slugsrbad wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Per NBC Tillerson almost resigned in July and called Trump a moron. Pence talked him into staying and helped with interactions between Trump and the state department

new reports are that he called him a fucking moron

Donald J. Trump wrote:An interesting cartoon that is circulating.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Only 30% of respondents in a YouGov poll last month said they approved of Macron, down from 43% in June. It was a sharper fall over the same period than that of his predecessor, Francois Hollande, who was so disliked by the end of his five-year term that he didn’t bother seeking reelection.

As Macron begins the toughest part of his agenda — trimming France’s social welfare system to make the economy more competitive, and working with Germany to promote deeper European integration — he could confront opposition not only from powerful labor unions but also from middle-of-the-road voters who are skeptical that he can succeed where previous French leaders have failed.

The numbers aren’t altogether surprising, given that Macron won just 24% of the vote in the first round of presidential balloting and many voters, including Barbier, chose him in the second round mainly to reject Le Pen. Aides are banking that his support will return, but they also have been busy attending to self-inflicted crises.

He alienated conservatives by engaging in an ugly public spat with the army, France’s most beloved institution, over his proposal to cut nearly $1 billion in defense spending in order to meet EU deficit targets. The army chief, Gen. Pierre de Villiers, resigned in protest after Macron suggested in newspaper interviews that he was angry at having his decisions questioned.

Last month, he annoyed liberals when he called opponents of his economic reforms “lazy” — recalling an incident from 2016 when, as Hollande’s economy minister, he retorted to a pro-labor demonstrator who jeered at his well tailored suit: “The best way to afford a suit is to work.”

Macron’s reforms, unveiled in August, aim to loosen restrictions on businesses to spur hiring and innovation. The main changes reduce payouts for laid-off workers and allow small- and medium-sized companies, which employ more than half the French workforce, to bypass powerful trade unions and negotiate directly with employees over working conditions.

thephan wrote:Remember, you might be on the no fly list, but that will not keep you from owning a weapon. That could not be put into law in the last year and a half or so.

pacino wrote:Feinstein introduced a bump stock ban bill, a smaller version of the bill she introduced in 2013 that didn't get a vote.

you can also go down the link rabbit hole there and see more reporting Mother Jones did on it

JUburton wrote:The ACLU is also against the mental illness bill that's gone around. And they make a lot of good points.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-conte ... 1/ACLU.pdf

pacino wrote:i'd like to well regulate guns themselves and access to them

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:i'd like to well regulate guns themselves and access to them

i'd like to repeal the second amendment but hey, gotta start somewhere.

the bump stock thing pisses me off because, yes, obviously those should be banned but someone with 20 AR-15s firing semi-automatic could have caused almost as much carnage. its a miltary weapon.

Tara Golshan
So you think the crowd should had been armed in Las Vegas?

Joe Barton
Look, there’s no easy answer. I think if that guy had known there were armed personnel with the types of weapons he had that would immediately shoot at him, that might have deterred him. I don’t know. The guy was on the 32nd floor of a hotel.

Tara Golshan
The concept of people having machine guns at a concert is —

Joe Barton
I didn’t say I advocate that.

Tara Golshan
Okay, just trying to clarify.

Joe Barton
I think if the state legislature in Nevada — I don’t know what their state law on conceal[ed] carry and the right to carry weapons — but had they allowed it and had there been several thousand people in the crowd that were licensed under state law [to carry] and to use it to defend themselves, and he knew that, it might have made a difference. [Editor’s note: Nevada does, in fact, issue permits for concealed carry. No permit is required for open carry.] And it may not have. Again, this guy preplanned this. You don’t bring a dozen weapons — several of them semiautomatic modified to be automatic, with boxes of ammunition and more in your car — that’s not a spur-of-the-moment thing.

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:i'd like to well regulate guns themselves and access to them

i'd like to repeal the second amendment but hey, gotta start somewhere.

the bump stock thing pisses me off because, yes, obviously those should be banned but someone with 20 AR-15s firing semi-automatic could have caused almost as much carnage. its a miltary weapon.

did you read the vox q&a with 5 house republicans? it'll make your head spin:

Tara Golshan
So you think the crowd should had been armed in Las Vegas?

Joe Barton
Look, there’s no easy answer. I think if that guy had known there were armed personnel with the types of weapons he had that would immediately shoot at him, that might have deterred him. I don’t know. The guy was on the 32nd floor of a hotel.

Tara Golshan
The concept of people having machine guns at a concert is —

Joe Barton
I didn’t say I advocate that.

Tara Golshan
Okay, just trying to clarify.

Joe Barton
I think if the state legislature in Nevada — I don’t know what their state law on conceal[ed] carry and the right to carry weapons — but had they allowed it and had there been several thousand people in the crowd that were licensed under state law [to carry] and to use it to defend themselves, and he knew that, it might have made a difference. [Editor’s note: Nevada does, in fact, issue permits for concealed carry. No permit is required for open carry.] And it may not have. Again, this guy preplanned this. You don’t bring a dozen weapons — several of them semiautomatic modified to be automatic, with boxes of ammunition and more in your car — that’s not a spur-of-the-moment thing.

traderdave wrote:I probably have a much too simplistic view of things like this but when I served on my local Zoning Board our decisions on matter before us essentially boiled down to one argument - in terms of the public good, do the benefits of a particular project outweigh the detriments.

Regarding something like a bump stock, I cannot imagine a single benefit to the public good created by allowing them. My understanding is that a bump stock serves one purpose; it allows its user to shoot more bullets in a given time period. That lone benefit is likely to be enjoyed only by someone seeking to do harm to others. It is the same thing with the silencers that Rs are so desperate to protect.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

thephan wrote:Remember, you might be on the no fly list, but that will not keep you from owning a weapon. That could not be put into law in the last year and a half or so.

I mean, whether you like it or not, the right to bear arms is guaranteed by our Constitution. Are you really in favor of a secret, administrative list (that disproportionately includes brown-skinned people) overruling our constitutional rights without Due Process?

That's normally the type of thing that liberals get fired up about. Just sayin'.

The ACLU is currently litigating with the feds over the inadequacy of the process to get your name off the No Fly List. Right now, your main recourse is to file a form with DHS. Even if they add a judicial remedy, that's backwards... you shouldn't have to go to court to prove why you're entitled to your Constitutional rights.

Gimpy wrote:What if to buy a gun you need to be registered with a state militia? It would be totally separate from the federal government and the militia can regulate its members however it wants. Then if a member of the militia or gun belonging to a member of the militia kills someone illegally or in an accident, treat it like a strict liability deficiency in training/screening and everyone in the militia loses their gun privileges for two years or something. Limit the number of militias per state to like 1 per 100,000 citizens.

There are probably a million holes in this suggestion, but it’s just a spitball idea. It keeps the big bad federal government away from guns, should jive with the second amendment, and creates some actual accountability/self regulation for gun owners. If you knew a member of your militia going crazy/being reckless would lead to you losing your guns for two years, wouldn’t you want strict regulations on who can join?