comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
SIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us."
] |
>
And we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still."
] |
>
Why would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid"
] |
>
It's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills."
] |
>
Neither is a debt ceiling.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt."
] |
>
Numismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling."
] |
>
Why does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews."
] |
>
Expanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?"
] |
>
It isn't serious because it isn't necessary.
It's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”"
] |
>
They're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle."
] |
>
Please explain how it would be a great idea.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea."
] |
>
I mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?
We're thinking too small here.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea."
] |
>
Considering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here."
] |
>
Interest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm."
] |
>
This is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁"
] |
>
It isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.
A serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out."
] |
>
That's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing."
] |
>
Because you can't make change for it
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts."
] |
>
Every vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it"
] |
>
As long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed."
] |
>
Awh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money."
] |
>
It's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection"
] |
>
sonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!
can it be any worse than what they are doing right now?
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry."
] |
>
Mr. Burns would just run off with it.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?"
] |
>
Maybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it."
] |
>
Do it anyway.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin."
] |
>
Charles Montgomery Burns is warming up his plane prop now!
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.",
">\n\nDo it anyway."
] |
>
Cutting Social Security benefits is the only serious idea.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.",
">\n\nDo it anyway.",
">\n\nCharles Montgomery Burns is warming up his plane prop now!"
] |
>
This would not be a problem if we rolled back the Trump Tax cuts, which were passed exactly to cause this problem.
Liz Cheney was right: "You F#%\^in did this, Kevin !"
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.",
">\n\nDo it anyway.",
">\n\nCharles Montgomery Burns is warming up his plane prop now!",
">\n\nCutting Social Security benefits is the only serious idea."
] |
>
And our Congressional representatives have the emotional and intellectual maturity of six-year-olds, our president is too old to drive a car, and we've been running ballooning deficits for three straight decades regardless of macroeconomic conditions.
An unserious idea is a great fit for an unserious government.
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.",
">\n\nDo it anyway.",
">\n\nCharles Montgomery Burns is warming up his plane prop now!",
">\n\nCutting Social Security benefits is the only serious idea.",
">\n\nThis would not be a problem if we rolled back the Trump Tax cuts, which were passed exactly to cause this problem.\nLiz Cheney was right: \"You F#%\\^in did this, Kevin !\""
] |
>
|
[
"Neither is defaulting on the goddamn debt.",
">\n\nPro-tip, anybody who starts talking about how serious they are and un-serious other people are when it comes to the national debt are almost always all wrong\ne; from one of the voices quoted dismissing the trillion dollar coin idea in this article, a classic \"very serious\" idea - \"In Confidential Memo, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Celebrated Unemployment as a 'Worker-Discipline Device'\"",
">\n\nA trillion dollar coin isn't a serious idea for anybody but somehow putting the U.S. government into default somehow just makes fucking sense to the Republicans. ffs",
">\n\nI stopped caring about serious in 2016 — if it can be done, sillily or stoically, to prevent economic meltdown — dress like the clowns you are and get it done",
">\n\nThere is no deal to be worked out. The spending was already passed by congress. Pay the bill. Don't fucking crash the world economy endangering some us.",
">\n\nSIMPSONS DID IT! Well, it was a bill, but still.",
">\n\nAnd we will entrust Elon Musk to deliver it to Ukraine for aid",
">\n\nWhy would anyone bother doing that? Just keep paying the bills, because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Make the Republicans in the House sue to stop paying the bills.",
">\n\nIt's more serious than the idea of defaulting on our debt.",
">\n\nNeither is a debt ceiling.",
">\n\nNumismatists mourn their only chance at network news interviews.",
">\n\nWhy does there even need to be a coin? If the bills continue to be paid like usual, does somebody get arrested? Does something get repossessed?",
">\n\nExpanding the money supply with cash isn’t under the executive branch’s direct purview. However, there is a loophole in that the executive branch is allowed to mint coins of arbitrarily large value with precious metals, hence the notion of “just make a big coin.”",
">\n\nIt isn't serious because it isn't necessary.\nIt's literally unconstitutional to not honor the debt of the united states. A debt ceiling is an artificial and unconstitutional obstacle.",
">\n\nThey're just not willing to admit that minting the coin is a great idea.",
">\n\nPlease explain how it would be a great idea.",
">\n\nI mean... why not just mint a $100 trillion Dollar coin and payoff the national debt alltogether?\nWe're thinking too small here.",
