Ten oz

In the wake of the Florida shooting some victims have addressed claims they're not actors separately I have seen radio and YouTube personalities claim that White people aren't welcome to watch the recently released Black Panther Movie. Just two examples I believe to be the work of Internet Trolls being passed off as real things groups of people are seriously saying. Very few or perhaps even no one at all honestly believes the Florida shooting was faked. Just as there is not a movement within the Black community seeking to bar White people from watching the Black Panther.These are fictions created to generate views and shares on the internet. One person can have multiple YouTube, twitter, and Facebook accounts. A Troll can tell a lie on twitter, make a video about the lie on YouTube with a different name, and then reference both (twitter and YouTube) on Facebook under yet another name as anecdotal evidence the lies are real things. A handful of people can generate large amounts of traffic that on the surfacecan appear to be coming from large diverse groups of people. I think it is clearly unhealthy society. I grew up understand that everything on the internet cannot be trusted however it seems people are more vulnerable to disinformation now in a large part to social media. Perhaps receiving information as a group from those they assume to be peers reduces skepticism. What are the long and shot term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it? I put this in Speculation and not in Politics because neither the motives of Trolls or the implications of their actions are always political. I think often it is just a combination of attention seeking and greed (money can be made off of traffic).

The" Man Saws AR 15" is excellent. It directly speaks to many of the arguments people in this very thread are making and exposes them as empty.Talking about what one would do if non-existing conditions existed almost always is just cover for doing nothing. Claiming that individual action is futile unless everyone forced to do the same is petty. Do the right thing for the right things sake alone is never the wrong option regardless of the black market, mental health, video games, and etc.

It is interesting. He "ordered" the DOJ to ban bump stocks. It will take an act of Congress to actually change the law. So either Trump is trying to force Congress to act, is just doing this as a show and nothing will come of it, or he doesn't understand Congress is the one that must act. Only time will tell.

I use both Negative and Positive. Other members are able correct it when undeserved either way. I don't think it would be good to have a consequence free system where it was Positive reps only. I have had people down vote my posts, I have had moderators advise me not to proceed into off topic tangents, and etc I consider it productive feedback. Just the other day iNow commented that many of my recent posts were difficult to read due to errors and recommend I do more proof reading before posting. I view that as productive feedback. I have seen features on other sites that list who up or down voted a post. Perhaps that feature here would be a good idea?

There are many sayings. Each resonates differently with different individuals based on their preferences and beliefs. Seldom ever a good standard. How did Humans become dispersed all over the globe if people generally seek to stay in or nearly their home of origin?

You are unwittingly repeating tired and well worn arguments that the gun lobby has used for decades. While you yourself may be for gun control you are repeating the talking points of those who are not. That is where the disconnect lies.

Nope,there are other threads outlining what "most" of it was about. Supporting Sanders was just a tiny piece in achieving that agenda. This isn't a Russian Collusion thread however.

There are far too many real world examples to look at for there to be any reasonable whatabout argument to be made regarding the black market. It is an example of people simply not letting facts get in the way of their beliefs. Here in the U.S. we had an outbreak of mass shootings involving machine guns in the lat 20's and early 30's. The National Firearms Act was passed banning fully automatic weapons and the mass shootings stopped for several decades until assault weapons came along.

I feel like this impacts liberals differently than conservatives. With liberals being more pro change and conservatives more pro tradition (simple version) liberals are more likely to let the wolf in sheep's clothes have a set at the table in the name of equality and fairness. Conservatives don't really care about carpetbagging or astroturfing provided the message pleases them. Conservatives know what they want and any group that is willing to preach to the choir is good as another. I don't think the authenticity of a movement matters unless it changes people allegiances . The Tea Party movement, for example, was a fake grassroots movement but ultimately only acted to re-energize those were were already ultra conservative in the first place. It didn't seek to change minds much as motivate those who already agreed. The Sanders movement was different. Sanders supporters were made to feel disenfranchised in hope they would not vote. It worked because fairness and inclusiveness is typically associated with liberalism. Propped up movements more negatively impact liberals because liberals believe they need to be considerate of them and make adjustments to do so. It is an effect way to make liberals waste time, energy, and money spinning in circles rather than moving forward. Whether it is a lone floorboard our a critical pillar the foundation of Bernie's rise and influence was supported by those who sought to use Sander as a wedge. In my opinion Sanders needs to sit down and somberly ask himself if his rise in stature and influence has helped or hurt the policies he advocates for. Sanders criticized both Clinton and Obama for being too moderate;look at what we have now. I agree with Sanders on many issues. I believe his views on banking are terrific. That said I believe it is time for Sander to back others and stop asserting himself as a leader. He should be motivating his supporters to get excited about Warren or Harris and not the potential of him running again.

