The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I thank you for your reasoned and well-explained insight, as well as your contributions to the thread.

I don't know I've never been hunting, I guess if you miss? I just said that because it felt half reasonable.

Anyway @stuart98 I was watching some Stephen Colbert and caught your comment on there, noticed the profile picture and was like HEY!

Define large magazines. 15 is a trollish cap, when many manufacturers make most products with 16 standard, its VERY common in the ARMED SECURITY business to have 16. 15 is a terrible number. I'd recommend 19 because it's one short of 20, but still allows Glock 18-round. Still sort of steps on the toes of the FN Five-Seven, but you can get aftermarket magazines anyway, I'd be willing to barely settle at 19. Any less is trollish, "high capacity" was always considered 50 round magazines which are rarely ever even "stock", 30 were considered standard, and "15" is the type of suggestion someone who knows nothing of guns answers with. Bet this guy below doesn't even know what the reflective white string hanging off the gun is for...

I was never aware anyone would put that much thought into one more or less.
How about six? Keep it with small revolvers.

>compares isis' relationship with America to antagonism between friends
>eu countries voluntarily accept refugees
>terrorist attacks still happen

lolelelelel

he has immunity from stupidity because he's a comedian

what are you implying that the shitt that provokes terrorist attacks has stopped happening in the meantime as well?

ISIS doesn't look at the refugee acceptance as a good thing : they're loosing recruitees

and the bombs haven't stopped falling nor has terrorism ever been something with a clear-cut message.

it always looked like random picks and it is of course : wherever the guard is going to be the lowest next and that's not their choice. And all attacks happen with absolute disregard for friend or foe. they could have shot or blown up a bunch of their own sympathizers without knowing since it's always attacks on crowds.

plus if what you're implying here is inspired by the Munich attack congrats on boarding the "jumping-to-conclusions-bandwagon". personally I highly doubt that a guy shouting "I am german!" and "fukin foreigners" is going to turn out to be an isis sympathizer. just my two cents.

Oh and great on you for showing an absolute lack of human feeling and sympathy.

EU countries already used the love card on refugees. The only thing that's doing is giving the terrorists an easy way to enter the borders.

Jefferies says Trump's idea to lock all borders is stupid and it would cause little children to hate the country because of being rejected (lol). Yet, this is literally an assumption that may or may not become true years down the road... the only solid thing here is to block borders and likely see no attacks; the other option according to Jefferies is to open borders and love them (lel). The latter has already been tried.

I think you got mixed up there because he wasn't tying the wall into radicalization in america he was tying the Drumpf's Star of David for muslims/holocaust idea into radicalization. which when you compare the two makes a universe more sense.

that you would rationalize and debunk the former demonstrates you are confused about all these issues and are just defending the man rather than the ideals (which I would rather prefer as defending his ideals is senseless as they are so contradictory at times that they mutually annul themselves)

I disagree. They acted a few years too late and by now have mainly moved to using Turkish door guards to help "solve" the "problem". Considering recent happenings in Turkey they might as well just directly ask Assad to help them solve the problem instead.
Since less refugees arrive now because of all those fortified borders some here consider the crisis to get better. All the while hundreds of people still drown trying desperately to get away from bombs and terror by crossing the sea in tiny boats. Out of sight out of mind, the main force behind demands for walls.

No. Definitely not a love card. Not a "I am Trump and I will build a Wall" card, but not exactly love either.

Also your reasoning makes the assumption that doing something "right" now would solve the problem quickly.
The truth is that no matter what we do there are probably many many thousands of completely crazy people on the side of the terrorists who are waaaay beyond any hope of ever really reaching them through "right" actions.
What "right" actions (= showing the love card) do is not magically turn back a terrorist back into nice people. It is what can prevent more people "turning to the dark side" in the long run. Like within the next decade or two.
You cannot prevent terror attacks from happening quickly. There is no quick solution. Anyone calling for that is just trying to get the attention of stupid voters and most likely will make the situation worse as most "solutions" that seem "quick" mainly revolve around violence. And that's the wrong way. It is since 15 years. 15 years during which it got worse and worse and worse.

EDIT: Random thoughts:
How many years ago did this "war on terror" of yours start again? People who were toddlers back then are probably young men by now. Potentially angry young men if they had the misfortune of living in a place that was wrecked by that war on terror.
Angry young men are probably one of the most dangerous species on this planet.
This probably oversimplifies all this a lot, but it sounds so reasonable.

Just as reasonable as "make a wall, problem solved" might sound to others. That's the problem with this whole issue: It's so big and complex and people like to jump to simplifications because that's the only thing they can comprehend. But neither my nor your simplifications are probably good enough to find a solution to this situation.

... /end of random thoughts

**** the end hahaha. What a great bit ,the whole thing.

alright glad to see everyone can joke here.

Decades, my friend. Decades.

the attacker in Nice moved (not "fled") in 2005 to france. The brussels attackers were native
belgian. Charlie Hebdo attackers were native french.


The syrian refugees aren't the threat. The real threat is that for decades now, foreigners have poorly integrated. entire sections of Brussels, for instance, are inhabited by people who aren't considered natives there (even when born there) and aren't considered natives where their parents or grandparents came from. France has it's Banlieu's filled with people who have virtually no future and are foreigners in their own land.

Trumps ideas about banning muslims is similarly pointless. The Nice attacker for instance had no religious connections until months ago.

Well racism didn't help the integration. Being offered **** jobs or none at all. Being treated like ****. People do crazy things when they have no future. I feel things will get a lot worse if nobody starts to tackle this unequal distribution of wealth. But that doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda, cause guns and abortion are really good topics to distract people...

Okay, "why"? I shared "why", I find it unfair and invalidating to your answer that you wouldn't share why. Especially when my answer was fairly logical, that most manufactured and self-made firearms can most frequently be found with at least 18, while difficult and/or expensive after-market options can extend it to 50+.

Why would the limit be 6, in a modern day where 80% of firearms have more than 6 rounds, AND many defensive shootings, around 10%, require more than 6 rounds fired by the defendant, meaning 10% of people would be out of luck against any assailant with a modern firearm they'll have easy access too, no matter what the laws say. What happens when there's 2 assailants? That's 3 chances to bring them down, a piece. They have 18, just to bring a single target down.

That's "inconvenience", not control. That also condemns as criminals most of current firearm owners, raising that glorious incarceration rate, not as high as it would, but at least 80% of the way it would have.

http://imgur.com/gallery/BkuGO

Since my actual stance is "magazines with a clip size of zero outside of heavily guarded shooting ranges" there isn't much logic behind that six. I was mainly joking and I don't believe there is even a need for "defense" shooting in the first place.
I do find it slightly amusing you'd set the limit so it fits well with gun manufacturing standards.
Why do them a favor? their standard size minus 1 seems fun as well

really you're drowning yourself in credibility there ...wow /S

You don't see a need for defensive shooting? What are you, delusional? Mad? Ignorant? WHICH ONE?