">\n\nConsidering the wide spectrum of financial knowhow present in this thread (or specifically the depths of ignorance), I'm honestly not totally confident in your sarcasm.",
">\n\nInterest rate hikes, tax hikes, or massive inflation. Pick your weapon. 😁",
">\n\nThis is Kevin McCarthy’s headache. Don’t expect the Democrats to bail him out.",
">\n\nIt isn't a serious idea. What country would trust the US after doing this? Instead of standing by our debts, we're just telling every other country that no, we won't pay our debts but here's a magical coin that will make it seem like we do.\nA serious political party, wouldn't even risk us defaulting on our debts, let alone try to hold the American tax payer hostage over it which is what the GOP is currently doing.",
">\n\nThat's not what the coin would do. It would allow the government to continue paying its bill without the artificial debt ceiling limitations. The point of it is to remove the debt ceiling lever from the Republicans -- you know, the unserious political party that's currently advocating defaulting on debts.",
">\n\nBecause you can't make change for it",
">\n\nEvery vending machine in the country will have to be upgraded and connected by pneumatic tube to Fort Knox. They'd have to be fitted with stickers warning people to stand back while change was dispensed.",
">\n\nAs long as they don't spit out those annoying $1 coins that no one thinks is real money.",
">\n\nAwh but I want a $1 trillion coin for my coin collection",
">\n\nIt's an unserious solution to an unserious problem. Symmetry.",
">\n\nsonofabitch....LET'S DO IT!\ncan it be any worse than what they are doing right now?",
">\n\nMr. Burns would just run off with it.",
">\n\nMaybe I missed it but nowhere in this article did I see anyone make a serious arguement against the minting of a $ Trillion coin. Just sayin.",
">\n\nDo it anyway.",
">\n\nCharles Montgomery Burns is warming up his plane prop now!",
">\n\nCutting Social Security benefits is the only serious idea.",
">\n\nThis would not be a problem if we rolled back the Trump Tax cuts, which were passed exactly to cause this problem.\nLiz Cheney was right: \"You F#%\\^in did this, Kevin !\"",
">\n\nAnd our Congressional representatives have the emotional and intellectual maturity of six-year-olds, our president is too old to drive a car, and we've been running ballooning deficits for three straight decades regardless of macroeconomic conditions. \nAn unserious idea is a great fit for an unserious government."
] |
Specs:
- Osume Year of the Tiger
- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition
- TTC Tiger linear switches
|
[] |
>
Wait I thought this year was a cat
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches"
] |
>
Vietnamese zodiac - cat
Other East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit
idk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat"
] |
>
Amazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know."
] |
>
If Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one"
] |
>
But it’s year is the rabbit. Can’t use it sorry
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one",
">\n\nIf Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe"
] |
>
That's lovely keycap! Cat family is always right.
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one",
">\n\nIf Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe",
">\n\nBut it’s year is the rabbit. Can’t use it sorry"
] |
>
Just a short 11 years before the year of the tiger
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one",
">\n\nIf Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe",
">\n\nBut it’s year is the rabbit. Can’t use it sorry",
">\n\nThat's lovely keycap! Cat family is always right."
] |
>
We can just say its the year of the cat
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one",
">\n\nIf Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe",
">\n\nBut it’s year is the rabbit. Can’t use it sorry",
">\n\nThat's lovely keycap! Cat family is always right.",
">\n\nJust a short 11 years before the year of the tiger"
] |
>
|
[
"Specs:\n- Osume Year of the Tiger\n- Akko M006 Year of the Tiger Edition\n- TTC Tiger linear switches",
">\n\nWait I thought this year was a cat",
">\n\nVietnamese zodiac - cat\nOther East Asia countries zodiac - rabbit\nidk if Vietnam is the only country with a cat for this year but this is all I know.",
">\n\nAmazing! Now you need to make a year of the rabbit one",
">\n\nIf Akko makes a rabbit keeb maybe",
">\n\nBut it’s year is the rabbit. Can’t use it sorry",
">\n\nThat's lovely keycap! Cat family is always right.",
">\n\nJust a short 11 years before the year of the tiger",
">\n\nWe can just say its the year of the cat"
] |
This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 "Nice" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.
This kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.
|
[] |
>
Totally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back."
] |
>
It's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar.."
] |
>
I just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors."
] |
>
I'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level."
] |
>
This is getting weird, guys.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime."
] |
>
Eh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird.
I feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys."
] |
>
At this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them.
Tighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important.
Also, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever."
] |
>
Something about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread."
] |
>
So this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies"
] |
>
but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?
He was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy.
That's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges.
The statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?"
