destruction of america

[datzenmike]

 Just like farming. Get paid to not grow tobacco, soy, corn whatever. Pay that pimp muthafucka to not crime the streets.

[john510]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

 Just like farming. Get paid to not grow tobacco, soy, corn whatever. Pay that pimp muthafucka to not crime the streets.

That would be great if it works.There's a problem though,tobacco,soy and corn farmers generally aren't criminals to begin with.

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

$12,500 per month.......

 

Seattle pays ex-pimp $150,000 to offer ‘alternatives to policing’

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/seattle-pays-ex-pimp-150000-to-offer-alternatives-to-policing/

 

At this point, I am not a hater. I admire the pimp and would like to follow in his foot steps. I'll move to Seattle, rent an apartment "engage" with the "community" for $10,000 a month. My alternatives to policing have a long history of success, spanning  cultures and continents. If hired, I will guarantee reduction of crime , by engaging the community in close quarters and long range.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[thisismatt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517522-bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32000-felons-in-florida-so-they-can-vote?amp

 

Just doing good from the bottom of his heart.

[BrothersGarage]

5 hours ago, Mattndew76 said:

I have never seen anyone complain they don't have access to a park or public restrooms.  How would this further the positive economic flourishing of low income individuals?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by Social Amenities. Those are defined as public spaces where people gather or publicly shared spaces like restrooms, and parks...

 

As far as the better schooling issue. Why are you not supporting Donald Trumps education agenda then? He has been fighting congress for 4 years to implement a good school choice program that allows federal money to follow kids rather than be locked into failing systems. ( you don't have to support Trump but at least help fight for this portion of his agenda.)

 

Better work and income opportunities.. You might want to expound on this a little more. Federally the standard for hiring requirements have been emphasized toward skill base rather than college degree under the current administration. That is in contrast to the last one that made it even harder to become a new federal employee. State level employment is a state to state dynamic, and for the private sector that is up to the owner of the private company to set standards for what they require.

 

The cycle was well on its way to being broke in 2019 for a lot of people, but 2020 kinda shit on it a little. Even the the recovery from the first 6 months is doing exponentially well, accept for blue states....They seem to be lagging in recovery and only time will tell why that is happening.

 

This has a bit of relation to this topic.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/10/05/blue-today-bluer-tomorrow/

 

I mean it's not just public parks and restrooms, but also libraries, dog parks, mass transit lines close, better schooling, better food and accommodations, more businesses than just loans, pawn and gun shops, ect. 

Who says I don't agree with Trump wanting to better fund our schools? I don't recall being against that. Only thing I brought up negative about schools is Betsy DeVos who shouldn't be in charge of our nations educational systems. 

Better jobs - It's not "gotta fill the role because we need x minorities" thing but a "the longer you stay in school, and the farther you progress though educational standards then you're more likely able to find better paying employment in the future" kinda result that comes from helping the poor. Someone who goes though college, and does extra work like getting a sepcialized degree or certificates  is going to be way more favored for employment than someone "just because". Plus the more you're in education the more you're able to network that helps you build crucial connections for later in life like seeing employment. 

Sure 2020 shit on it, us but we're not out of the woods yet. It's not like we have created 'new' jobs but mainly people returning to work - if they're lucky. But what does this how does this relate to the removal of social services like Section 8 and the poor?  

[Mattndew76]

It relates to solutions for people to go from section 8 to being franchised home owners. That and I was totally lost on what you initially said about social amenities. 

 

The National Review article talks about many of the dilemma effecting exactly what your were talking about.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Mattndew76

[Mattndew76]

This is a mans real life. There is hope for the country.

 

 

[banzai510(hainz)]

18 hours ago, BrothersGarage said:

It's not "gotta fill the role because we need x minorities

Nothing is stopping Microsoft Google Amazon , Facebook, Twitter & Seattle City Council( except the Pimp they brought in for 150K) to hire more black folk

Im all for it.

also black folk going to private schools Im all for it.

 

 

soon all this will be over anyways.

If Biden wins I say your 401k will go down 15% right off the bat.  If he locks down the country another 15% loss.

assault weapons will increase in price 300% before they stop selling them then Pistols will be next.

gas price will go down at first before being taxed more later.

the riots will stop, until they find out Joe will not pay for Reparations

 

Hunter Biden is going to be RICHHH!!!!!!!!

Edited September 23, 2020 by banzai510(hainz)

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[frankendat]

8 hours ago, banzai510(hainz) said:

assault weapons will increase in price 300% before they stop selling them then Pistols will be next.

 

I don't share your optimism. The Democrats have listed their goals for disarming the country on Biden's website. Reinstating the assault weapons ban is a certainty, as well as, the massive price increase. I do not think Biden will be able to enlist federal agencies to force all registered owners to give up their "assault weapons" without democrat control of the Senate and/or the House, but Biden has been nice enough to tell us, that is what he wants to do. 

