Shumer shutdown

[Water Rat]

[mayo]

Like the wanted poster the best.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Five Seasons]

the military isn't affected by the shutdown... 

[Steve D]

I think it does:

Troop pay

Active-duty troops, as well as Guard and Reserve members, would not get paid during a shutdown unless Congress passes a separate piece of legislation to do so.

Troops killed in action

Newly bereaved family members would not receive the Pentagon’s $100,000 death gratuity during a shutdown or military-funded travel to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, or elsewhere for the dignified transfer or military funeral or memorial

It is all irrelevant now anyway:

Senate Votes Overwhelmingly to End Government Shutdown

• The Senate voted 81-18 to break the filibuster and reopen the government.

 

 

[ADK Native]

Senator "Gun Control" Schumer did vote yes for the extension to not look too bizarre, BUT Gillibrand voted NO.  Amazing how so many New Yorkers keep re-electing those two over and over again.

[philoshop]

7 hours ago, Belo said:

the military isn't affected by the shutdown... 

I'll add to what Steve D said above: The reservists stand down: which means no training regimen for critical personnel and no maintenance of their equipment. Logistics personnel in all but combat areas stand down; meaning no fuel deliveries to aircraft, tanks, humvees and other equipment outside of war zones. Training grinds to a halt. Readiness is damaged in ways that could take months to repair...  I could go on and on. Tell me how the military isn't affected.

Schumer blinked and caved, realizing his asinine position on this matter, so it's a moot point anyway. At least for the next couple of weeks. I'm thinking Trump will change that in a hurry. The military can't do any strategic planning on a month-to-month funding setup. We saw this throughout Obama's tenure, when it was entirely intentional.

[Five Seasons]

none of these seem to put our nations security at risk and almost all are remedied immediately with no loss of pay when the gov't goes back online. I'm not in disagreement that there are serious issues, just that our resident meme poster is a little off on this one.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/01/18/how-government-shutdown-would-impact-pay-benefits.html

Edited January 23, 2018 by Belo

[Steve D]

I don't believe the issue here is who does and does not get paid if the government shuts down. The real issue is our government officials are not doing the job they were elected to do and are sitting in their protected  environment playing games on our dime and continue to draw their paychecks while others suffer.

Trump need to step up his draining the swamp campaign and get the deadbeats off their thrones.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not shut down related but does lean towards Steve D's Drain the swamp comment.  I am not sure how this will all play out but if just half is true it is scary. ...KGB kind of scary

[dbHunterNY]

On 1/22/2018 at 7:47 PM, Wilderness said:

Senator "Gun Control" Schumer did vote yes for the extension to not look too bizarre, BUT Gillibrand voted NO.  Amazing how so many New Yorkers keep re-electing those two over and over again.

Gillibrand came from out here.  she got elected locally as an unknown individual who claimed to be pro-gun. got a rating from NRA to match. then once she climbed the ladder enough to congress seat and got out of this area she flipped. she's since been an anti-gun and country values as much as possible.  she's smart though claiming to be champion of and pushing into the spot stances on no-brainer things like women abuse.  i mean obvious things that you really don't need to debate because everybody will side with you. ruth vader ginsburg, elizabeth warren, diane frankenstein, and even hillary clinton don't scare me as much as Gillibrand does.

[chas0218]

22 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Not shut down related but does lean towards Steve D's Drain the swamp comment.  I am not sure how this will all play out but if just half is true it is scary. ...KGB kind of scary

You ain't kidding.

[Five Seasons]

1 hour ago, dbHunterNY said:

Gillibrand came from out here.  she got elected locally as an unknown individual who claimed to be pro-gun. got a rating from NRA to match. then once she climbed the ladder enough to congress seat and got out of this area she flipped. she's since been an anti-gun and country values as much as possible.  she's smart though claiming to be champion of and pushing into the spot stances on no-brainer things like women abuse.  i mean obvious things that you really don't need to debate because everybody will side with you. ruth vader ginsburg, elizabeth warren, diane frankenstein, and even hillary clinton don't scare me as much as Gillibrand does.

i'd bet you all my money many repubs aren't as pro gun as they let on. but they know the funding is there. I think many are ok with some common sense controls like better background checks, something for mental health, no gun show loop holes. But even giving an inch will be disastrous and they know it. Plus it pisses off the nra again and they lose funding. shows how corrupt and shitty our govt is. People have to tow the party line whether they want to or not. Then they need to sell their soul for funding. 

[dbHunterNY]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

i'd bet you all my money many repubs aren't as pro gun as they let on. but they know the funding is there. I think many are ok with some common sense controls like better background checks, something for mental health, no gun show loop holes. But even giving an inch will be disastrous and they know it. Plus it pisses off the nra again and they lose funding. shows how corrupt and shitty our govt is. People have to tow the party line whether they want to or not. Then they need to sell their soul for funding. 

no need to make that bet. we all know there's gun control measures most people are okay with and that many republicans have a hard stance in fear of losing votes.

[Rattler]

6 hours ago, Belo said:

i'd bet you all my money many repubs aren't as pro gun as they let on. but they know the funding is there. I think many are ok with some common sense controls like better background checks, something for mental health, no gun show loop holes. But even giving an inch will be disastrous and they know it. Plus it pisses off the nra again and they lose funding. shows how corrupt and shitty our govt is. People have to tow the party line whether they want to or not. Then they need to sell their soul for funding. 