] |
>
How are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc."
] |
>
The easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.
It’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?"
] |
>
No I mean
We shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better."
] |
>
It's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage."
] |
>
Boy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point."
] |
>
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney"
] |
>
Maybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country."
] |
>
Put em all away
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence"
] |
>
Oh noes!! Now we’re all on the pill!
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence",
">\n\nPut em all away"
] |
>
Careful now. In another year, saying you're on the pill will probably land you on death row in red states.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence",
">\n\nPut em all away",
">\n\nOh noes!! Now we’re all on the pill!"
] |
>
Leveling the playing field for 2024 guys.
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence",
">\n\nPut em all away",
">\n\nOh noes!! Now we’re all on the pill!",
">\n\nCareful now. In another year, saying you're on the pill will probably land you on death row in red states."
] |
>
|
[
"This appears to be another example of unintentional spillage and I think it points more towards the fact that much of the VP's daily work life involves classified content. There is a huge volume of this stuff swirling around them. Most of it isn't plans to the B-69 \"Nice\" Bomber either. We're talking schedules, meeting notes, agendas, policy positions, copies of briefings and more mundane stuff.\nThis kind of spillage is in sharp contrast to carting off boxes of classified content and then refusing to give it back.",
">\n\nTotally agreed. I like that term ... unintentional spillage. I should use thar..",
">\n\nIt's official terminology, AFAIK. My uncle's brother's cousin held a security clearance, like 3-5 million other Americans, most of them ~~nephew's brother's cousins~~ second cousins of redditors.",
">\n\nI just only have public trust, like everyone else I work with, but I wouldn't mind getting a higher level.",
">\n\nI'm sure Republicans will jump all over starting an investigation into this. Right? Right?! Because as they say having classified docs at his house after he leaves office is a crime.",
">\n\nThis is getting weird, guys.",
">\n\nEh. I feel like it's not thaaat weird. \nI feel like the only one that may have been criminal/malicious was Trump’s hoarding of them. Pence is a fuck head but I don't think he is traitorous, and Biden is just old and has been in government forever.",
">\n\nAt this point, I would think that it might be common, esp between him and Biden. If I were Obama and others, I would do my own personal sweep just in case. I still have old copies of documentation going back about 15 years. Until I throw them out or shred them. \nTighter policies have to be created moving forward. However, having these documents is one thing, and having these documents to hopefully sell ro out enemies or ro hlamail rhe government is another thing. The intent is very important. \nAlso, if the person or people having the documents had appropriate permission to have the documents at one point of their life, that's one story, but if someone such as a basic clerical worker who should never had any documents in the first place had rhe documents, that's another story. Where I am, we always have security awareness training. I guess someone dropped the ball to be widespread.",
">\n\nSomething about old guys & classified docs that screams i watch too many spy movies",
">\n\nSo this is basically what we all assumed right ? All politicians are doing this, but now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?",
">\n\n\nbut now will this lessen Trump's chances of being charged ?\n\nHe was never in any danger of being charged merely for possessing the classified documents. If he'd claimed he didn't know he had them (and if there wasn't any way to prove otherwise), and then cooperated and returned everything immediately, he wouldn't have faced any legal jeopardy. \nThat's not because he's an ex-POTUS, it's because that's the way the laws are written. Apparently classified docs are frequently misplaced, and it was accidental they'd rather get the documents back than give someone an incentive to cover it up for fear of facing criminal charges. \nThe statutes listed in the MAL warrant weren't about merely possessing the docs, they were about obstruction of justice. Trump refused to cooperate, lied to the feds, had his lawyers lie to the court on his behalf, had boxes moved after receiving a subpoena (caught on surveillance cameras), etc.",
">\n\nHow are we this shit at keeping track of our sensitive information?",
">\n\nThe easiest way to hack a company is by hacking people through conversation and then accidentally slipping up.\nIt’s because we aren’t perfect. You just hope we learn and be better.",
">\n\nNo I mean\nWe shouldn't be finding classified shit everywhere, we should know where it is and have a clear record every time it changes hands. It shouldn't ever just be in someone's fucking garage.",
">\n\nIt's Oprah Winfrey meme and-you-and-you at this point.",
">\n\nBoy, I'd love to be a fly on his head, oops the wall, when this is discussed with his attorney",
">\n\nIf you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Republicans head's exploding all over the country.",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say than Trump declassified those documents for Pence",
">\n\nPut em all away",
">\n\nOh noes!! Now we’re all on the pill!",
">\n\nCareful now. In another year, saying you're on the pill will probably land you on death row in red states.",
">\n\nLeveling the playing field for 2024 guys."
