Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "Thom Hartmann Program" channel.

  1. I think we just need to clarify it. Gun ownership is not the issue, unregulated gun ownership and distribution is. There are many countries with very high gun ownership without our severe and nearly unique gun issues and weekly mass shootings. These places universally have strict well enforced laws on the procurement of fire arms to those who qualify. Almost everyone agree's that making it easier for criminals and the insane to have access to military style weapons has little upside for any honest law abiding recreational gun owner and none for the country. The amendment was written a long time ago as a provision to fight off a feared invasion by the British. This is no longer a concern and an examination of the intent of creating well regulated militia's needs to be more broadly defined and categorized. As it stands it has been interpreted by gun sale lobbyists to mean a free for all with no regulations on the sale of military style weapons. I would argue it should not be applied this way. This is the conversation that needs to be had between gun owners and those who seek to restrict all access. We need to fully define the limits of the amendments extended rights to bring us more in line with it's actual intent. The amendment should not be a block for common sense universal enforcement and application of existing law as it currently is.
    9
  2. The party of family values folks .. pull their rapey masks off
    5
  3. No standing from the Texas suit. It is dead in the kraken layer.
    5
  4. Sure especially because the true corporately owned moderates are not as big of constituency as they pretend they are. They literally can not win without us and as we are willing to actually expand the tent and bring in independents and non voters we do not need them but will get most anyway.
    4
  5. There is no common ground with the anti democratic Trumoest. They hate our system and what America stand for.
    3
  6. It will last until we vote the cons and the establishment democrats out.
    2
  7. I notice this too
    2
  8.  @demarcusblack1328  Silly talking about traitors when all your leaders sell out to the highest bidder as a matter of standard practice. You belong the party whose president openly muses about crushing the first amendment and others who want the bible instead of the constitution. Just stop, you have no credibility here! There is a wing of the democratic party which is not for sale. As for those like Nancy, Biden and Obama who sell out to the highest bidder like every member of the GOP, they are no more my allies than you anyone who is bought by billionaires is.
    2
  9. no
    2
  10. We could force them to take political ads from candidates, it is the super pacs etc which are often problematic.
    2
  11.  @Sunweaver593  Because it is stupid idea that does not make sense and has no value?
    2
  12. No standing. I can not see how they can even file this.
    2
  13. Short answer, probably not. They have not figured it out to date ....
    2
  14. Please .. this is silly. I like Tulsi but pretending the "rest are a sham" is stupid. Base stupid. So stupid it makes me assume you are trump supporter masquerading as someone on the left. If you are not you might as well be.
    1
  15. The democrats are paid to lose as they spit on and ignore their base for the same donor cash the GOP gets.
    1
  16. Charter schools extended under the guise of choice are nothing more than a give away to corporations and have no value. If you want a private school for your child the pay for it as there is no upside to taking money out of the public system to serve the profit motive of a second school system and cover the costs of another administration to zero advantage. Private schools should just be that and I think zero tax payer money should be going to support these for profit bureaucracy that are not incentivized to provide education and will undermine it if it makes them more money.
    1
  17. Probably, they have been going that way for a while. Like they want more shootings of random people over pants shitting fear
    1
  18.  @demarcusblack1328  It most certainly does not explicitly do that, it puts limitations of ownership inside the amendment itself. The discussion is on what those limitations consist of.
    1
  19.  @ongoinglife  I would be inclined to agree with your assessment and it applies to many gun advocates. The gun crazies are empowered by painting everyone that opposes them as gun hating lovers of oppression. The citizens attempting to enact reasonable gun controls like universal back ground checks would be well served by stepping on the dishonest caricature the gun lobby paints. This is best achieved by being reasonable in the face of their over the top nonsense and by calling out the innate corruption of the NRA who writes their talking points.
    1
  20. @Star Gazer1212 I don't agree, the places with high ownership without our problems back me up. I understand your inclination and intention but prefer a regulated middle ground solution. I see no upside in treating all gun owners as incompetent, stupid or dangerous. In fact, all but a tiny group are honest law abiding productive citizens. Their support will be needed for any substantial change. I do see downsides to your take, it is your "Regulating it is not enough" spin that is weaponized to fear monger and stop even very popular common sense regulation as "gun grabbing". Your ultimate goals are your own but in the mean time common sense regulation is achievable in the short term and we should all be behind it.
    1
  21.  @demarcusblack1328  Silly spin, we already correctly ban weapons for the mentally ill and dangerous criminals. Are you against that? Is that traitorous? All you are doing is making weapons easier to get for irresponsible criminals who end up murdering your fellow citizens. You do so using talking points from a lobby that makes massive profits and buys our leaders at the expense of american blood on the ground. You may want to be more careful using that word traitor.
    1
  22.  @atrociousconsequences4432  This is a silly assessment as Bernie fundamentally stronger than Hillary and trump could not even win the popular vote against that hot mess. You clowns are delusional.
    1
  23. And for that she is not my first choice, that being said she is better than any establishment shill that has run in the last 30 years and if she was the primary winner I would indeed get behind her. I trust her more than the anyone in the GOP and will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    1
  24. The only reason these anti democratic monsters keep winning anything is built on jerry meandering and voter suppression. This is not a failure of voters, it is manufactured and deceitfully manufactured consent
    1