I totally believe that you believe that.

WASHINGTON — On April 15, 2009, Rep. Paul Ryan took to a stage in Madison, Wis., to address a crowd of angry conservative activists at one of the very first Tea Party rallies. Ryan told the cheering audience of Gadsden flag wavers that the United States under President Barack Obama, then almost three months into his first term, was headed towards “big government, European-style socialism.” The Obama administration and their supporters “want you to pay up and shut up,” he told the crowd. — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that Obama is trying “to basically Europeanize America.” — At CPAC, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), the third-ranking Republican, denounced Obama’s economic agenda as “European-style socialism.” https://thinkprogress.org/ap-ignores-cries-of-socialism-claims-that-congressional-republicans-have-no-desire-to-demonize-obama-627013e6551d/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-fundraising_n_1791799.html Their is the currently House and Senate Majority Leaders well as the Vice President saying it. It is very common and the fact you are not aware is part of the issue with your position of Guns; you haven't followed any of this long enough for context. Many of the taking points get recycled. Many of the distraction tactics and talking point just repeat with different words. They often seem fair the first hundred time you hear them. Overtime however one realizes or at least come to suspect that the arguments are just a calls for inaction.

I think part of the problem is people pretending like any proposal could ever be reasonable enough not to invoke outrage. A popular saying in the NRA is "from my cold dead hand". It isn't the slogan of those who'd compromise. Calls for middle ground positions and agreement with those absolutists who don't give a f#ck lead to pitiful compromises like Jim Crow laws. It is the right thing in my opinion to hear everyone at the table out and explore everyone's position. That said it is wrong in my opinion to insist or assume everyone leaves the table with something they want. Than there is obviously much being said you don't hear.

A black market exists for basically everything yet we still have laws. I never understand why people feel that when it comes to guns the existence of a black market stands as some type of major obstacle to moving forward. There is a huge black market for opiates yet that doesn't cause people to sit around and lament that opiates may as well just be legal. We can discuss the way various bits of legislation would impact prices on the black market or would provide officials more latitude to police the black market but conclusion of those conversations should not be a prerequisite to moving for with gun control legislation. Rather they are caveats to be considered for further follow up legislation. That is the normal process. I actually do not think it was. However it is totally off topic so I will leave it at that.

Russian interference, voter suppression, billions in free media to Trump, people believing Clinton was inevitable, FBI last minute announcement, and etc all played roles which are very hard to calculate. Attempting to state the Trump one for any one specific reason is nearly impossible. The reason you listed isn't even a top 5 reason in my opinion. Being it back to Guns the NRA supported Trump to defeat Clinton to the tune of 30 million in 2016. So we can add Guns to the list pf factors at play in the 2016 election. "Perhaps Trump doesn't want to risk disturbing the NRA, which spent more than $30 million in 2016 to support him and defeat his opponent, Hillary Clinton." http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

When we debate other political issues there is almost always a legislative side and a personal accountability side. Among those of us that believe in Climate Change there is agreement that the Govt should act but that individuals need to change their behavior too by buying more fuel & energy efficient products. Likewise if we are talking about pollution we all understand that the Govt needs smart legislation but individuals need to do the the right things too like recycle and using products that compost. Everyone knows a good education starts at home and without that in place any Govt education program will struggle. Yet when we discuss guns the personal accountability angle offends those who otherwise agree something needs to be done. I think those in this discussion should honestly ask themselves if their position of guns is in line with their position on other issues. If you accept that as energy consumers we all bare some responsibility to fixing Climate Change with our actions yet are a gun owner and do not accept the same responsibility for Gun Control what is the difference? If one is asking the Govt to act while being individually unwilling to then it really shouldn't come as a surprise when the Govt fails to act. I can complain the Govt should pass a law requiring auto companies to build more cars that get 35mpg but it is counterproductive if I choose to buy a giant truck that only gets 12mpg . The auto industry is going to fight to build what sells. We all know the gun lobby is very powerful. We all know the gun lobby owns many politicians. We all know the gun lobby is a major road block to any legislation being passed. We all also know the Gun Lobby gets is influence/money from customers of the Gun Industry. People who hunt, sport shoot, and etc feed the Gun Lobby. This isn't rocket science. Before any legislation can be passed the Gun Lobby's influence must be reduced. So one way to weaken them is for consumers to stop coughing up their cash. Another is after every accidental shooting, mass shooting, suicide, and etc families need to launch lawsuits so the industry bleeds money in court in addition to suffering losses on the retail side. It would soften their influence (money) and then our Govt representatives can enter negotiations that lead to something.

