It’s Worse Than P***y Grabbing

Absentglare said:

LOL de facto gun ban ?? Oh the hysteria !! If a bartender is partially responsible for serving a drunk driver, a gun provider could be partially responsible.

Click to expand...

*Gun manufacturers. There is a big difference there.

That aside, we already have laws regulating gun seller have to follow and they can be prosecuted for violating those laws. Now that I straightened you out on the glaringly ignorant point, we can move on.

Absentglare said:

I was explaining how women's rights can pertain to public policy. It's not nice for you to go off on a meaningless tangent.

Click to expand...

You asked if victims of sexual assault should be ignored by the government. I simply pointed out if there is enough to go to court, there won't be any ignoring on the part of government. Not that it's really a governmental matter to begin with. These cases can be picked up by any lawyer.

This is different then say...the government ignoring other violations that can only be prosecuted by the Department of Justice, like Hillary violating a multitude of laws regarding subpoenaing of evidence, improper handling of classified information, regulations regarding how government business must be conducted, ect, ect, ect.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Are we talking the women's rights that Bill sexually harassed, sexually molested, raped and to which his commander and chief enabler, destroyer of victims reputations if they threaten Bill, Hillary Rodham? Or

are we still just, you know for convenience, ignoring all those

Click to expand...

?

Click to expand...

Just because someone talks about one problem doesn't mean that they're ignoring other problems.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol:



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.

Fishking said:

Obviously not as it's coming up now, hmmm?

Click to expand...

I was speaking of from a non-partisan or legal standpoint.

Fishking said:

You're the one that made the statement, so I suppose you should ask yourself that question.

Click to expand...

(The president doesn't pass laws, so your ignorant point was a red herring)

Fishking said:

*Gun manufacturers. There is a big difference there.

That aside, we already have laws regulating gun seller have to follow and they can be prosecuted for violating those laws. Now that I straightened you out on the glaringly ignorant point, we can move on.

Click to expand...

No, not at all, we have a glaring ignorance-based loophole.

Fishking said:

You asked if victims of sexual assault should be ignored by the government. I simply pointed out if there is enough to go to court, there won't be any ignoring on the part of government. Not that it's really a governmental matter to begin with. These cases can be picked up by any lawyer.

This is different then say...the government ignoring other violations that can only be prosecuted by the Department of Justice, like Hillary violating a multitude of laws regarding subpoenaing of evidence, improper handling of classified information, regulations regarding how government business must be conducted, ect, ect, ect.

Click to expand...

You don't understand the point. And you are woefully ignorant of our legal system. You don't seem to realize that taking someone to court involves the government by definition.

It is surprising that you now, in response to my accusation of going off on meaningless tangents, strain a rant about Hillary.

MrPeanut said:

If you think Donald "Bomb the s*** out of them" Trump is going to have a softer foreign policy than Clinton you are dreaming.

Click to expand...

One thing we do know... it won't be bought like The Clinton Crime Machine's.

shrubnose said:

Just because someone talks about one problem doesn't mean that they're ignoring other problems.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol:



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.

Click to expand...

I usually bypass the inconsequential posts, but since you posted to me directly I will say this, dude, from what I can assess of your posts, sorry to have to say, you have little to no clue about much of anything and nothing.

Btw, I wake up early and smell really really good coffee. Grown and roasted locally, oftentimes grown and roasted by friends. MMMM mmmm MMMM. You can go back to your trance now.

Absentglare said:

I was speaking of from a non-partisan or legal standpoint.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure.

(The president doesn't pass laws, so your ignorant point was a red herring)

Click to expand...

Again, you're the one that posted the comment so figure it out your own comments.

No, not at all, we have a glaring ignorance-based loophole.

Click to expand...

No there isn't.

You don't understand the point. And you are woefully ignorant of our legal system. You don't seem to realize that taking someone to court involves the government by definition.

It is surprising that you now, in response to my accusation of going off on meaningless tangents, strain a rant about Hillary.

Click to expand...

As far as prosecution, no. That aside, you're the one that made up some fictional comment about the government ignoring women which, by your own words, is a red herring. Do you always call yourself out for using logic fallacies?

Fishking said:

Sure, sure.



