Shooting reported at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.....Another one :{

 
@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.
Good luck with that, Hillary. I think she would have a hard time recruiting people to do the collecting...
why? it beats working at mcdonalds 
 
 
 
@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.
Good luck with that, Hillary. I think she would have a hard time recruiting people to do the collecting...
why? it beats working at mcdonalds 
I don't think most people go to work at McD's expecting to get shot, though...
nerd.gif
 
@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.
i know Australias was mandatory, i'm asking about the other examples she referenced as well. Maybe since this video is just a small portion of a longer discussion I am missing some context but what I got out of that wasnt that shes pushing mandatory seizure and compensation for guns.  What i understood was she was saying that these countries  had an issue, they implemented a solution, and got results from it. Australia just happened to be one country had one solution that happened to be a mandatory gun buy back. Were the other countries she referenced doing the same? Or was she just saying gun control in different forms worked for these countries, we should look into what they did and try to find a solution for ourselves? If in fact all the examples she mentioned had to do with mandatory gun repossession, then I'd say youre on to something. But it seems to me she was floating the general idea of gun control and buy back programs, not specifically the mandatory one Australia implemented. 
 
Last edited:
 
 
 
@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.
Good luck with that, Hillary. I think she would have a hard time recruiting people to do the collecting...
why? it beats working at mcdonalds 
I don't think most people go to work at McD's expecting to get shot, though...
nerd.gif
you really think dudes are going to walk around blasting guys standing around collecting guns?

if so then that just highlights america's gun problem
 
 
 
 
 
@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.
Good luck with that, Hillary. I think she would have a hard time recruiting people to do the collecting...
why? it beats working at mcdonalds 
I don't think most people go to work at McD's expecting to get shot, though...
nerd.gif
you really think dudes are going to walk around blasting guys standing around collecting guns?

if so then that just highlights america's gun problem
No, I don't. But I do think people that go door to door to collect them could have a decent chance of that happening to them. Not to mention I believe several states have already passed legislation (or are in the process) saying that federal agents who tried to enforce any gun ban/grab would be subject to being charged with a felony/jail sentences (varies by state).
 
Last edited:
Veryyyyy interesting: Hillary says Australia's forced gun buyback program something "worth considering" implementing here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/


I wanna know where the $$$ for a buy-back program would come from... there a bajillion guns in the US of A. That could get expensive real quick.


LOL. Same thing I was thinking. Let's be realistic, the government doesn't want to ban guns at all, they just want to be the only ones with them.
 

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African American voters

Jesus christ :x
 
 
I'm a believer that voting should be a privilege, and not a right

lets go back to 3/5ths of a person too :smh:

well if it's a privilege overtly based on education and not race then that could still be used against certain demographics i.e. jim crow .... so your point is taken. However, I think it's worth discussing the concept of letting everyone vote including (the majority) people who are not informed about law, economics, etc. to pick the leader of the free world....since that's kinda important.
 
 
 
 
I'm a believer that voting should be a privilege, and not a right
lets go back to 3/5ths of a person too 
mean.gif
well if it's a privilege overtly based on education and not race then that could still be used against certain demographics i.e. jim crow .... so your point is taken. However, I think it's worth discussing the concept of letting everyone vote including (the majority) people who are not informed about law, economics, etc. to pick the leader of the free world....since that's kinda important.
it's not worth discussing because any provision to limit voters will be abused without question....

go reread the history of the united states and come back
 
Last edited:
limit people based on education or political knowledge? pretty much 99% of people could be excluded based on lack of deep understanding of politics, economics, etc.

people think they're experts cause they read articles and follow the news?

now limiting politicians from office based on similar criteria could be good, but would face the same slippery slope problems.
 
Last edited:
Political knowledge, not education. I saw some of the most ignorant (but simultaneously outspoken) people I know in college.

This isn't a discrimination ploy, this is the idea that if you are going to vote or say something, know what you're voting for. Read my original post - I said I don't care which side the person chooses, as long as they know why they choose that side. If you're just going to flip a coin or vote cause your friend said to choose this person, that's weak reasoning.

And for the people who like strawman arguments, they do not teach you anything about the current candidates in any level of education explicitly. You can complete a degree in government or political science from an Ivy League school and still not know anything about the current election. All it takes is internet access and the patience to read online. If you are interested and want to vote. If you don't care or don't want to, you can just stay at home. Your vote wouldn't change anything anyways.
 
 
This isn't a discrimination ploy
....but discrimination defines the context of limiting a person's the right to vote....

and for the people who say votes don't matter anyway...

explain why so much time and energy is spent on redistricting if the voting population has no power?

so much money spent rallying and funding voter drives?

seems like all these "woke" people are just daydreaming
 
Last edited:
 
....but discrimination defines the context of limiting a person's the right to vote....

and for the people who say votes don't matter anyway...

explain why so much time and energy is spent on redistricting if the voting population has no power?

so much money spent rallying and funding voter drives?

seems like all these "woke" people are just daydreaming
True, I worded that badly, in that case then yes, we should discriminate against people who don't know what they are doing. You can vote for whoever or whatever you want, as long as you know that is what you are voting for... basically don't blindly do something and that's okay. I think that's reasonable.

Individually, no, your vote does not matter. The voting population as a whole does (and that still relies on the Electoral College doing its job), but if for whatever reason got into a car accident or just slept through the entire voting period and couldn't put an entry in I guarantee you whatever would have happened would have happened either way. 1/230,000,000 is way too small to be statistically significant and then technically you're still at the mercy of your state representatives.
 
yogurt, I see what you're getting at now, and I appreciate the idea of making sure people justify their vote. I just don't see any meaningful implementation being fair or accurate, much less constitutional. some BS pseudoscientific thing would be done, much like the mess that is being made by second-rate statisticians/scientists trying to quantify everything (like standardized tests, etc).

anyway, in an ideal world, everyone would do what I do, which is only vote on issues and people whom I'm informed about (which is what you're advocating) but also only when I feel there is a clear choice based on my values. this latter requirement could be expanded to a score based on how strongly you prefer a candidate. let's say majority of people don't even notice the difference between coke and Pepsi, but a certain percentage strongly prefer coke because pepsi makes them violently ill. the best system would give those people's votes more weight.

anyway this becomes way too complex way too quickly, so, kind of like fantasy football, you gotta pick a relatively simple scoring scheme and stick with it. that's how I feel at least: it's a good idea you're putting forth and reasonable in an ideal world, but probably wouldn't be beneficial given the real world.
 
 
 
....but discrimination defines the context of limiting a person's the right to vote....

and for the people who say votes don't matter anyway...

explain why so much time and energy is spent on redistricting if the voting population has no power?

so much money spent rallying and funding voter drives?

seems like all these "woke" people are just daydreaming
True, I worded that badly, in that case then yes, we should discriminate against people who don't know what they are doing. You can vote for whoever or whatever you want, as long as you know that is what you are voting for... basically don't blindly do something and that's okay. I think that's reasonable.

Individually, no, your vote does not matter. The voting population as a whole does (and that still relies on the Electoral College doing its job), but if for whatever reason got into a car accident or just slept through the entire voting period and couldn't put an entry in I guarantee you whatever would have happened would have happened either way. 1/230,000,000 is way too small to be statistically significant and then technically you're still at the mercy of your state representatives.
what does the electoral college have to do with local and state elections?

you do know it's possible to vote more than once every 4 years right?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom