What do you think will become of the USA when leftist regain full control?

Some of those regulations are already having unintended consequences, and they do need to be changed. We have mentally unstable young men mass murdering children in their classrooms because we have been sloppy with data. HIPAA regulations are something we made. We can, and should, make changes, when something like a HIPAA privacy regulation deters public safety.

I understand the reluctance to label people with "mental illness." I don't want to infringe on their rights at all, but this is a settled matter. If you are mentally unstable, you do not have the right to a firearm. I do not understand the desire to allow as many people as possible, including those with mental instability, access to weapons. Most Americans do not own weapons. Only about 1/3 do, even though we have more guns than people.

I don't know that we can put consequence on a state, when data is not submitted to NICS in a timely fashion. However, if there are employees that are required, as part of their job, to submit that information, they certainly can be held accountable. We can't keep being sloppy with NICS data. We've already had several failures of the system that ended up with mass murder of innocents.

I'm not sure I agree with you that things like the NM compound training kids to be killers just go away. It may roll out of the news reports, but still move through the legal system. Just because it isn't actively being reported doesn't mean the issue is dead. It is not in the interest of the state, or the American people, to just let those people go, and I don't believe they have been let go. I believe they are being prosecuted.

 

Your last line (I made it bold) is my argument. Why isn't Congress fixing NICS? 90% of the American people want it fixed, and they also want universal background checks… but Congress does nothing because they are no longer responsive to their constituents, but rather their donors. Thus, we see the younger generations turning away from the party in power because they sit on their hands when their donors say so.

The younger generations are going to change the world, just as my generation did. They see the flaws in capitalism not being addressed. They see a corrupt and unresponsive Congress, and they are choosing a different path.

 

The government treats bank robbers different from people who don't rob banks. Different treatment for different citizens happens all the time and it doesn't violate any constitutional rights.
When states have laws that prohibit things, and SCOTUS orders them to stop it, how is it not SCOTUS forcing the states???

 

Correct, but it is not due process under the law or constitution.

There is no justification for denying a constitutional right just because some administrator thinks you might be a bad guy, or have a funny sounding or familiar name. Sen. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list; he got expedited treatment and got off it in about a month. Others have taken years.

 

The problem with “lists” is the non-judiciary/arbitrary process which negates the due process clause.

Yes, I’m one of those who, when asked about denying the mentally ill or criminals gun ownership rights and then was marked down as being “for” universal background checks. The surveys on this are very specific. In addition, while a person may be “for” UBCs, when it comes to implementing it, they change their minds when it comes to letting a grandson/daughter shoot their .22 without a “transfer permit” or having to give a 12 year old a UBC at a cost of $XX, the next step in the Democrat-driven process of denying people the Second Amendment by making it too costly for anyone but the Weinstein and Pelosi rich.

 

Yes, it's apparent there are disagreements. The act of abortion, in the minds of many, comes across as pure and simple murder of the most vulnerable of all. It is extremely difficult for anti-abortion activist to comprehend how humans can be so willing to end innocent human lives.

And you are, of course, referring to homosexual unions. I am not one to judge the right or wrong of this. Christians have a Bible which states these unions are a sin. Is that Bible the ultimate authority? To them yes. To those born homosexual no. But when I see homosexual people parading in public places exposing themselves to children, I become more inclined to see homosexuals as a negative influence on America.

What should be taken from all of this is that there are most certainly significant divisions in the beliefs of different people. And these beliefs are so strong that negotiation (by either side) is not an option. The question is, how will all these issues resolve? with some form of agreements between the sides? Or will it be with escalating tensions and eventually violence?

 

While I agree they are going to change the world (as they already are, sadly in most cases). I highly doubt this will be a positive thing.
They mostly see what they have been indoctrinated to see which is an agenda of intolerance and a propensity to push the agenda favored by elitists and Globalists, neither of which have the best interests of the common man in mind. They mostly care about themselves, being the most hedonistic, self-absorbed generation in American history.
They have become less literate and more ignorant, opting to spend vast amounts of their time immersed in solitary endeavors like their video games, or pseudo social interactions that only serve to give them a false sense of self importance such as Facebook and their cellphones while losing real social skills.

What they FAIL to see is this great land of opportunity they were blessed with. And so they are eager to do the bidding of the Globalists and transform America into something it was never intended to be, and something proven over and over again to be an abject failure every time.

 

You have the right to bear arms for ANY lawful purpose until your right is revoked via due process.

Your interpretation notwithstanding.

