It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Actually, constructive dialog is always considered a good thing for presidents to do. Putin and his govt are a known long-time adversary of the U.S.; not an ally.
Former presidents have been careful when dealing with, talking to, engaging with known adversaries of our country. They have also kept a distance from and careful in their words regarding dictators or other countries, regimes that have massive human rights violations, things like that (one example: Duerte).
All we have learned about Trump as president, all we have learned about Putin's ideas concerning the U.S. and Europe as well ... that does not point to this being a chat where we can become friends and have a cohesive, mutually beneficial plan of action for our future. It doesn't. Trump was all for lifting sanctions against Russia even before he was sworn in.
I am not against communication, but I am sure that this upcoming meeting will not stand firmly in America's interest, nor anybody's interest in the world except Putin.
I agree, but Obama was lauded and cheered at for his Iran deal, which was different how?
What for? I hope it s pleasure, and nothing wrong?
What was the alternative? Sanctions going on forever, or perhaps war?
North Korea and South Korea are making smaller but definite positive steps themselves, to somewhat alleviate the threat of war (bear with me, it is ongoing) totally aside from Trump and the summit. Nobody wants war there, which would guarantee millions in South Korea killed, no matter how swift retaliation came.
He's no longer the President, though. He wasn't perfect, no President is, but he was a hell of a lot better than who we have now.
Anyway, we have to deal with the present situations and too much "What about this ...?" comparisons are fine for later discussions if you want to, but do not usually further the current focus (most "whatabout"ism chat distracts).
I think there is too much focus on the weapons, and not enough on the offender. Remove assault weapons from the equation, the offender will use a non-AW semi auto rifle. Remove non-AW semi auto rifles from the equation, the offender will use a handgun. Remove handguns from the equation, the offender will use a pipe bomb. Remove explosives from the equation, the offender run down people in a truck.
The root of the issue is the person committing the crime, but we ignore them. You mention known violent criminals and mental health. THAT is what I feel needs to be addressed. Whether its marginalized youths, extremist views, antisocial and asocial tendencies, repeat offending, hyper political beliefs, and so on, the warning signs are often there. We need to raise the standard of how we respond to these people. Parents, friends, teachers, coworkers, and even law enforcement sometimes see the signs but fail to act.
Seriously, for example...
How does this reduce mass shootings?
How does this reduce mass shootings?
How does this reduce mass shootings?
What is the definition of military style weapons. Fully automatic, semi automatic, appearance and cosmetic features, caliber, manufacturer? Are you simply referring to assault weapons? Then what is the definition of an assault weapon?
What happens with these weapons that are currently owned? Confiscation? Buyback?
You may or may not be surprised to find many gun owners will agree that all firearm purchases should require background checks. However, majority of purchases already do require background checks anyway. ALL purchases from gun stores and FFL dealers (including online sales and gun shows) require background checks.
I feel like too many people believe that there is a gaping loophole that countless people are exploiting allowing for background-check-free sales. I imagine a lot of this idea comes from the phrase "gun show loophole". This term has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with private party firearm sales. Person-A can sell Person-B a firearm, without a background check, so long as the seller doesn't knowingly sell to someone who does not reside in the same state or is a prohibited person. You want that to end? Change your verbiage from "gun show loophole" to "private party sales".
Additionally, several states require all private party firearm sales to be conducted though FFl dealers. Many gun owners, however, would be willing to perform checks themselves if the background system was made available to private persons. Only FFL holders have access the NICS background check system.
I guarantee gun owners will not support ammo background checks though.
There already is a database of persons who are prohibited from owning firearms. What there needs to be is a better reporting habits between local law enforcement and federal agencies for mental health and 5150 matters. This reporting system already exists but needs more focus since agencies aren’t required to report this information.
At all? So... waiting periods then, but how long? Waiting periods are often referred to as “cooling off” periods to allow someone to come to there senses before committing a violent act, but what about people who already own guns? Do they need to wait?
So what kind of quantities are we talking here? How could this even be enforced?
I am thinking of regular public contact, not hunting.
As far as I am concerned, none.
However, I know it was frequently done as an only option for someone to carry a handgun for self defense. Many counties have restrictive “good cause” requirements for concealed carry applicants, so many would resort to open carry which often was not restricted.
The main reason people open carry now days though it is for political statements or attention seeking. From what I’ve seen, gun owners generally hate open carriers and open carry in general.
I do want stricter gun laws, across the board, nation-wide. Some progress may be made, but that is all really an uphill struggle, I'm sorry to say.
How does this reduce mass shootings?
NO open carry. It advertises a gun culture and make gun violence seem more normal to a nut.
NO concealed carry for off duty officials or civvies (without special permit). It reduces the idea that everyone is armed 24/7. See above.
De-militarize local police forces. Reduces the need for nuts to feel armed because of living in what appears to be an occupied country.
NO military styled weapons for civvie ownership. Reduces the idea that war is cool, and firepower will save you when the chips are down like in the movies. Note: this mainly refers to style as full autos are not legal.
The rest is kind of not so important I guess. A 'cooling off' period of like maybe a week. Can you wait a week? If not then maybe you're a nut. I wait a week or more for a comic book or model I want desperately that I order online.
Thanks for your serious response to my serious interest in your opinion. Maybe we aren't so far apart in our views. Well, at least not as much as you & I might have thought at first. ;)
I laughed, although the actual actions of this administration and this new act they would love to pass are a very serious concern.
I have no idea.
I think things are not really thoroughly read, and certainly not proofed.
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/02/its-not-about-the-money-donald-trump-anthony-kennedy-and-the-kid-at-deutsche-bank/
A brief excerpt from the linked article: "What started the speculation about dirty money connecting Trump, Kennedy and his son is the revelation that Kennedy and Trump have had a longstanding relationship through their children and their children’s success. We knew about Trump’s dealings with Deutsche Bank, the only bank willing to do business with him. (It’s also, perhaps not coincidentally, the bank that seems to have the longest illegal relationship with laundered Russian money. In January 2017, it was fined $425 million by New York regulators to settle allegations that it helped Russian investors launder as much as $10 billion through its branches in Moscow, New York and London.) But we’re just finding out about the Trump relationship with Justin Kennedy, the justice’s son, who worked at Deutsche Bank for a decade."
FART is just silly stuff intended to take our minds off the Supreme Court justice who had once been a conscientious swing vote, but now is a reliable vote for the Trump-side. Suddenly he may be forced to recuse himself from the question of whether or not a sitting President can pardon himself -- so he needs to be replaced NOW, by a dependable vote for the Dark Side, before the November elections. Start paying attention to the man behind the curtain, damn it -- he's not just a cute, harmless humbug.
1. When you're not allowed to openly or concealed to carry guns unless you're going to a firing range/ shooting club, police can and will stop anyone who's carrying a gun. Hence the chance of a shooter ending up at his destination with a gun is a lot smaller.
The prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic weapons will stop the 'mass' shootings, as with a handgun it's far more difficult to kill 'masses'. compare the Las Vegas shooting to the recent Austen-one and you might get the picture.
Background checks don't consist of 'filling out a form', but of matching all government databases and seeing if you don't have any health issues. In my country it takes a year, and you have to be a consistent member of a shooting club to be allowed to own a gun.
But why not take over the Swiss laws? They have a lot of guns in the country and no mass shootings?