HuskerShark

What i know is that allowing the government to have more power is not the answer. While i understand using other countries as an example, there are tons of other variables that don't correlate to us. America is and always has been very different from every other country, and that's a good thing.

If we took the same approach to gun registration and ownership that other countries do - particularly some of the ones on a similar playing field as the U.S. - there's plenty of sound reason and evidence to suggest improvement. The problem is that hundreds of thousands... probably millions... of Americans are too paranoid and protective of their weapons to want to make a difference. So, instead, many suggest better gun laws "won't change anything" and then say we attack mental health, religion, and education issues, essentially proclaiming that we eliminate crime and mental health problems for the first time in human history. Those issues will never be fully eliminated. Neither will guns, theft, or drugs. That doesn't mean that you allow your elected officials who constantly display a complete lack of common sense to pass any sort of legislation prohibiting or regulating these things. At least not without mass consent by the people that it affects. With the gun control issue, it comes down to trust, and most people (rightfully so) don't trust these politicians, many of which have hidden agendas, to pass anything sensible.

I'll add that i am not opposed to making it more difficult to buy guns. I don't think it will make a difference, and it will be impossible to measure considering so many variables, but it can't hurt.

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons. That simply proves once again, it's not a gun problem. It's a mental health, religion, and/or education problem.

And another ... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/george-will-donald-trump-leaving-republican-party-election/ Every Republican has this choice. Punish their party -- at least temporarily -- for choosing to endorse Trump. Or make like party leaders and do all the contortions and mental gymnastics necessary to get around to supporting him. It's a very self-defining choice. Pretty easy one to break apart actually. The people who support hidden establishment agendas, or socialism because they're lazy and entitled, won't support him, and people who desire to think big and put America's interests first will support him. I don't care to look it up (maybe I have a little Trump support in me ) but didn't you claim somewhere earlier in this thread that a lot of Bernie supporters were going to jump on the Trump train after Hillary won the nomination? Fair enough. Yes, but I'd guess only those who are backing anti establishment candidates or searching for something other than the same old message.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

And another ... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/george-will-donald-trump-leaving-republican-party-election/ Every Republican has this choice. Punish their party -- at least temporarily -- for choosing to endorse Trump. Or make like party leaders and do all the contortions and mental gymnastics necessary to get around to supporting him. It's a very self-defining choice. Pretty easy one to break apart actually. The people who support hidden establishment agendas, or socialism because they're lazy and entitled, won't support him, and people who desire to think big and put America's interests first will support him.

Free trade only works if both sides of the agreement must abide by the same sets of rules in terms of labor, products specs, etc. Which is why NAFTA is so bad for us. What's stopping a company from moving to Mexico and paying workers 20-25% (if that) of their labor costs here in the US? Securing the border is a pipe dream? You realize the border control has come out in support of Trump for this exact reason, right? Or does the media not cover that either? I have friends in the national guard, and they would rather go to Iraq than the US-Mexico border because it's so extremely unsafe. I don't see anybody else proposing anything as an alternative. And nationalism is a terrible idea?! That may be the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Nationalism doesn't mean you isolate yourself completely as a country. It means we put our own interests first, and if working with or protecting other countries does not benefit us or is not mutually beneficial, we need to walk.

1. He will cut the department of education and bring education local. That's the best, boldest stance I've ever seen a candidate have. As a former educator i know it's long overdue. 2. Secure borders. Duh... 3. Make other countries pay our costs to defend them. 4. Make great trade deals 5. Support nationalism, not globalism

Ooh so you're "one of those people"...Absolutely.One of those people who thinks any idea foreign to their immediate shell of thinking is a cult? At least you admit it.No. He didn't admit that. There is definitely a cult feeling about Trump and his followers. For example he said he "could shoot someone and not lose any voters," and his fans didn't seem to care what it implied about them. His fans also ignore any/all valid criticism of him (e.g. proof by his own words that he's lied or contradicted himself) and blame it on media bias. He has put his foot in his mouth a few times, but his words have also been blown WAY out of proportion on multiple occasions.Putting aside the many stupid things he has said (like the comments he made about Brexit), can you list the 5 most intelligent, sensible things he said? The humor in this is that you accuse me of not wanting to listen to new ideas, but what new idea has he even presented? You're kidding, right?...

Oh, really? Gandhi worked from the inside out. How does that apply to citizens protecting themselves against an out of control tyrannical government using fatal force?

And you're not going to stop a tyrannical government with your words.

So you're saying we're helpless then?Answer your own question. You and 10,000 of your fellow gun-wielding citizens believe the only way to counter an out-of-control government is to take up arms. How successful will you be with the weapons in your gun cabinet? I realize the situation. That doesn't mean you roll over and play dead. Like any revolution, if enough people make a stand against it, they will not allow tyranny to happen.

So you're saying we're helpless then?

Ooh so you're "one of those people"...Absolutely.One of those people who thinks any idea foreign to their immediate shell of thinking is a cult? At least you admit it.No. He didn't admit that. There is definitely a cult feeling about Trump and his followers. For example he said he "could shoot someone and not lose any voters," and his fans didn't seem to care what it implied about them. His fans also ignore any/all valid criticism of him (e.g. proof by his own words that he's lied or contradicted himself) and blame it on media bias. He has put his foot in his mouth a few times, but his words have also been blown WAY out of proportion on multiple occasions.

