"It asks the Senate to take action on two bills passed in February by the U.S. House of Representatives to strengthen background checks for gun purchases."

Time to "ask" if this does anything at all other than making politicians/gun control supporters feel good. Both suspects in the El Paso and Dayton shootings passed background checks. What's being done about what happens on the streets of Baltimore, Chicago, and St. Louis where more people are shot/killed vs. recent mass shootings? Background checks on legal gun purchases are not going to stop this.

We're passed the "common sense gun safety" phase on this issue too. Several Democrats running for President want an "assault weapons" (whatever that is) ban and a mandatory "buy back" program. Another example of no common sense from gun control advocates - blaming a certain kind of gun that is already rarely used in crime for mass shootings, confiscating it from those having nothing to do with mass shootings/violence, and then expecting violence to decrease afterward.

Deaths per capita by state from the CDC: Web Link

This site, Refinery29, just posted gun possession laws for every state: Web Link I didn't look at all of them, but these states have no registration, no waiting period, no assault weapons ban, and no background checks on private sales: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming. There could be more. Other states weren't much better.

Some national law of minimum requirements for all states is needed.

@MichaelB,

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

You are the one who wants to ban certain kinds of guns and not other kinds.

Kathleen,

When you purchase a weapon from a store you must pass a FBI background check before you get the weapon. By federal law your weapon is registered for a period of 6 months. Why wait to take it home?people who have been prescribed mind altering drugs or are under the care of a mental health professional should be placed in the national data base as part of the FBI check.

We should also be putting pressure Leal and laws on Hollywood not to produce films or shows which use guns or are excessively violent. They might forced to act.

Here is something to ponder. In Alameda it’s impossible to get a concealed weapon permit but if you are caught with a concealed weapon it’s only a misdemeanor.

In Texas you apply for a LTC , take an 8 hour class where you are profiled, take a written test, have to score 170 out of 250 on the shooting test, are finger printed by an FBI affiliate. Must re qualify every 2 years but if are caught with a concealed weapon without an LTC it’s a felony, 1 year in state prison.

Pete, I think you just argued for a national standard. Right now, things are so willy nilly, you just need to travel to the right place to buy.

I think it will be and should be left up to the states. It’s all been already settled by the Supreme Court.

@Pete,

The second amendment was meant as way to protect against a tyrannical government. Why shouldn't it be applied that way?

>What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

What part of "A well regulated militia" do YOU not understand?

Please don’t take this as being snarky but there are some excellent handbooks on Amazon regarding the constitution, amendments, bill of rights, and the federalist papers. There is a handbook on amazon which is only $6.95. 2nd amendment covers more than defense against a bad government but also protection of life, family and possessions as rules by Supreme Court.


Kathleen, that link you posted was about gun mortality which includes suicides, police shootings, accidental discharge etc.

Yes, all gun violence Pete. I posted so we understand what is happening in each state and then also posted a link showing the laws in each state so we understand where the loosest regulations are.

As has been mentioned, protecting home and family and possessions does not require most of the weapons currently available. And even those are going to be completely useless against a bad government. As I just said on the other thread, the first three words of the second amendment are “a well regulated”. Let’s find a national minimum requirement for registering, waiting, licensing weapons.

>Please don’t take this as being snarky but there are some excellent handbooks on Amazon regarding the constitution, amendments, bill of rights, and the federalist papers. There is a handbook on amazon which is only $6.95. 2nd amendment covers more than defense against a bad government but also protection of life, family and possessions as rules by Supreme Court.

Please do take this as being snarky. You should educate yourself on what the law was until 2008. The court made it extraordinarily clear that the 2nd amendment was specifically entwined with militia's. The court ruled that the 2nd amendment did not protect the right to keep and bear a firearm that did not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In fact, prior to Heller they had never overruled a law on 2nd amendment grounds.

In 2008, a group of activist judges on supreme court decided to overrule hundreds of years of precedent... because?

Go educate yourself, then you can recommend a $6 book to me.

I knew that would make you angry Kitty. Libs always lash out when can’t state facts.

What is the Supreme Court's position on the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a hand gun unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Reaffirmed in 2011 McDonald versus city of Chicago

Yes, that has been the law for a whole 11 years. For the prior 200+ years, it was not the law. So much for precedent. Since you're bringing liberalism/conservatism into this, explain how throwing out 200 years of history for a new activist position is conservative?

