Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ObsoleteDogma/status/913835792698617856

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TaxPolicyCenter/status/913826145036009474

lol...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/dave_brown24/status/915295655882616834

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/teamtrace/status/915378467440676864

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Every eligible voter in United States is responsible for the outcome of the election in some fashion, period. Of course anybody had multiple choices, including not voting at all. But we knew the result was binary, and whatever you chose to do affected that result.

Every vote or no vote for one of the two people who was going to win the race affected the odds of the other person winning the race. That is just a mathematical objective fact. Any subjective argument otherwise comes off as defensive. People don't try to rewrite objective math on a whim.

Whatever your reason, which of course was well within your rights, you didn't vote for choice A, you positively affected the chances of choice B. You can argue why your choice was the better one, and that's fair, but the idea that you're seemingly trying to push - that you had no role in the outcome, is objectively false.

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:How the good folks in our gov are helping us stay safe:
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

I'd say unbelievable but that would be a lie!!! . This is completely in line with what these NRA owned politicians always do. How much BLOOD MONEY have these people accepted to do the bidding of the NRA? SMDH

my honest response would be to accept this is an armed nation and gun violence is simply a part of living here. A big part? No, gun violence will not affect most, but more here than any other "modern" nation. If you dont like it what are your options? I mean that honestly... GOP is in deep with the NRA. Its one of their biggest donors.

Any gun laws that do get passed are pretty stupid, toothless or so narrow the impact is negligible. I dont want to sound like Debbie Downer. Im just not sure there is any solution to this.

Your right, if people accept the status quo, then nothing can ever change. I disagree....some day people will get tired of the killing and stop believing all these idiots hiding behind the 2nd amendment. They will realize that the gun lobbyists are the ones really killing so many people. Amd get them amd the gun companies, they repreaent, the hell out of here. But not if everyone accepts "things will never change".

spoken like someone who's never been off Long Island.

Your post suggests guns are protected by a few "hiding behind the 2nd amendment." This is pure ignorance. Fire arms, owning them and protecting the right to keep them and own them is as part of American culture as baseball, country music, rock and roll... you name it. I am sorry but this isnt an issue of accepting "things will never change."

Guns are protected because there are a massive number of people that want it that way.

But yea... I can see your attempt to label me as some kind of guy just accepts status quo. What steps would you take to change the gun culture?

Bro. Your reading comprehension (and defensiveness) needs improvement. My sentiment lies with what you are saying. I just added that we can't just "Accept" things that need to be changed or they will truly never change. I never said few (said ALL). And wrong again.....not from Long Island. I do have a concealed weapons permit. When I took the class the most popular question from my fellow class mates, most that just turned 21, was how much a riffle was.

My point, since you missed it, is that things will never change if we "Accept" things and give up trying to change them. And that something has to be done about these companies pushing their NOI, no matter what the consequences.

Sorry for calling you ignorant, but you seem to be missing this point. People WANT the NRA. People WANT unlimited access to arms. People are just as passionate about defending those ideals as free speech or any other ideal in this country.

So when I hear "this needs to change" or "we cant accept this" is sound corny to me. Yea... I agree with you. But guns are not going away in our lifetimes in this country. They just arent. These ideals are not only passed down, its hammered home.

The reason why this doesnt change is simple. Too much of the country doesnt want it to. The best you can do is pass tough state laws, and those work. States with tougher gun laws and fewer gun owners have.... surprise! Less gun violence. Thats at the state level. Federal? Its just not going to happen, so people will always have the ability to acquire as large a cache of firearms they can afford here and legally transport across state lines.

I would love to hear anyone's proposals to curb this type of terrorism. Im all for solutions, in this current environment one doesnt exist.

nixluva wrote:I'm in Georgia and these Open Carry laws are annoying as F! I'm in the store with my Grandson and one of these guys is near me with his gun strapped to his leg like this is the Wild West. They tend to dress alike. There's almost a paramilitary uniform that these guys wear and you can see they're all puffed up by the notion that they're capable of whipping that gun out whenever they feel like.

No there's probably nothing that's going to change in this country when you have a strain of this mentality among the public. There are even more dangerous guys out there who are preparing for some kind of imagined Civil War. There out in the country Training like soldiers. SMDH.

For me its simple. If you have a fire arm it means you are trusted to always be cool, to never get so emotional you would lash out at another person with violence. Trust that your life is in order and no ex wife, ex girfriend or gambling debts are going to drive you to do stupid stuff. You will maintain calm when driving, and never become overly agitated... see where I am going with this? Who deserves this trust? Not strangers on the street. Because people lose their crap and freak out sometimes. When they are armed those freak outs result in tragedy.

Nix.. I have family there also (GA). I couldnt do it. Call me too liberal. Fine. Im comfortable around guns. Ive fired rifles, hand guns and plenty of shot guns. I have a a couple buddies with a war chest and we shoot clay pigeons every couple month. I would be fine with guns going away. I just know its not realistic. However I think I can ask that they stay in your house. Open carry is lunacy. Just my 2c. My neighbor has firearms. Im good with that. He doesnt carry them around with him! As for me, my place is protected Rottweiler security Inc so you gotta be REALLY motivated to knock that door down.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/915601217832792064

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/915618695388499969

Too bad we'll likely never see this country take such aggressive action for change for the sake of LIFE!!!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/915371215094562817

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/bellyofawhale/status/915370295074025474

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Every eligible voter in United States is responsible for the outcome of the election in some fashion, period. Of course anybody had multiple choices, including not voting at all. But we knew the result was binary, and whatever you chose to do affected that result.

Every vote or no vote for one of the two people who was going to win the race affected the odds of the other person winning the race. That is just a mathematical objective fact. Any subjective argument otherwise comes off as defensive. People don't try to rewrite objective math on a whim.

Whatever your reason, which of course was well within your rights, you didn't vote for choice A, you positively affected the chances of choice B. You can argue why your choice was the better one, and that's fair, but the idea that you're seemingly trying to push - that you had no role in the outcome, is objectively false.

Not voting for A means helping B to win? Since I didn't vote at all, so not voting for B means also helping A at the same time, right?

Run Forrest, run!