It depends what all you feel the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. I believe one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny of the government. It clearly states that. It's actually crazy to think about the vast amounts of wisdom that were displayed when constructing the constitution.

Ooh so you're "one of those people"...Absolutely. One of those people who thinks any idea foreign to their immediate shell of thinking is a cult? At least you admit it.

How about a magazine of 10-20 on "assault type" weapons and a timer that locks the spent magazine to the gun for 2-3 minutes? If there is a mass shooting the time gives people a chance to run to safety, or I would hope, beat the sh#t out of the shooter. If you have more than one weapon to cover the gap, then automatic summary execution when captured. The timer on an expired clip seems like a decent idea. Also seems like something that would be easy to override for anyone with Ballistics knowledge. In which case would basically only affect people that would not intend to abuse it

I understand I'm late to this party. Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact. The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims. Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check? -Limit on rounds fired per second -Limits on magazine capacity -Background checks for every gun purchase I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it. The push for stricter background checks should probably go through as long as it is founded on common sense, but limiting the size of the magazine and shots per second are unnecessary imo and will have zero positive effect.

Ooh so you're "one of those people"...

Well zoogs, you had your first sentence right.

It's a very worthy read. A decent Greatest Hits, Vol I of the blusteriest of Trump's bluster, with summary of coverage and responses; even if you've been roughly following, you'll probably learn a thing or two. The GOP is choosing to nominate this man as their candidate for U.S. President next month. At least, they will if the forlorn hope of a delegate revolt is quashed. Good on them, though. At least try to make a stand. I'm not sure why you support tyranny and corruption, but it's disturbing...

I don't identify with a political party, which I've stated multiple times. Politicians disgust me, as they should everyone, and Hillary is the epitome of everything that's bad in our government.

My comment is referring to the fact that in the Huskerboard poll, there are 18 PEOPLE who said they'd vote for Hillary Clinton if the election were held today... Talk about dipsh*ttery at its finest. Well, I see voting for either Trump or Hillary as that way. Now, typically I don't use those terms when discussing other people's views on here. However, well...... However you choose to see it, there are a lot of great reasons to vote for Trump, even while acknowledging his shortcomings (none of which ought to be deal breakers). That's not opinion, that's fact. However, I've heard no one ever tell me anything positive that could possibly come out of a Hillary presidency. There are zero reasons to vote for her. Zero. And that's before we consider the fact that she is a criminal. Like I said, if people choose to look into Johnson and vote for him, I can definitely understand that. But if someone wants to vote for Hillary, be prepared to come under heavy scrutiny based on the stakes that are presented. We are on page 20 of this thread along with the Republican debate thread and I fail to see anything remotely close to being labeled as "great reasons to vote for Trump". Hillary is a slimy joke of a candidate that can't be trusted with ANYTHING let alone the White House. However, Trump is absolutely not worthy of sitting in that chair. He is the farthest thing from someone I want representing me as an American in anyway shape of form. I know I have provided some reasons in other threads, and I provided a list of 4 areas Obama has failed that I see Trump addressing and turning around. It was the list with ISIS being the #1 failure, and I put this out 4 days before the Orlando terror attack. The fact is that Obama and Hillary have failed miserably on the war on terrorism, and I don't see Trump putting up with that BS. Second, I do think the borders are a huge issue both from a national security perspective, a crime perspective, and an economic security perspective with illegals feeding off of the US System. Perhaps he won't get the wall built, but I do see him making progress on this topic. Third, I see Trump improving our standing in the world, both on the trade front as well as in how we approach our allies (Israel) and enemies (Iran, North Korea). Obama has failed in providing steadfast support for Israel, while at the same time treating Iran as though they are our next ally. As for the rest, it's hard to say as I expect the financial markets to have a collapse at some point in the next 12-18 months. They are way over-inflated and do for a correction. I'm curious what has led you to believe Trump will do anything to actually improve the bolded? All I've seen is a man who has seemingly zero understanding of military strategy outside of complaining about the Obama/Clinton foreign policy and criticizing free trade deals without offering any real solutions. Anyone proposing blowing up NATO if he doesn't get his way isn't going to earn my vote. Isolationism is a horrible strategy in the 21st century. At the same time, he's talking about sitting down with Un and praising how great of a guy Putin is. Is he going to cut a deal with Un during their pow-wow to stop firing off missiles, or negotiate with Putin about staying within his own sandbox? Again, his cluelessness is a liability to the safety of our nation and the greater civilized world, because he'd give those types of despots exactly what they wanted if he thought it would earn him a nickel's worth of publicity. I'd like to add that Netanyahu has been more or less a prick to Obama throughout his administration, and Clinton is way more fiercely pro-Israel than Trump, if that's your bag. Only one of those two people have talked about being a "neutral dealmaker" between Israel and Palestine, whatever the hell means. I have no qualms with your stance on immigration, but that's a very hot-button issue, and I'll just say that I don't agree with you. As to the red, you know what would ensure that? Donald Trump as President. Military strategy? Trump has already talked at length about being conservative about our intervention in other countries, and will make sure that we will be reimbursed completely for defending other countries. He will make sure to meet with generals who are the real experts and formulate the best plans alongside them, which is the right way to do it. And he will also make sure they have the resources they need, which is not currently the case. And once again, Hillary in her history in office is completely self serving. She is easily bought by not only corporations, but even worse, foreign nations. And Saudi Arabia donating $25million to her shady foundation recently can't be overlooked either. Hillary = evil