Hint - it's not. It's judicial activism, an ideal "conservatives" claim to be against.

Kitty wrong again

Important events regarding gun legislation occurred in the following years.[6]

In 1791, the United States Bill of Rights were ratified which included the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which stated that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1934, with the abundance of gang related crime, such as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the National Firearms Act ("NFA") was signed into law under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration. The NFA is considered to be the first legislation to enforce gun control in the United States, imposing a $200 tax, equivalent to nearly $4,000 in 2019, on the manufacture and transfer of Title II weapons. It also mandated the registration of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, suppressors, and disguised or improvised firearms.

In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA") into law, requiring that all gun related businesses must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

In 1939, through the court case United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Congress could regulate interstate selling sawed-off shotguns through the National Firearms Act of 1934, deeming that such a weapon has no reasonable relationship with the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

In 1968, following the spree of political assassinations including: the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, President Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed congress for the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"). It repealed and replaced the FFA, regulated “destructive devices” (such as bombs, mines, grenades, and other explosives), expanded the definition of machine gun, required the serialization of manufactured or imported guns, banned importing military style weapons, and imposed a 21 age minimum on the purchasing of handguns from FFLs. The GCA also prohibited selling of firearms to felons and the mentally ill.

In 1986, contrary to prior gun legislation, the Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986), passed under the Ronald Reagan administration, enacted protections for gun owners. It prohibited a national registry of dealer records, limited ATF inspections to conduct annual inspections (unless multiple infractions have been observed), allowed licensed dealers to sell firearms at "gun shows" in their state, and loosened regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition. However the FOPA also prohibited civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986, and redefined "silencer" to include silencer parts.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after a White House press secretary who was disabled during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, was signed into law under the presidency of Bill Clinton. This act required that background checks must be conducted on gun purchases and established a criminal background check system maintained by the FBI.

In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was signed into law under the presidency of Bill Clinton, which included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, effectively banned the manufacturing, selling, and possession of specific military-style assault weapons such as AR-15 style rifles and banned high-capacity ammunition magazines that held over 10 rounds. Banned arms that were previously legally possessed were grandfathered. The ban expired in September 2004.

In 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment proposed by Kansas Representative, Todd Tiahrt, limited the ATF to only release information from its firearms trace database to only law enforcement agencies or a prosecutors in connection with a criminal investigation.

In 2005, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed into law under the presidency of George W. Bush. This act protected gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an "individual right to possess a firearm

People are still arguing about this ridiculously out of date amendment? It should be scrapped. Removed from the constitution.

BobB,

LOL!!!

Now you're just baiting...

Dan

Just a thought...but do you know that is easier to get a "real" firearm in California than it is to get a non-lethal weapon or means of self defense?

Uh, Pete, you realize you are making my point for me? We have a very long history (as you rightly identified) of sensible gun restrictions. All of those cases of gun restrictions were found to be constitutional. Until 2008, NO gun restriction legislation was found to be unconstitutional because for the entire history of the country the 2nd amendment was found to be specific to militias. It wasn’t until 2008 when a bunch of activist judges chose to legislate from the bench and undo 200 years of Supreme Court precedent that this philosophy changed. Can we go back to gun laws from yesteryear and make America great again please?

The purpose of the Constitution - and the 2A in specifically - was to limit the power of the government, not the citizen.

You can bet that those arguing for any changes in the Constitution do not have your best interests in mind.

Dan

"Uh, Pete, you realize you are making my point for me? We have a very long history (as you rightly identified) of sensible gun restrictions. All of those cases of gun restrictions were found to be constitutional. Until 2008, NO gun restriction legislation was found to be unconstitutional because for the entire history of the country the 2nd amendment was found to be specific to militias."

Uh, gun control supporters showing their true colors on this issue despite the "sensible gun restrictions" claims. Hint:really not sensible at all.

Washington DC essentially banned private gun ownership before the Supreme Court got involved. Nothing "common sense" about law abiding residents being told by city officials that they could NOT have a means of self defense in their residences while criminals had as many firearms as they wanted/did as they wished.