 

Actually you can still have a "mental illness" and not lose your rights.

There are over 200 "mental illnesses" in the DSM and include such things as your basic phobias, eating disorders, etc.

It's not enough to say someone is mentally ill, they must have a specific mental illness that makes them a danger to others. Most people experience depression at some time in their life, for example.

If you shouldn't be at risk of losing your freedom, you shouldn't be at risk of losing any of your rights.

You may look at gun rights and go "meh" if you're not personally concerned about it, but the fact is all of the rights in the BoR are just as important.

Whatever litmus test we have for loss of gun rights should be applied to freedom of speech or having troops quartered in your house.

I do agree that there needs to be better reporting of NICs, I just don't know how that can be done.

The state let the NM terror camp people go and weren't going to prosecute them. Go look for information on it and see if it doesn't make your blood boil.

The Feds had to step in.

 

The professional consensus is that there is no practical way to determine who, with some mental disorder or another, has a strong propensity to vent and violence. The estimate is that with 2 or 3 years of psychiatric counseling there is a 50% or so chance. The impetus for quick routine mental background checks is a backdoor way to confiscate the guns.

 

Oh I know.

Obama already tried that with the SSA nonsense.

 

Nine were under proposed rep budgets. It's the administration that proposes and signs the budget. Trickle down doesn't work and Keynesian is economics does. Republicans use dynamic scoring which is a way to fudge the math of economics. They have placated the rich....always have.https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...publican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/

 

And republicans wax lyrical about Chicken little posts

 

At what cost? 20 trillion US dollar debt left behind.

 

Gee has the US debt lowered under Trump?

 

Obama budgets dropped the yearly deficit by 2/3 over Bush. Trump is following the Reagan/ Bush story line, cut taxes on the rich while spending more....you have to balance the budget before you can stop the debt from increasing. At least all Dems make the attempt.....

 

Hopefully a bunch of far right states will succeed and we won't be forced to hold up their economies with federal tax money.

cause studies show that 9 of the 10 states that are most in debt to the federal government are far right red states. They pay the least in federal taxes and receive the most in federal aid.

You know what would happen if any of the red states seceded? We would stop subsidizing their economies, we would pull all military support, and leave them to raise and fund their own standing armies, we would pull out all federal institutions which would mean losing jobs and federal funding. We would pull out all federal infrastructure funding.

Like I said, red states on average use far more in federal funding than they pay in federal taxes. Their economies are basically dependent on the federal government. And I for one would love to see them try to make it on their own.

 

Sounds like a good idea. The problem is, the stares remain poor and still don't get it. That and 30 to 40 percent could be blue followers and would suffer along with them.

 

It's sad. Most of the Trump/ GOP supporters are being killed by Trump and the GOP policies, let alone the elite anti choice judges they support. They'll , the strip away Pre existing conditions and think they're getting rid of Obamacare.

 

Trickle down economics does too work. Keynesian might or might not. Dynamic budget/economic forecasting is the only realistic forecasting, but we use static forecasting because the math is easier. Like using algebra for calculating rocket trajectories is easier, but differential calculus is required to get it accurately. I'm not implying dynamic forecasting is accurate, just closer to reality than static forecasting.
I do agree that pinning blame for recessions is a very dicey thing to do, though simply saying who was president during the recession is way too rough..

 

Making stuff up does not help your credibility. Only one year was Obama's deficit less than Bush's worst, and that by a measly $20 billion. Most were 2 or 3 times bigger than Bush's worst. (Per chance is that were you got the 2/3 figure????)

 

That's factually incorrect.

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

 

That's the problem with those fanatical Trump haters. They post on this forum without having basic knowledge of mathematics. There is a reason why Obama was named the champion of debt. A good reason based on real figures.

Obama's real debt and deficit legacy

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/18/barack-obamas-real-debt-and-deficit-legacy/

But now we are experiencing an historical revisionism about the fiscal record during the slow-growth Obama years that is based on fantasy, not fact. Amazingly, Barack Obama is being heralded as a deficit slayer, who helped get our fiscal house in order. What’s next? Richard Nixon was really a ***** cat?

 

The left will continue the march they've been on since FDR took office and won't stop until the U.S. is Venezuela. Thanks to FDR, the bureaucracy in Washington is firmly leftist and they will rule.

 

You guys will take your mythical memes and dreams to your grave. Right: the $800 billion or so American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in January 2009 and Obama's massive 2009 budget passed in March 2009 was all Bush's fault. You'd deny the sunrise if you couldn't blame Trump for it.