] |
hear me out...
|
[] |
>
|
[
"hear me out..."
] |
TL;DR
A fresco depicting Hercules and originally from Herculaneum, a city destroyed along with Pompeii by the 79 A.D. eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was back in Italy Monday, along with 59 other ancient pieces illegally trafficked to the United States.
Italy said the returned works are worth more than $20 million (18 million euros) overall.
The returned pieces had been sold by art dealers, ended up in private U.S. collections and lacked documentation to prove they could be legally brought abroad from Italy.
Under a 1909 Italian law, archaeological objects excavated in Italy cannot leave the country without permission unless they were taken abroad before the law was made.
|
[] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
ROME - A fresco depicting Hercules and originally from Herculaneum, a city destroyed along with Pompeii by the 79 A.D. eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was back in Italy Monday, along with 59 other ancient pieces illegally trafficked to the United States.
Italy said the returned works are worth more than $20 million overall.
ADVERTISEMENT. The returned pieces had been sold by art dealers, ended up in private U.S. collections and lacked documentation to prove they could be legally brought abroad from Italy.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Italy^#1 pieces^#2 art^#3 returned^#4 more^#5
|
[
"TL;DR\n\nA fresco depicting Hercules and originally from Herculaneum, a city destroyed along with Pompeii by the 79 A.D. eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was back in Italy Monday, along with 59 other ancient pieces illegally trafficked to the United States.\nItaly said the returned works are worth more than $20 million (18 million euros) overall.\nThe returned pieces had been sold by art dealers, ended up in private U.S. collections and lacked documentation to prove they could be legally brought abroad from Italy.\nUnder a 1909 Italian law, archaeological objects excavated in Italy cannot leave the country without permission unless they were taken abroad before the law was made."
] |
>
|
[
"TL;DR\n\nA fresco depicting Hercules and originally from Herculaneum, a city destroyed along with Pompeii by the 79 A.D. eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was back in Italy Monday, along with 59 other ancient pieces illegally trafficked to the United States.\nItaly said the returned works are worth more than $20 million (18 million euros) overall.\nThe returned pieces had been sold by art dealers, ended up in private U.S. collections and lacked documentation to prove they could be legally brought abroad from Italy.\nUnder a 1909 Italian law, archaeological objects excavated in Italy cannot leave the country without permission unless they were taken abroad before the law was made.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nROME - A fresco depicting Hercules and originally from Herculaneum, a city destroyed along with Pompeii by the 79 A.D. eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was back in Italy Monday, along with 59 other ancient pieces illegally trafficked to the United States.\nItaly said the returned works are worth more than $20 million overall.\nADVERTISEMENT. The returned pieces had been sold by art dealers, ended up in private U.S. collections and lacked documentation to prove they could be legally brought abroad from Italy.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Italy^#1 pieces^#2 art^#3 returned^#4 more^#5"
] |
The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.
|
[] |
>
Like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s
But whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings."
] |
>
Are you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds."
] |
>
Quite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems "military" in purpose...
Completely farcical.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?"
] |
>
I understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical."
] |
>
Does less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up.
It's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed."
] |
>
I can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry."
] |
>
It gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.
Also, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing."
] |
>
Very few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time."
] |
>
neither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot."
] |
>
It is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?"
] |
>
yes
Regardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking."
] |
>
the funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying "he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s" but I'll get downvoted if I say "hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun"
EDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol."
] |
>
It's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.
What this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol."
] |
>
I don't even consider myself "anti-gun" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men."
] |
>
Both CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.
Banning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.
The “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers."
] |
>
Have you tried holding it sideways?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit."
] |
>
As a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.
No different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.
Buy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?"
] |
>
My wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry."
] |
>
So many shitty guns in the 80’s.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however...."
] |
>
We should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s."
] |
>
I’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.
What about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.
I don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained."
] |
>
The lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security."
] |
>
we have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting."
] |
>
plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem
They don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.
In other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun.
That is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police."
] |
>
and thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered.
we dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force.
one last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon."
] |
>
Right -- but now you are changing the topic.
You claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.
we dont trust the government to not be corrupt
The government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force."
] |
>
your right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us.
we do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is."
] |
>
You suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.
our voting system exploits that
The American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways.
An average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).
Americans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.
Parliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks.
In the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils."
] |
>
im not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.
take abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions."
] |
>
"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024"
Seriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.
The mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.