"Let’s find a national minimum requirement for registering, waiting, licensing weapons."

Let's not. There is no "right" to do anything in this case. Criminals won't bother with it, there is no crime prevention windfall by doing so, and it will eventually be used as a means of rationing legal gun ownership down to an acceptably low number if so called "progressives" get their way. They are already complaining about "too many guns" in our nation.

See what is involved with legally possessing a handgun in New York City. Nothing like going to the DMV, filling out forms, paying a fee, etc. Deliberately made difficult and expensive to do so.

Kitty,

Not sure where your 200 hundred years come from and I’m sure you are aware that until 1968 anyone without a permit could carry a loaded weapon, shotgun, rifle, or handgun anywhere in California openly including government buildings. Intercity violence picked up in the California inner cities after MLK murder and black armed themselves to patrol and police their communities and in response to this California passed the Mulford act stripping them of this right. Those are the facts. Got to go to work now.

A. Well. Regulated.

First three words of 2A.

We need a national, minimal standard. Leaving the states to be more strict if they like.

Filling out forms that are difficult and expensive. Think taxes. Part of life; you can handle it.

The second amendment is garbage. It should have been removed from the Constitution 100 years ago. Why are people still wasting time trying to interpret it rather than just get rid of it? What a foolish waste of time.

Kathleen

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a hand gun unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Reaffirmed in 2011 McDonald versus city of Chicago

Supreme Court ruling

"First three words of 2A.We need a national, minimal standard. Leaving the states to be more strict if they like.Filling out forms that are difficult and expensive. Think taxes. Part of life; you can handle it. "


Part of life;politicians/leaders from a major political party promoting this measure claiming that guns "cause" violence, treating criminals who abuse them as "victims", praising other nations that have already banned/confiscated them from people doing nothing wrong, and complaining law abiding citizens owning too many of them already/not "needing" to.

Apparently, you can not handle someone pointing this out and continue to promote the absurd idea that a gun licensing/ownership process will be somehow "objective" and "available" to those willing to comply - when it clearly will not be if gun control groups get their way. Or you just don't want people owning any guns in the first place and will not admit it.

The 2nd Amendment is considered by many as being sacred, but I think that it’s time for people to start seriously considering whether after about 200 years this Amendment is simply out-of-date. To my knowledge, none of the other advanced, industrialized democratic countries in the world have anything like a 2nd Amendment, and as democracies they seem to function just as well as our system of democracy, a fact that I haven’t seen any “pro-gun” supporter dispute. To say that the 2nd Amendment is crucial to our democracy is equivalent to saying that all of the advanced, industrialized, democratic countries of the world except for ours are doomed to failure, and I haven’t seen anyone claim that.

Pete, I haven’t said you can’t have guns.

MB, I don’t live in the extremes of either side. There are reasonable solutions and people. We need both.

Pete - You really need to take a history lesson. The reason we have a second amendment to begin with is because the founders were dead set against a standing army. They universally had the position that the citizenry would need to rise to the country's common defense in time of war (as a militia). As there would be no standing army, the citizens would need to provide the weaponry. This was the purpose for keeping and bearing arms. It had absolutely nothing to do with self defense or overthrowing the government, as wackjobs like to pretend.

Last I checked, we have the third largest (and most expensive by far) standing army in the world. Until a time that standing army goes away (as the founders intended), the need for a well armed militia is well passed.

Since you're all about what the founders wanted, should we disband the military? Bring slavery back? End women's suffrage? These were all ideas fully supported by the founders so must be the best thing for today's day and age, right??

>Reaffirmed in 2011 McDonald versus city of Chicago

Not reaffirmed. There was no individual right to a firearm until McDonald and Heller. Prior to that, the court was exceedingly clear that it was a collective right specifically tied to militias. Again, these cases were activist judges legislating from the bench and undoing hundreds of years of supreme court precedent so that a bunch of redneck wannabe soldiers can feel like they have a big dick.

>Uh, gun control supporters showing their true colors on this issue despite the "sensible gun restrictions" claims. Hint:really not sensible at all.

Yeah, this is much more sensible than gun restrictions:

Web Link

idrownkittens is correct to point out that the Heller supreme court decision was a clear act of judicial activism.