"President Donald Trump described Oprah Winfrey as "very insecure" and accused her of "biased and slanted" after an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" that addressed his presidency." https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/trump-oprah-60-minutes-tweet/index.html As a rule of thumb Trump has a history of going after those he perceives as a threat or challenge to him. In the Primary he was most aggressive against Bush, Rubio, and Cruz but mostly ignored Kasich and Carson. Trump was highly critical of Clinton (still is) but never criticized Sanders. So think think it is worth paying attention to that Trump has chosen to get after Oprah.

You mean is read as it current is? Different courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment different ways. That is one of the reasons the Federalist Society was created and Republicans took such an absolute position against Merrick Garland. I felt this way after Sandy Hook and then absolutely nothing happened. After Las Vegas all that happened was a surge in the sales of bump stocks and AR-15s. It is ironic in way. After every mass shooting gun and ammunition sales spike. Gun enthusiast anticipate something will change so they rush out and load up while they can but then nothing changes. The ironic part being they don't expect their arguments to be success but then they are, they don't expect their position to hold but then it does. Despite all the debate it seem everyone is actually believes stricter gun laws should or inevitably will come.

Find a post where I said a law should be passed to restrict hunting.

The link I provided outline where the money come from. When you considered certain individual guns and gun safes can easily cost over $1,000 (an AR-15 runs around $1,200 on average) or that many people have memberships at ranges that cost over $1,000 a year it isn't hard to imagine an average of $1,000 per person per year. A lot of people re-case there own brass because of how expensive ammunition is. A box of AR-15 rounds is over a hundred dollars.

That is a good point. As a side not Stein requested had recounts in all 3 of those states but unfortunately we never got them.

I disagree. Despite all the noise about guns being a permanent slice of the American Pie the individual number of gun owners has been deceasing for decades. The problem is that those who still do have guns have been purchasing them in greater quantities which has kept the industries revenue up. Those with guns are in the minority and are the full revenue source for the gun industry/lobby. If a reasonable portion are able to wake up and realize they are major contributors to the lack of action I think it would make a difference. Again,we aren't talking about 350 million people. We are talking about more like 5 million people. Stop lobbying politicians to do nothing. We are a capitalist nation. We can influence industry will our wallets. This is a fantastic question. I do not know how much money different firearm companies receive from DOD, FBI, DEA, CBP, and etc. I do know that a lot of Military firearms are not commercially sold. M-16's for example can not be bought at a local store the way an AR-15 can be. So the two (military and commercial) are not always the same entities. The 51.3 billion dollar number I have been using comes from a report (linked above) that specifically looks at sport shooting, hunting, and other civilian revenue sources and not federal contracts.

Where does that money come from?

Meanwhile Trump nominated people run both DOJ/ FBI and it is the Presidents job to expertly oversee all federal agencies. Trump is actually attacking his own executive performance.

So if the Firearm industry was short 5 billion in revenue and understood it was because people wanted modest reforms like universal background checks you don't believe they'd get behind it?

The hacks definitely energized Bernie's base is a way which was detrimental to Clinton and provided Sanders longer staying power. The hacked materiel were not lies but they were illegally obtained, a crime was committed, and people played fast and loose with what was in the emails. Also assumed her guilt in cheating Sanders out of the nomination. Clinton receive 3.6 million more physical votes than Sanders in the primary yet the DNC hacks perform and disseminated by Russia let many Sander supports with a feeling of being defrauded. I my opinion Sanders currently uses that sentiment to get preferential treatment within the Party. There is a tangible sense he is owed an ongoing apology. Meanwhile he isn't even a party member. It is a dynamic I cannot see existing had Russia not interfered.