I'm starting to think that the GOP is approaching problems in the wrong way. It's clear that Liberals have no ideas and only fight against Republicans ideas. Therefore, Republicans should demand no wall be built. Demand free, unlimited, unchecked, borderless immigration policies. Demand businesses and citizens pay substantially more taxes for redistribution of wealth. Demand that every person in the country has a right to free healthcare, free housing, free food, and a guaranteed paycheck, regardless of immigration status. Demand that the U.S. maintains trillions of dollars of debt. Demand the U.S. maintains a substantial spending deficit. Demand that corruption in every facet of government go unchecked. Demand that the military and law enforcement agencies be given zero support or respect. Demand Hollywood actors and music "artists" be given unconditional respect and admiration. Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, and ilk would be clamoring to every camera about how the GOP are just racist, and that we need to muster every fiber of our being to fight these idiotic proposals. The GOP can then acquiesce to their demands, giving them a sense of "winning". I'm guessing we can have the country back on the right track before they ever catch on, and lead to a very interesting future State of the Union address.

I read quite a few Liberal articles today saying that it is un-American for the Republicans to release this memo because the FBI objects to its release. That seems to me like saying, "don't release photos of me cheating on my wife". I have also read a few Liberal articles stating that the memo is full of Right-wing propaganda of misleading information and half-truths. These articles were not written by people who have read the memo, so I'm curious as to how they know. Oh yeah, I forgot, the Left is comprised of the all-knowing enlightened intellectuals with morality beyond reproach. I sure would like to know where the Liberals obtain these crystal balls. I've checked Amazon and eBay, but so far, no luck. Luckily for me I can't find one, because recent history has shown them to be completely and utterly inaccurate. According to Liberal crystal balls, all minorities should be deported or back in chains by now. The economy should be in shambles one year into Trump's inauguration. Gays should all be exterminated, or at least incarcerated. Women should be barefoot, pregnant, and considered too stupid to vote. A nazi-like regime should be firmly in place. World War III should have started months ago. Many lesser crystal balls predicted Trump to be in prison, or at a minimum be impeached by now. On second thought, I really don't think I want to be anointed with the enlightened moniker, unless I can somehow get my hands on the "shameless" inoculation that shelters me from all ridicule. Oops, I guess that cure only works for Liberals.

I have a question for the Left (this question includes Liberals and Democrats..which is becoming more and more synonymous). Many on the Left have questioned the patriotism or the threat to the security of the United States of America by President Trump. I can provide an abundance of evidence, as can any person over the age of three, of this incessant and all-too frequent allegations based on....well, nothing. (Please Leftists, fill in that blank.) The question is "Why can the leader of the free world be so flippantly questioned about loyalty motives, but the second the FBI/DOJ is questioned about ulterior motives, the only thing I hear out of Liberal mouths is "It is treasonous to impugn these organizations." This confuses me. It seems that in the Leftist mind that anyone questioning the motives/actions of agents associated with the FBI/DOJ is paramount to treason (even though evidence exists of corruption), but accusing their boss (President of the USA...Leader of the free world) of mental unstability, racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, etc (y'all get the picture, I'll be here all night repeating the accusations by the Left) is perfectly acceptable behavior. Furthermore, questioning the motives/actions of any other law enforcement agency is also celebrated. Let me restate the question in condensed form: How can you Lefties decry outrage over people questioning the motives of certain FBI and DOJ employees after profusely accusing the President and every other law enforcement entity of every unsubstantiated treasonous act imaginable? Please explain for us unenlightened ones.