The problem is that the amendment is still in the constitution.

Have you ever noticed that Democrats/Socialists/Communists (BIRM) always want to mess with the 1st and 2nd Amendments?

Criminalizing speech and taking away legitimate and legal implements for self-defense would be the the start of some very interesting times if they ever got their way.

Dan

Dan, this tactic of yours: blaming certain people/parties, starting some other unrelated issue, and offering nothing of value—fish somewhere else.

Dan,

It’s because they hate this country and everything it stands for. The current Democrats are no different than the Nazi Party of the 1930’s. Disarm and silence the public and use the propaganda media to drive their points home. Create hatred of Jews etc. Kathleen it’s not a tactic of Dan’s but rather an obvious truth.

Only 48 percent of gun owners claim to own their guns for self defense. That’s a lot of guns out there that are not being used for self defense purposes.

A gun is many times more likely to be stolen by a bad guy than to be used in self defense. In fact, more people claim to be abducted by aliens every year than use a gun in self defense.

More than 70 percent of people support an assault weapons ban. More than 90 percent of people support more thorough background checks and mental health prohibitions. Yet for some reason, conservatives consistently refuse to allow even a vote on these issues.

This is a tyranny of the minority.

Philedelphia standoff is over:Web Link

Safe link Philadelphia Inquirer.

From the first paragraph:

"Police sources identified the gunman in a standoff at a Tioga apartment building that left six police officers injured as Maurice Hill, 36, a Philadelphia man with a lengthy history of gun convictions and of resisting attempts to bring him to justice."

Yes by all means, let's limit LEGAL gun ownership for law-abiding citizens so the upstanding Maurice Hill' of the world can illegally purchase their weapons of choice.

Right Kathleen, BobB and Wombat?

Dan

Kathleen,

"Dan, this tactic of yours: blaming certain people/parties, starting some other unrelated issue, and offering nothing of value—fish somewhere else."

The left has been doing this to the right for years. The old rules where a conservative like myself sit back and take it ARE OVER.

Sincerely,

Dan

Billie,

"The current Democrats are no different than the Nazi Party of the 1930’s. Disarm and silence the public and use the propaganda media to drive their points home."

Exactly.

Notice how they get the vapors when you speak sternly and insert facts into the conversation. They NEVER have an answer.

Tell them that if they changed the culture in their Democrat run and controlled cities, that the murder rate in the US would plummet and they call you a racist. Did you know that at the same time the two mass shootings happened in Dayton and El Paso that there were 51 people shot in Baltimore and Chicago alone?

That's right 31 and 51, respectively. And it happens every weekend in those cities, especially in the Summer. Now multiply that by the top 30 cities in the US and what do you have? A cultural and financial catastrophe that the DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES created.

Crickets from the Democrats, other than to accuse conservative of being Nazis.

Got that? CONSERVATIVES are the Nazis. /s

And there sits Kathleen, defensive because of my telling the truth.

Dan

Idrownkittens,

See my comment with link above.

Dan

Some interesting poll results of American views on guns - from Fox News no less. Even Republican views on guns are changing. This poll is also significant because Trump is always trying to see which way the wind is blowing and it will be very difficult for him to discount and ignore the results of a Fox News poll:

“Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down”
Fox News, 8/14/19

“In the wake of two mass shootings, OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN MAJORITIES OF VOTERS favor background checks on gun buyers and taking guns from people who are a danger to themselves or others, according to the latest Fox News Poll.”

“An equal number, 56 percent, place a great deal of blame for mass shootings on easy access to guns and a lack of services for mentally ill people with violent tendencies. Four in 10 blame expressions of white nationalism (40 percent) and inadequate parenting (39 percent). About a third point to sentiments expressed by President Trump (34 percent) and anti-immigrant sentiment (33 percent). Less than a quarter say violent video games (23 percent) and sentiments expressed by Democratic political leaders (15 percent).”

“On specific measures to reduce gun violence, there’s broad support for requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (90 percent) and passing “red flag” laws that allow police to take guns from people shown to be a danger to themselves or others (81 percent). Fewer, although still a sizable 67 percent majority, favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. That’s up from 60 percent in 2018. Support includes over half of those living in a gun-owner household (53 percent). Over half of independents (58 percent) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (86 percent) favor a ban. Republicans split 46-46 percent, which is a shift from 2018 when it was 41 favor vs. 56 oppose.”

