Uncle Milty wrote:I think as a whole we should realize the Constitution is antiquated and it's appropriate to consider transforming to fit a modern world.

Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!

slugsrbad wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

MARK DUBOWITZ: I think all of the principals have all joined in a unanimous decision to recommend to President Trump to decertify the deal. And I think there's also unanimous agreement that, for now, the United States should stay in the deal but work to actually improve it.

MARTIN: You say a unanimous opinion to work to improve the deal but to stay in the deal, to recertify?

DUBOWITZ: To decertify.

MARTIN: To decertify?

DUBOWITZ: Yeah, to decertify, have the president refuse to certify that the deal is in a vital national security interest of the United States and then move forward on trying to find a way to actually strengthen the deal, fix the deal and get rid of some of the fatal flaws of the deal.

MARTIN: Do you think that should happen? Do you think sanctions should be re-upped?

DUBOWITZ: No, I don't. No, I don't. As I've said, I support strengthening the deal and working the diplomatic path with our European allies to try and fix it. So my sense is that that's not what's going to happen. And even, for example, Tom Cotton, who has been a leading critic of the Iran deal, said only a couple of nights ago that he also believes this is the time to decertify the deal but not necessarily to reinstate the sanctions and to give diplomacy some time to work.

MARTIN: Well, then what leverage do you have over Iran when you say they're not allowing access? How do you change that?

DUBOWITZ: Well, you change it by making very clear to Iran that the United States, as a matter of U.S. policy and U.S. law, is not going to accept a deal that cannot be verified. And so the administration is now going to be rolling out a comprehensive Iran policy. It'll be a pressure campaign using all instruments of American power.

MARTIN: And what does that look like when you say all instruments of American power?

DUBOWITZ: Well, it needs financial and economic power. It needs more sanctions. It means using military power to roll back and subvert Iranian aggression in the region. It means using political power and covert action.

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?

Roger Dorn wrote:Each day that passes I'm more worried about 2020...He seems to be getting more senile and I'm convinced he will contest the election and call on half the country to deny the results. This basically keeps me up at night.