*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[dontdrink36]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Here's a start to a real top 4:

1) immediately raise SS retirement age to 65 for any benefits, 70 for full benefits...sorry boomers, you fucked us so time to pay the piper...every 5 years raise that another year until we get to 70/75. Eliminate the income cap on SS withholdings

2)Immigration reform similar to the Bush/McCain plan (registration, pay fine, path to citizenship)

3)End the war on drugs. Eliminate private prisons. Treat addiction as a disease.

4)Allow people/companies to get insurance through public option/medicare. For those under 65 and not below some income threshold, charge so that medicare breaks even on those plans. Allow medicare/medicaid to negotiate prices with big pharma.

I'd take #3 a step further and legalize and tax all drugs, use that revenue to improve education funding.

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Cut military spending by 30%. There, I just saved us 15% of our budget. And we still spend more than any other country.

Why stop at 30%? Why not 50% and use our military for defense only? Use that money to offset SS/Medicare costs.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by Tiduwho

AK-47 isnt?

I should have specified in America, although globally, I bet it’s still the AR for most popular in civilian hands.

[M. Steng]

The thing about 2A diehards, to me, is that there isn't even a little bit of wiggle room. You want to ban one specific type/caliber of gun and it equates in their mind to a total recall of their 2A rights. I'm as firm a defender of the Constitution as the next guy but the 2A never = unlimited possession of any type of arms. I have no problem with people owning a few guns to defend their home or to hunt. No one needs a shed full of guns an a full arsenal. If you feel like you need that in order to survive then it might be time to reevaluate the type of people with whom you make your acquaintance.

I also love how when interpreting the 2A, these folks conveniently ignore the "well-regulated" part of the verbiage. All I see on Twitter in response to anything calling for reasonable reform is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!". But, in the extreme hypothetical of the need for the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government, who is going to be regulating the civilian resistance, and who will be doing it "well"? That's the entire point of the 2A but what means achieve that end?

Also can we acknowledge how ridiculous the wording of the damn thing is to begin with? It's not even a logical or coherent statement for God's sake

[Benny003]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Yeah. The AR15 is the most popular rifle of literally all time.

It is by definition, in common use at this time.

Literally anything could be in "common use" if we allowed it. That's not a good justification to continue to allow something to be legal. It was a mistake to allow those guns to become so "common." Now it's time to fix that mistake.

[cazzie34]

"A CNBC poll this week stated that just 32 percent of working adults reported having more take-home pay due to the new law, a problem for Republicans hoping to run on the measure and the health of the economy in November."

Trickle down takes time. Those corporate tax cuts will help out average Joe American any day now.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/38...mpression=true

[cazzie34]

Hey steng, here comes Jeep kids gun control cake comic.

[jcc522]

Please cut military spending. Please!

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

The thing about 2A diehards, to me, is that there isn't even a little bit of wiggle room. You want to ban one specific type/caliber of gun and it equates in their mind to a total recall of their 2A rights. I'm as firm a defender of the Constitution as the next guy but the 2A never = unlimited possession of any type of arms. I have no problem with people owning a few guns to defend their home or to hunt. No one needs a shed full of guns an a full arsenal. If you feel like you need that in order to survive then it might be time to reevaluate the type of people with whom you make your acquaintance.

I also love how when interpreting the 2A, these folks conveniently ignore the "well-regulated" part of the verbiage. All I see on Twitter in response to anything calling for reasonable reform is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!". But, in the extreme hypothetical of the need for the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government, who is going to be regulating the civilian resistance, and who will be doing it "well"? That's the entire point of the 2A but what means achieve that end?

Also can we acknowledge how ridiculous the wording of the damn thing is to begin with? It's not even a logical or coherent statement for God's sake

The 2a isn’t about hunting, bud.

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by jcc522

The 2a isn’t about hunting, bud.

