[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread
- Thread starter -SS-
- Start date
once again you didn't make a point, then acted smugly about it
dig deep and think about how imports affect firearm regulation efficacy
Give up bump stocks for what? You realize the same effect can be created with your belt loop right? a stick, a rubber band, moving your finger faster. The problem is not the physical equipment, the problem is certain people. You can't make the largest portion of gun owners and non gun owners safe from the fring by enacting or increasing laws that really only affect the legal, responsible gun owners of the nation. Gun crimes are the only crime where we blame the tool used no the person. We don't blame cars for DUI's, we don't blame knives for stabbings. So why should we point to the gun as the reason for kills.
just because you say the point isnt valid, you have to prove it
its sad to have to explain this like you're a child, o well, so be it
whats the point of gun control laws if you cant enforce it?
where's the checkpoints and "papers, please"?
why do you hate your fellow citizens so much? whats wrong with you? so broken -get yourself under control
Struggle Over Kirkuk Puts the U.S. and Iran on the Same Side - The New York Times
we're getting tough on iran boys, we're not gonna take it from them anymore!
NYTnothing but fake news full of
go ahead and try that dude - most people would take a few controlled shots and your area and call it a day. if you want full auto, get full auto, with all requisite legal requirements.
so far, the argument I hear from pro-bump stock people is wow it's awful fun, we would hate to see them banned because every few years a few dozen people get killed. yes I know that past shooters haven't used them, but what i'm hearing is to continue them indefinitely.
I remember the AWB and being limited to 20 rounds sucked ass, but fucking deal with it criminey
edit: keep telling yourself that all your belt loops and rubber band shit are anywhere near reliable enough for actual life and death shooting compared to a bump stock. you're a sitting duck
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
hello pls respond
The bumpstock isn't a combat piece, its hokey bullshit that really doesnt' do much more than waste ammo. The point is that instead of banning 'bump stocks', the ban that is fashioned so that in reality its banning semi auto weapons. Give an inch and they take a mile....for a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT
Reggs
Veteran XX
If the shooter was a smart guy who had his shit together and did a good job planning and researching everything, why didn't he just use full-auto guns?
I met a guy who prints and mods guns as a hobby. He says it's extremely easy to do if you have some metal working tools.
If he had the means to pull all of that off so well you'd think he'd have full auto guns. His brother also said that the shooter tried bump stocks before but never liked them.
Makes me wonder if the guns were full-auto all long, but that fact might give clues as to where the guns came from...
Can people distinguish the audio of a full auto ver of the gun he used Vs. a simi-auto model using a bump stock? Do they sound different?
I met a guy who prints and mods guns as a hobby. He says it's extremely easy to do if you have some metal working tools.
If he had the means to pull all of that off so well you'd think he'd have full auto guns. His brother also said that the shooter tried bump stocks before but never liked them.
Makes me wonder if the guns were full-auto all long, but that fact might give clues as to where the guns came from...
Can people distinguish the audio of a full auto ver of the gun he used Vs. a simi-auto model using a bump stock? Do they sound different?
Amen General Kelly, amen.
fuck that stupid disrespecful bitch frederica wilson
lol and look at fake news CNN spinning it again
John Kelly's stirring but incomplete attempt to clean up for Donald Trump - CNNPolitics
so fucking sad where we are going
fuck that stupid disrespecful bitch frederica wilson
lol and look at fake news CNN spinning it again
John Kelly's stirring but incomplete attempt to clean up for Donald Trump - CNNPolitics
so fucking sad where we are going
Last edited:
too retarded to realize he's arguing against himself