Englebert

Do you believe mandatory background checks should be applied to all gun purchases? Or any gun purchases? If you answer yes, please articulate what questions should be answered to determine a person's qualification to exercise their second amendment right. Also, please describe why these qualifications will curb gun violence without curbing an individual's right to self protection. And a third part of the question, if you think that a person is unqualified to own a gun, should that person also be unqualified to vote? I have a gut feeling there won't be much response to the latter parts of this question, especially from the anti-gun side. But please make your best attempts.

Although the gun issue might not be a big deal to you, it is to Hillary and a majority of the Democrats. We will have Chicago style gun laws enacted nationally if she wins, backed by a stacked Supreme Court. The baby step (leaps) laws will gradually get tougher and tougher until the average American cannot afford to own a gun. As far as background checks, this is the knife the Democrats will use to grind into the spine of legal gun owners. Cass Sunstein type people will be employed to write stricter and stricter rules on who can pass a background check. There is absolutely no doubt about this. We might not have total confiscation, but only the elites will be able to legally own a gun...in short order. And I'm curious as to if you support strict background checks? If so, what would you think qualifies as adequate limitations on passing one...that is, what questions would you ask an applicant to determine if they are qualified to own a gun? I think I will start a new topic on this.

No, but if he could've he would've...without doubt. He knew the Supreme Court would overturn anything he tried. I bet you are one of those who still deny Democrats are trying to get a single payer healthcare system. They denied it for years and years but now readily admit it. And the one's that opposed and exposed them were called fear mongers. Same old playbook. Deniers have been lying to themselves for years.

If you don't think Hillary is coming for your guns then you are woefully and willfully ignorant of the abundance of evidence showing otherwise. This is exactly why I vote Republican the majority of the time. Far too many Democrats willfully turn a blind eye to what their politicians say explicitly and implicitly. It is really scary. Although Hillary hasn't explicitly said she wants to confiscate guns, it is an easy conclusion to draw. She would love to say it, but she knows it would be political suicide.

Agreed.

This is true for many. But many vote for a D or R based on the fear of what the other party will do. "United we stand" against one party is just as pervasive as loyalty to a party.

I'm going to get on this board and complain regardless of who occupies the office. Whichever gets in, I have no doubt I will be complaining about the size and scope of the federal government.

Probably, but both will be damaging to America.

Where did you find these stats? I have a feeling you're pulling them from your amazing powers of observation while you are hanging out in Vidor, Lumberton and Buna.

I don't like the pettiness of Trump either, but I will take that over Hillary's outright lies and blatant corruptness any day. Trump deserves his high unfavorable rating, but Hillary's unfavorable rating should be off the charts. If you include the illegal and non-breathing voters, her unfavorable rating should be well over 100%.

Is the turnover rate for Koch any higher than other companies? And like Nash, I too would like to know what you consider as the Kock's "treating workers badly".

I have to say, the author of the article did more to justify a reason to vote for Trump based on the Supreme Court pick(s) than nullify it. You can replace Trump's name with Obama and have the same arguments. He then goes on to question Trump's temperament and says there is no evidence that Trump will actually nominate a true Conservative. While this is true, I'm pretty sure everyone is fairly certain that Hillary will nominate a ultra-Liberal judge. That is known. Point...Trump. It is also known that Hillary will try to appoint anti-gun judge(s). Trump is unknown, but none of the judges he listed are anti-second amendment. Point...Trump. And I think the author severely downplays the damage that an ultra-Liberal Supreme Court will do to this country. This country, under Hillary with the backing of the Supreme Court, will continue to be flooded with illegal immigrants...and that number will grow substantially, considering her borderless attitude. Our country cannot sustain the government handouts being given now. We are $20 trillion in debt and climbing. One equally great or possibly greater issue than illegal immigration in my opinion though is Hillary being afforded the ability to stack the court in favor of unconstitutional judges when evaluating the second amendment. I have zero doubt that Hillary will begin making unconstitutional executive orders banning certain guns, and this will be upheld by her stacked court. Assault weapons, although not defined, will be the first to go. (Which is ironic because hammers are the weapon of choice for more murders than "assault weapons".) Handguns will be the next target, as will gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. She will enact orders in which you have to pay yearly fees to exercise your second amendment right (the only right that our forefathers found necessary to include the term "shall not be infringed".) But the biggest one will be mandatory background checks. The qualifications to own a gun will get tighter and tighter to the point that the Pope will not be able to pass a background check. These unlawful orders will be upheld by the stacked Supreme Court. There is no conspiracy theory here. The evidence for Hillary attempting all these things (and many more) are abundant. She will need a stacked court, and her being elected will almost guarantee it. Thus, I would vote, and highly encourage everyone to vote for Trump based on this one issue alone.