“Approval of Trump’s response to the shootings stands at 37 percent, and 46 percent think the administration has made the country less safe from mass shootings. For comparison, 32 percent think Trump has made the country less safe from Islamic terrorist attacks.In addition, more than three times as many believe a mass shooting by an American citizen is a bigger threat than a terrorist attack by Islamic terrorists (60-17 percent). And 32 percent are less likely to attend a large-scale event since the recent shootings -- that’s 12 points higher than the 20 percent who felt that way after 9/11 (October 2001).”

”Meanwhile, the president’s job ratings are increasingly negative in the shooting aftermath, as 59 percent say Trump is “tearing the country apart,” compared to 31 percent who feel he’s “drawing the country together.” Two years ago it was 56-33 percent (August 2017).”
Fox News article: Web Link
. . . . . .

Dan,

and the. They resort to cutting and pasting because that is what you were taught to do in today’s schools system when you are not bright nor knowledgeable enough to espouse your own facts or opinion.

I said 2+ years ago that we were lighting the fuse with this sanctuary city stuff. We, California, decide we are not going to abide by federal immigration law and now what’s happened? California wants the Feds to impose new gun laws. All but 2 counties in Arizona have declared themselves sanctuary 2nd amendment counties as have New Mexico and Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Texas will not allow federal infringement on Texans current guns rights. Like I said we lit the fuse.

"Yeah, this is much more sensible than gun restrictions:"

No, banning everything in Washington DC was not "sensible" (except to the far left). That's what the Supreme Court ruled on after city residents filed a lawsuit because elected officials prohibited them from defending themselves.

We have more mass shootings now - with more "sensible" restrictions on guns than in the past. Why? Because maybe it just is not the "fault" of the gun? Too difficult for "progressives" to figure this one out. Just demand nationwide confiscation schemes and blame the gun manufacturers instead.

@MichaelB :”We have more mass shootings now - with more "sensible" restrictions on guns than in the past. Why? Because maybe it just is not the "fault" of the gun?”

“Fault” of the gun? You accuse others of oversimplifying things, but you’re the ONLY person on this forum who has written the simplistic phrase ‘“fault” of the gun’. Maybe you should spend more time trying to really read and understand the views of others rather than trying to reduce them to simplistic phrases that only reflect your own simplistic interpretation of their views?

Just as funny as Billie and DKHSK bringing up “Nazis” in a discussion on gun control. Billie and DKHSK really need to go read up on “Godwin’s Law” to avoid embarrassing themselves further on discussion forums.

Voice of America? Come on your better than that, maybe not.

It’s government funded so that says a lot there. Pull of the Nazi Party platform and compare it to the present Democratic Party (Nazi) platform and you’ll see similarities.

DKHSK,

I want to remove the second amendment from the Constitution, but yes, you are correct, I also want to mess with the first amendment.

On a recent visit to DC on a business trip, I stopped by the National Archives which had early drafts of the Bill of Rights on display. By the way, the National Archives is really well done, I highly recommend a visit. I saw an early draft of the first amendment that, I believe had the establishment clause but not the freedom of religion clause. I wish that version had been adopted, but alas it wasn't politically expedient at the time.

Bottom line for me is:

1. Remove the second amendment completely from Constitution.

2. Remove the freedom of religion clause from the first amendment, but leave in the part about government not establishing an official religion.

Wombat,

Simple experiment:

Put a loaded gun on a table and walk away from the room.

What does the gun do?

Now put that same gun in a criminals hand. What does the gun do?

Why is the gun to blame for what a human does with it?

What MichaelB says is 'simple', not "simplistic.

Dan

BobB,

LOL.

Ok Bob.

Dan

Dan, “The left has been doing this to the right for years.” I’m not the left; two wrongs don’t make you right.
Billie, not an obvious truth—not even a truth.
Dan, no crickets from me. I posted plenty of facts. I’ve looked for reasonable compromise and you refuse. “A well regulated”—can’t skip over that to get to just the part of 2A you like to bandy about.
Billie, who do you think is posting out here—“today’s school system”?
BobB, disappointed. Why no freedom of religion?