That's certainly part of it, though I did also include self-defense literally right before I mentioned hunting. But I did address what the 2A actually is about: in order to secure a free state with a well-regulated militia. Just curious how this hypothetical citizen militia would be well-regulated. And doesn't the fact that "regulation" is directly in the language of the Amendment provide the authority for limiting the type/number/caliber etc. of guns that a person can own? Not sure of the SCOTUS's interpretation on that particular language but I think it's fairly reasonable to infer that.

No rights are unlimited in scope. I'm just trying to understand from 2A diehard folks why they're so unwilling to give even an inch when it comes to their weaponry.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

That's certainly part of it, though I did also include self-defense literally right before I mentioned hunting. But I did address what the 2A actually is about: in order to secure a free state with a well-regulated militia. Just curious how this hypothetical citizen militia would be well-regulated. And doesn't the fact that "regulation" is directly in the language of the Amendment provide the authority for limiting the type/number/caliber etc. of guns that a person can own? Not sure of the SCOTUS's interpretation on that particular language but I think it's fairly reasonable to infer that.

No rights are unlimited in scope. I'm just trying to understand from 2A diehard folks why they're so unwilling to give even an inch when it comes to their weaponry.

Regulated, as used in the 2A, does not mean the regulation you are thinking of.

We’re not giving an inch because then they’ll take a mile.

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Regulated, as used in the 2A, does not mean the regulation you are thinking of.

We’re not giving an inch because then they’ll take a mile.

First part: Ok, so what does it mean then?

Second part: The ol' slippery slope. Classic. I didn't think there was much else to the 2A diehard viewpoint other than that but was hoping for something with a little more meat on the bones other than being scared of something that will never happen.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

First part: Ok, so what does it mean then?



Second part: The ol' slippery slope. Classic. I didn't think there was much else to the 2A diehard viewpoint other than that but was hoping for something with a little more meat on the bones other than being scared of something that will never happen.

Something that will never happen? It’s already happening.

[cazzie34]

I think the purpose of the second amendment was that the American government military couldn't protect us from foreign invasions out in the wilderness or on the frontier. We needed people to have weapons to protect America (security of a free state) until the military could get there (days or weeks).

Now that we spend trillions on the military and they can get anywhere in a heartbeat, the need for our citizens to protect us goes down. If we want to spend less on military (substantially less) I would agree with substantially opening up gun ownership.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by jcc522

We’re not giving an inch because then they’ll take a mile.

I hate this excuse. Can you list situations where this came to fruition?

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Something that will never happen? It’s already happening.

“It” being a tyrannical government needing of a good rebellion? Or restriction of unfettered and unregulated gun ownership?

Also, answer to the first part or nah?

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

I think the purpose of the second amendment was that the American government military couldn't protect us from foreign invasions out in the wilderness or on the frontier. We needed people to have weapons to protect America (security of a free state) until the military could get there (days or weeks).

Now that we spend trillions on the military and they can get anywhere in a heartbeat, the need for our citizens to protect us goes down. If we want to spend less on military (substantially less) I would agree with substantially opening up gun ownership.

It wasnt just foreign armies. They wanted to be able to fight “home team” tyranny. Think about it. They’d just got done beating the British King’s army, who, prior to April 19, 1775, had been their “home team.” Check out Federalist 46 for more context on an armed populace vs a standing army.

[BTBaboon]

It's a good think 2018 is exactly like the late 1700's; otherwise it would be pretty dumb to try to apply these things to a modern era using the rigidity of going word for word of what was set out 200+ years ago.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

"A CNBC poll this week stated that just 32 percent of working adults reported having more take-home pay due to the new law, a problem for Republicans hoping to run on the measure and the health of the economy in November."

Trickle down takes time. Those corporate tax cuts will help out average Joe American any day now.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/38...mpression=true

You really see the benefit of trickle down when there's an economic uptick with dems in control. You know, because dem policies can't ever possibly be good.

Originally Posted by dre2142

I hate this excuse. Can you list situations where this came to fruition?

You mean you already forgot about that time Obama invaded Texas and took everyone's guns? It was all over the internet when it was about to happen.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by dre2142

I hate this excuse. Can you list situations where this came to fruition?