Again, you're the one that posted the comment so figure it out your own comments.



No there isn't.



As far as prosecution, no. That aside, you're the one that made up some fictional comment about the government ignoring women which, by your own words, is a red herring. Do you always call yourself out for using logic fallacies?

Click to expand...

It's not a red herring. We're talking about Trump's comments. Governmental policies on women's rights are important to me.

Absentglare said:

It's not a red herring. We're talking about Trump's comments. Governmental policies on women's rights are important to me.

Click to expand...

Then defeat your own original red herring.

Absentglare said:

Then it sounds like you care more about gun rights then women's rights.

Click to expand...

There are actual policies and positions that Hillary supports that would put more restrictions on gun ownership, with one of them possibly ending it all together. There are no positions being pushed to limit women's rights.

So it's up to you to figure out how to resolve your own red herring or clarify how Trump being accused of misconduct changes that? Because, you know, you'd actually have to pass some kind of law to restrict women's rights.

Fishking said:

Then defeat your own original red herring.



There are actual policies and positions that Hillary supports that would put more restrictions on gun ownership, with one of them possibly ending it all together. There are no positions being pushed to limit women's rights.

So it's up to you to figure out how to resolve your own red herring or clarify how Trump being accused of misconduct changes that? Because, you know, you'd actually have to pass some kind of law to restrict women's rights.

Click to expand...

I don't see any outright bans :

"...
2008: Fondly recalled being taught to shoot by grandfather. (Apr 2016)
...
I support Brady Bill and closing the Charleston loophole. (Dec 2015)
...
Reverse gun manufacturer immunity; let them get sued. (Nov 2015)
...
Sensible restraints on manufacturer liability & online sales. (Oct 2015)
...
Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. (May 2014)
2000: advocate for national gun registry; 2008: backed off. (May 2014)
Balance lawful gun ownership & keeping guns from criminals. (Apr 2008)
...
Let states & cities determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers. (Jan 2008)
Backed off a national licensing registration plan on guns. (Jan 2008)
Get assault weapons & guns off the street. (Jul 2007)
...
Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. (Sep 2000)
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)"

Hillary Clinton on the Issues

It seems that your speculation lacks any foundation in reality, whereas, for the Donald:

"Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
...
Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
...
I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)"

Donald Trump on the Issues

It seems that he genuinely doesn't value female bodily autonomy.

Absentglare said:

I don't see any outright bans :

Click to expand...

Well, she wants to ban assault weapons, so there is one outright ban. She wants to hold weapons manufacturers liable for their products working as intended, which would put them all into bankruptcy and no one would be able to buy them.

That you do no understand these things is something you have to resolve through education.

Fishking said:

Well, she wants to ban assault weapons, so there is one outright ban. She wants to hold weapons manufacturers liable for their products working as intended, which would put them all into bankruptcy and no one would be able to buy them.

That you do no understand these things is something you have to resolve through education.

Click to expand...

You're confused. A ban on assault weapons would not be an outright ban on guns.

And that wouldn't bankrupt manufacturers.

US foreign policy is worse than sexually assaulting women!!11!!

Where'd that talking point come from, ISIS?

Absentglare said:

You're confused. A ban on assault weapons would not be an outright ban on guns.

Click to expand...

It's an outright ban on a particular type of gun. You said she doesn't want to ban guns. Well, there's a whole bunch of guns she wants to ban.

And that wouldn't bankrupt manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Of course it would. How many crimes are committed with guns a year? How many accidents? If the manufacturers get held liable then that's going to put them into bankruptcy pretty quick.

Just say you don't understand, and move on.

Fishking said:

It's an outright ban on a particular type of gun. You said she doesn't want to ban guns. Well, there's a whole bunch of guns she wants to ban.

Click to expand...

What she said was vague, but i guess that won't stop you from jumping to extraneous, wild conclusions.

Fishking said:

Of course it would. How many crimes are committed with guns a year? How many accidents? If the manufacturers get held liable then that's going to put them into bankruptcy pretty quick.

Just say you don't understand, and move on.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't understand how our legal system works. If it can be proven that they are responsible for harm, they should be held accountable. Immunity doesn't make sense when they're complicit in selling guns anonymously over the internet.