From a CNN article:

“President Barack Obama then pushed to renew the assault weapons ban during his term; it was offered as an amendment during the last major congressional debate over guns -- back in 2013 in the aftermath of the murders of more than two dozen people, including 20 children, in Newtown, Connecticut.

“The amendment to renew the assault weapons ban was rejected 60-40 by the Democratic-controlled Senate, with 14 Democratic senators voting against it.”
NAYs ---60
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Hagan (D-NC)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
King (I-ME)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)

Kathleen,

" I’m not the left; two wrongs don’t make you right."

That's what we used to say, Kathleen, but the left doesn't quite see it that way.

Look, we're in a culture war, like it or not. The left has been merciless with politicians on the right. Reagan, both Bushes, McCain, Romney, now Trump; ALL RACIST NAZI'S.

Go ahead, look it up.

We're simply playin the game as started by the Democrats and Trump is the instrument. Now you and the left don't like it.

Tough.

Dan

Kathleen,

"with 14 Democratic senators voting against it."

Majority Red State Democrats.

They know where their bread is buttered.

Dan

“Tough”. Not much of a statement; we could both keep saying it.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing redeemable about our current president.

I get why those Dems voted that way—just proving this isn’t about parties really. Just who is applying pressure where at any given moment.

Kathleen,

"I see absolutely nothing redeemable about our current president."

Blame the Democrats. They started the fight.

Politics will never be the same unless one side decides to stop attacking the other with group identity politics.

Dan

This from the guy who keeps pointing out affiliations as if it will explain everything.

Kathleen,

Please explain how more restrictive gun laws would have prevented yesterdays mass shooting in Philadelphia.

Dan

Kathleen,

"This from the guy who keeps pointing out affiliations as if it will explain everything."

Again...blame the democrats. They continue to call conservatives racist and Nazi.

Punching back twice as hard is a good thing. It clarifies the mind of only the smart recipients.

Dan

I think Trump has given people with racist, xenophobic, masogonistic, superiority complexes a platform—intentional or not. But I don’t know those spouting off are also the religious right or Republicans or Nazis or anything but people with alternative, if somewhat uncharitable, opinions.

If they would stop with the racist rhetoric, the racist policies, and opening concentration camps, that might reduce some of the comparisons.

The Nazi Party (Democrat’s) hate it when the right punches back. They are not used to it but it’s the new norm.

Nothing about punching, in either direction, is normal. Nor should it be acceptable to either side. What happened to reasonable people looking for solutions?

And don’t tell me “they started it” cuz no matter what side you think you represent, it’s childish.

It’s been non stop for years. Bible and guns, the police behaved stupidly, fast and furious, Benghazi, tea baggers, deplorables, beyond redemption, Russia Russia Russia, racists come on enough is enough.

[removed]

Kathleen,

"I think Trump has given people with racist, xenophobic, masogonistic, superiority complexes a platform—intentional or not."

Oh? Please give us a citation on whom.

Dan

Treason,

"and opening concentration camps"

Trump didn't open up and detention centers genius, but guess who did?

Oh and in case you didn't know it, all who are in those 'concentration camps' can leave anytime they like if they chose to go back to their homeland.

Some 'concentration camp', that is, eh? Never heard of people actually wanting to stay in one on purpose.

You're a real smart one.

Dan

Kathleen,

"...reasonable people looking for solutions?"

Why do you always want to be the arbiter of what is "reasonable"?

"Resonable gun law"..."reasonable dialog"..."reasonable rhetoric".

You know one thing that Trump conservatives have learned from Democrats and squishy Republicans?

When you are "middle of the road", all you get is run over.

No more.

And by the way for all you so-called inclusive Democrats and squishy Republicans out there that love to play identity politics: I'm half-mexican (my mothers side), so be careful in calling me a "racist" follower of Trump.

Dan

Billie, I don’t condone anyone’s bad behavior. Nor do I agree it’s okay to use it as an excuse to behave badly too.
Dan, Who? Listen to people at his rallies. A cornucopia of bad behavior. (See response to Billie as well.)
If we’ve learned anything from Ancestry or 23andMe, few people are 100% whatever.
Reasonable is not a four letter word; it is a way to live peacefully in a complex world.