I'm amazed people think the gun control infringements listed here are "common sense" and actually state they are.  If you do some objective investigation into each of the above ideas, you will see they are ripe for abuse, which is why they are being pushed so hard.

Universal background checks require complete gun registration and can have the criteria changed so almost anything can get you denied.

Mental health criteria should be added to NICS but we saw Social Security recipients denied 2nd A rights because someone else was designated to handle their money for them.

Gun show loopholes are a myth.  Every law on the books applies to gun shows as much as they apply anywhere.

Giving an inch would be disastrous, for all responsible gun owners!  To support any of these so called "common sense" gun control schemes is obvious evidence one does not know anything about their potential for abuse.  Any elected rep who would be willing to support any of the above infringements on 2nd A rights deserves to be removed from office for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

It pisses the NRA off, because they are the premier pro gun advocacy organization in the US that has the most expertise regarding the anti-gun agenda.  That's why the anti-gun groups are so venomous in their attacks on the NRA.  Gotta convince their sheeple the NRA is the devil, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Rattler

[Five Seasons]

and there we have it. lets just fight so hard we lose them completely... because like everyone knows. Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. So what to do about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and insane...

oh right. nothing. NY is all the proof you need. 

[Five Seasons]

and btw, i live in MS. If you don't think there aren't loopholes you're just silly. Not that I know or anything.

[Rattler]

2 minutes ago, Belo said:

and there we have it. lets just fight so hard we lose them completely... because like everyone knows. Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. So what to do about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and insane...

oh right. nothing. NY is all the proof you need. 

Wrong.  Not fighting hard is how you will lose them completely.  Let the law prosecute and penalize criminals.  That's how you fix the problem.  Most of the gun laws on the books today are not being enforced.  The criminally insane should not be walking the streets at all, but the law was changed to allow them to do so.  They can kill just as easily without using a gun if they can't get one.  That's the problem that needs to be addressed.

Regarding your loophole comment, anything that is being done that is outside the laws in your state, or federally applied, is not a loophole, it's a crime.  Perhaps you could give me an example of something that is being done that isn't a crime.

 

[philoshop]

The entire concept of "common sense" presupposes a common world view. When it comes to things like 'gun control, there is simply no common view. We may as well live on entirely different planets.

[Rattler]

People who promote "common sense" gun control laws, which merely restrict activity that enables one to commit a crime even though they never will, also assume "preventative laws" actually prevent crimes. 

Imagine a law that would make it a crime to be a male with an attached penis, so rape would be eliminated.  That's what gun control laws amount to.  We already have laws on the books to punish crimes.  If anyone believes any law will prevent those crimes, they're dreaming.

[philoshop]

On 1/26/2018 at 11:14 AM, Rattler said:

People who promote "common sense" gun control laws, which merely restrict activity that enables one to commit a crime even though they never will, also assume "preventative laws" actually prevent crimes. 

Imagine a law that would make it a crime to be a male with an attached penis, so rape would be eliminated.  That's what gun control laws amount to.  We already have laws on the books to punish crimes.  If anyone believes any law will prevent those crimes, they're dreaming.

Interesting analogy, Rattler. The push to disarm Americans is very much tied to the overall push to rid the country of "toxic masculinity". Gun ownership is seen as a masculine 'flaw' that must be eradicated.

At the family lunch today my sister and sister-in-law were discussing getting their pistol permits so they could go shooting together. There were lots of questions and google searches going on, and it was a great discussion. They're both in their early 50's. All is not lost.

[Rattler]

Women are probably the fastest growing segment of new gun owners today.  I like that.  Ever try to take something away from a woman that she needs and earned on her own?  The Democrats have no clue.

BTW, until the government stops taking money from your paycheck, it has not shut down.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Rattler

[philoshop]

What was interesting is that they weren't just posing 'what if' questions. They were asking about specific details regarding the application process. Seriously looking into it. They both currently live in Ontario County but have only been here for a few years and don't think they have a deep base of eligible character references here. They do have the references.

[Rattler]

Isn't it interesting how the government has already made people believe they need permission to exercise a Constitutional right.  Legally they do, but how did they ever get people to start believing it?  People gave up their rights when the government threatened to put them in prison if they didn't.

[Doc]

We have massive volumes of gun regulations on the books that have been piled on annually for decades. There are more laws than any one person can even keep abreast of and aware of and in compliance with. Each one of those laws was touted as being the sure-fire cure to criminal gun use and all traveled under the feel-good veil of being "common sense". And yet gun crimes continue to get worse and worse.

Now, I don't really know any answers, but it seems to me that continuing to pile on harassment laws has historically not proven to be the answer. We already have every gun ownership scenario covered many times over, with the effects seemingly only on those who have no criminal intents. Yes with each one of these layers of worthless gun laws, we all feel real good to have done something even though that "something" is merely pecking away at the 2nd Amendment and nothing else.

In reality, we all really know that growing violence in our society is a problem separate from guns. We've seen what can be done with a box-cutter, or an airplane or a truck or an explosive-laden vest. Remove one weapon and a more lethal one will take its place. There is a societal problem that no one is even looking at because they are so emotionally attached to the concept that gun control is violence control. Maybe it's time to crawl out of that box and send our thoughts in a different direction that is aimed more at the real problem.

[philoshop]

I don't understand why I should have to ask for permission to exercise a Constitutional Right. It's not just the second amendment either. If I want to speak in the public square I'm now required to get permission to do so.