Are you just gonna ignore the state of California?

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Eek. The Milos 2020 campaign platform needs some work.

That's too quick of a reduction of 50%. I know we've discussed this in the past, but that's a sure fire way to an economic calamity. Obviously it's purely hypothetical as you'd never be able to pass it, and it'd be damn hard to unwind the recent debt-inducing tax cuts and spending bills.

And more prisons? What's that about? Surely the Milos voting bloc can't be on board with that. And would enforcing the sentencing laws on the books include low level drug users getting locked up? Seems counterproductive.


I don't know Rog. These seem like bad ideas. Careful about floating these ideas. You could end up with a few more tallies in the loss column!

Yeah, we for sure, without a doubt need more prisons. If you think we need stricter gun laws, then you should know that we're going to need more prisons. The one cannot exist without the other.

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

yikes...good thing you went to bed after that prison comment.

Also, your plan doesn't address the biggest fiscal issue our country faces....medicare/SS.

And that fact that you even mention "immigration control" in a top 4 to fix the country PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are in the cult.

Also, no foundations??? WTF are you talking about. Yeah, that bill gates guy...he's doing alot of harm wtf dude.

Bold - Repeal the ACA and do away with medicaid. Issue resolved.

And, no foundations for politicians. No "charity" of any type for any of them to shelter their money. Thought that was obvious.

Oh, and I didn't go to bed. I was a little tired and read your "real" bullets seriously. Didn't know you were getting into comedic writing.

Glad I waited until this morning to reply.

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Something that will never happen? It’s already happening.

how is a few people talking about it "happening". Most rational people, even dems, don't want to repeal 2a

people say regulation, 2a people hear repeal. It's simply not the case

[rconverse]

Legalize all drugs in the midst of a drug epidemic? Okay, I'm out. You people, god bless ya, but you're really, really nuts.

[rconverse]

I think we should give politicians more money to solve our issues. I mean, let's just look at good ole, JB. Dude is worth about $3 billion but can't afford to pay property taxes because his house is in shambles!

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...dogs-democrat/

But yeah, the government needs more money. We need more laws and less prisons. Up is down, down is up in here. You name it!!

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by rconverse

I think we should give politicians more money to solve our issues. I mean, let's just look at good ole, JB. Dude is worth about $3 billion but can't afford to pay property taxes because his house is in shambles!

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...dogs-democrat/

But yeah, the government needs more money. We need more laws and less prisons. Up is down, down is up in here. You name it!!

I thought not paying taxes means you're smart?

[zajDmB1]

More prisons

Thought you wanted less gov't spending...

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Yeah, we for sure, without a doubt need more prisons. If you think we need stricter gun laws, then you should know that we're going to need more prisons. The one cannot exist without the other.

People are proposing locking up people? Pretty sure I haven't seen that. I have seen proposals for background checks, age limits, ammunition caps, etc.

And the idea that we need more prisons is just lunacy. Close private, for-profit, prisons, and maybe we can talk.

Originally Posted by rconverse

Legalize all drugs in the midst of a drug epidemic? Okay, I'm out. You people, god bless ya, but you're really, really nuts.

Yeah, let's ignore evidence from countries that have fully decriminalized drug use and the impact on drug abuse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#450afe283001

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.fxv58GRLW

[DMBstandUP1984]

Feels to me at least that a decriminalization of drug use would lead to less people addicted to opioids

[mr.MikeD]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Legalize all drugs in the midst of a drug epidemic? Okay, I'm out. You people, god bless ya, but you're really, really nuts.

Exactly. The obvious solution is to do even more of the same thing that caused the problem.

[YouKnowThatItIS]

Was the second amendment partly about upholding slavery as a viable institution? There is evidence that could lead someone to that conclusion.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-sec...serve-slavery/

[zajDmB1]

I'm sure lots of different people had lots of different ideas, but the whole point of why America exists is enough to make 2A make sense, to a basic degree at the very least.