USA presidential elections 2016

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 18 Aug 2016, 21:39

My impression is the Huffington Post has no quality control. It doesn't pay most of its contributors, and publishes anything that might get some attention. A cross between journalism and "click bait".

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Aug 2016, 22:06

I've been following their reportage duiring the EU referendum and then, latterly, during the Labour leadership contest and, I am bound to say, their coverage of all of the above goes well beyond a lack of quality control UE

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 19 Aug 2016, 01:31

I'm beginning to accept the fact that one of these Bozos will be the next POTUS.
What to do if Trump wins?
What to do if Hillary wins?
In both cases I expect a major crisis with bank holidays and worse.
I hate to think what I will have to do when Hillary decides to confiscate all of America's guns.
The war Trump will blunder into is just as bad.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 19 Aug 2016, 01:52

vtsnowedin wrote:I'm beginning to accept the fact that one of these Bozos will be the next POTUS.
What to do if Trump wins?
What to do if Hillary wins?
In both cases I expect a major crisis with bank holidays and worse.
I hate to think what I will have to do when Hillary decides to confiscate all of America's guns.
The war Trump will blunder into is just as bad.

Whatever happens, you can still listen to "Back Home Again" by John Denver.

And then "Matthew".

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 19 Aug 2016, 08:38

I don't think Hilary would go for all the guns.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Aug 2016, 19:33

johnhemming2 wrote:I don't think Hilary would go for all the guns.

Why not? She has repeatedly stated her desire to remove guns from public hands. Of course it would be done in stages so the frogs don't jump out of the heating pot.

Post by **clv101** » 20 Aug 2016, 19:45

vtsnowedin wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:I don't think Hilary would go for all the guns.
Of course it would be done in stages so the frogs don't jump out of the heating pot.

...and the first half dozen stages are a REALLY good idea! Give her the first few stages over her 8(?) years.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Aug 2016, 20:54

clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:I don't think Hilary would go for all the guns.
Of course it would be done in stages so the frogs don't jump out of the heating pot.
...and the first half dozen stages are a REALLY good idea! Give her the first few stages over her 8(?) years.

I don't know what is really good about causing a civil war between red states and blue states. Americans are not British , Australian or even Canadian. They will not meekly give up their rights and the guns that protect them as long as they still breathe.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Aug 2016, 21:14

What amount of firepower is it reasonable for a community to allow individuals to have and which individuals should be prevented from lawfully having any fire power.

All societies have some limits. I don't think the USA allows individuals to have nuclear missiles, for example.

In the UK crossbows, air rifles and knives are not licensed although you need to
be careful what you do with them and where you take them.

There is a licensing system for rifles and somewhat illogically pistols are generally not allowed.

It is an interesting question as to where the limits should be.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Aug 2016, 23:12

johnhemming2 wrote:What amount of firepower is it reasonable for a community to allow individuals to have and which individuals should be prevented from lawfully having any fire power.

The Republicans think convicted felons and the insane should be prevented from having fire arms. The Democrats think only the police ,military and the Democrats paid body guards should have weapons.

All societies have some limits. I don't think the USA allows individuals to have nuclear missiles, for example.

Correct and also no fully automatic machine guns, grenades, RPGs or artillery pieces without a fist class license (For civil war reenactors and collectors etc.)

In the UK crossbows, air rifles and knives are not licensed although you need to
be careful what you do with them and where you take them.

If a crossbow is not licensed but you can't use it legally anywhere does that not constitute a ban?

There is a licensing system for rifles and somewhat illogically pistols are generally not allowed.

It is an interesting question as to where the limits should be.

Yes an interesting question. For a first discussion point I would suggest that a citizen should have the right to have weapons at hand that can do anything the police can do once they finally arrive on the scene and the right to use them against any law breaker that doesn't comply with orders to stop.
Of course that definition would not work in the UK where most of the police are unarmed at any given hour. [/quote]

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 Aug 2016, 23:17

vtsnowedin wrote: Americans are not British , Australian or even Canadian. They will not meekly give up their rights and the guns that protect them as long as they still breathe.

Which presumably is until the gun that was protecting someone shoots them. Meanwhile while they are fighting to keep guns, they are busy throwing out anything that contains peanuts in case it kills them.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Aug 2016, 23:25

woodburner wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: Americans are not British , Australian or even Canadian. They will not meekly give up their rights and the guns that protect them as long as they still breathe.
Which presumably is until the gun that was protecting someone shoots them. Meanwhile while they are fighting to keep guns, they are busy throwing out anything that contains peanuts in case it kills them.

How peanut allergies relate to gun possession escapes me.
The government employees, police or military that are sent out to collect the citizens guns are going to have to make some very hard decisions to make and the answers may well be fatal for some of them. If just one out of every hundred gun owners chooses to fight it out they don't have enough police or soldiers to do the job.

Post by **clv101** » 21 Aug 2016, 00:22

vtsnowedin wrote:The government employees, police or military that are sent out to collect the citizens guns are going to have to make some very hard decisions to make and the answers may well be fatal for some of them. If just one out of every hundred gun owners chooses to fight it out they don't have enough police or soldiers to do the job.

You're jumping to step ten. HRC isn't about the send people round to collect guns. However there're a lot of useful steps, decades of work/action, that can be taken short of that.

The choice is absolutely not between doing nothing and house to house collection of guns.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 21 Aug 2016, 04:17

clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:The government employees, police or military that are sent out to collect the citizens guns are going to have to make some very hard decisions to make and the answers may well be fatal for some of them. If just one out of every hundred gun owners chooses to fight it out they don't have enough police or soldiers to do the job.
You're jumping to step ten. HRC isn't about the send people round to collect guns. However there're a lot of useful steps, decades of work/action, that can be taken short of that.

The choice is absolutely not between doing nothing and house to house collection of guns.

The NRA type people will not wait for step nine or ten to resist.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 21 Aug 2016, 08:09

vtsnowedin wrote: If a crossbow is not licensed but you can't use it legally anywhere does that not constitute a ban?

You can use it in your garden for target practice. I see no law that prevents its use defensively against someone attacking the home, but if you wander around the streets with one expect to be arrested.