 

I have posted before -maybe even earlier in this thread-  of the manipulative and dishonest tactics behind the gun polices professed by the democrats. If I remember, I didn't even get to all the sneaky back room bullshit that is proposed for ammunition,  because it was getting long.

 

Bottom line--Democrats want to forcefully strip Americans from their guns, by legislation that increases the cost of owning or purchasing a firearm excessively expensive, by identifying the owners of firearms and forcing registration or confiscation, again if you are rich and have attorneys, there will be exceptions to these rules. After owners of firearms are identified, more and more, opportunities for forced firearm relinquishment without trial, without conviction, even without arrest, will follow. (remember Biden's goals of forced firearm relinquishment based on accusation--not conviction  and that accusation need not be of a crime committed, it can be for a crime someone thinks you MIGHT commit. Accusation of a crime, that might happen combined with evidence of gun ownership,(either gun registration records or testimony of the person bringing the accusation), will be sufficient probable cause to send SWAT or the ATF or both to search your home and secure all firearms. If the accusation is later found to lack merit (months? years?), all registered firearms will be returned. Any non registered  firearms confiscated. The non registered firearms will be returned if you bring evidence before a judge and prove firearm ownership. What counts as evidence to prove ownership of non registered firearms. WHO KNOWS. But, I feel confident with the prediction, if you have the cash to hire a bunch of lawyers then somehow evidence will be enough and if you don't have that kind of cash and go to court alone, the evidence will not be enough.

[datzenmike]

How is an assault weapon ban stripping you of your guns???

 

If you see a gun owning neighbor who you don't get along with and has threatened you in the past, going off the deep end, wouldn't you want him separated from his weapons? Or are you saying that people could file a false claim against you??? Maybe a thorough and extensive mental evaluation should be part of getting a gun license. Can't see a gun owner planning a criminal act that would result in loss of his right to own them. The cost of owning guns should be excessively high. Weeds out all the flakes. If it cost you $7 or $8K to own a gun you might be more careful what you do with it. You don't go drifting your new 400Z

 

 

[Draker]

13 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

How is an assault weapon ban stripping you of your guns???

 

If you see a gun owning neighbor who you don't get along with and has threatened you in the past, going off the deep end, wouldn't you want him separated from his weapons? Or are you saying that people could file a false claim against you??? Maybe a thorough and extensive mental evaluation should be part of getting a gun license. Can't see a gun owner planning a criminal act that would result in loss of his right to own them. The cost of owning guns should be excessively high. Weeds out all the flakes. If it cost you $7 or $8K to own a gun you might be more careful what you do with it. You don't go drifting your new 400Z

 

What is an assault weapon?

[Jesse C.]

And here we go....

 

 

[bottomwatcher]

I get the Dems are promising a crackdown on gun ownership but they are in a catch 22 situation where if they get serious on cracking down and stiffening penalties for illegal possession of firearms they add to the mass incarceration of a population they think is unjustly mass incarcerated. We are looking at gross incompetence on both sides. Can't buy ammo now!

[datzenmike]

2 hours ago, Draker said:

 

What is an assault weapon?

 

It's a rifle designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. It's particularly effective in a movie theater or a school.

[Draker]

1 minute ago, datzenmike said:

 

It's a rifle designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. It's particularly effective in a movie theater or a school.

 

I'll play.  What design characteristics enable that?

[datzenmike]

It's a term that really only has general characteristics that not everyone can agree on. Like pornography it can't be defined but you know it when you see it. I like....

 

7 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

It's a rifle designed to kill as many people as fast as possible.

 

[thisismatt]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[datzenmike]

The first part changes the last part. You left out the important part.

[thisismatt]

I didn't leave anything out.  That's a direct quote from James Madison's initial bill of rights proposal.  I don't see how it can be construed otherwise when the intention was crystal clear.

[datzenmike]

It is, but I don't think that's the 2nd amendment.

 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

This, to me is crystal clear, says the people making up the militia, in order to secure the safety of the free state, have the right to bear arms.

[Draker]

54 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

It's a term that really only has general characteristics that not everyone can agree on. Like pornography it can't be defined but you know it when you see it. I like....

 

 

so how do you ban something that’s so generally defined?  Who get to decide what is more assaulty?

 

 

[datzenmike]

Beats me but from the previous posts everyone is convinced the Dems are going to do it.

[thisismatt]

19 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

It is, but I don't think that's the 2nd amendment.

 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

This, to me is crystal clear, says the people making up the militia, in order to secure the safety of the free state, have the right to bear arms.

 

It's the first part of the original statement that morphed into what you quoted,l. I bring it up because it more clearly states that the people have a right to bear arms, without being tied to a "militia" or otherwise sanctioned military body.