I would also like to see a third party on the debate stage. If there was ever a time for a third party to make a run, this would be it.

Never crossed my mind. If you would have called me ugly, stupid or some other name then... And the reasons I have previously stated that I would puke when voting for Trump is that I am convinced that he is not a Conservative. He feels that he, as an elected government official, can cure the ills of the American people...a big government guy. We definitely agree on that. I feel I have a choice between two Liberals, Trump is just the lesser of the two evils. Cruz and Rand Paul were my first and second choices.

I will disagree with the author's logic (or lack thereof) for voting third party. He delves into the theoretical of the long-term consequences without evaluating the immediate consequences. I find that very flawed logic. His long-term consequences are just based on the now, without factoring in the changes resulting from the current election winner. The actions of the winning party will consolidate the losing party voters.

I will vote for whoever hurts Hillary's chances more. I would vote for Koko The Gorilla over Hillary. I'm dead serious. While y'all are laughing, I will explain. Koko's only ability would be to basically keep the status quo. I feel Hillary will inflict (more) major damage to this country. Koko will not have the ability to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Koko will not have the ability to enact more of the Global Warming Lie legislation. Koko will not try to limit/eliminate 2nd Amendment rights. Koko will not have the ability to raise taxes. Koko will not try to turn this country more socialist than it's become. Koko will not have the ability to do a lot of things Hillary wants to do. Although this country severely needs a new direction, Koko at least would not have the ability to inflict more damage. Now, since it's clear I don't want Hillary in office, I must choose the best strategy to prevent her from occupying the White House. Johnson (or any of the other third party choices) has zero chance of beating either candidate. Therefore, a vote for third party means one less vote in opposition to Hillary. (No flawed logic here.) If Johnson was a more viable candidate, I would love to vote for him. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, but I also align with many of them. Same with Trump. I don't align with any of Hillary's policies...none that I can think of. I would not be opposed to any non-Liberal, and I do mean any (including the clinically insane) gaining the White House over any Progressive Liberal. My choices will start with whoever is the most Capitalistic and working my way down to a slug before a Progressive Liberal. So to answer your question, I would consider a third party candidate. But that candidate would have to have a reasonable chance of preventing the Liberal from gaining the White House. My answer pertains to this election only. I would love for this country to move to three or even four major parties. I don't see it happening in the near future, but the upside would be terrific. The problem is that the choices are basically dichotic...big government versus small government control. Everything else takes a back seat. Any third party that emerges will pull their majority of voters from one side, thus allowing the other side to dominate. A fourth party could combat that, but then one side will conglomerate to emerge as a superparty again. The other side would then pool, thus going back to two major parties. The best option would be to have about twenty choices in every election, choices up and down the spectrum. But many parties/politicians will always convince voters that we need the "together we stand" strategy to prevent the other side from winning, which will always lead back to a two party system.

I have a feeling this idea was concocted at a meeting of the U.N. "big wigs", who each flew their private 747s thousands of miles to attend, all while sitting around a table feasting on filet mignon. And if the effects of greenhouse gasses are of such dire concern, I want to know when the U.N. will ban volcanoes. Maybe we should tax all countries that have a volcano erupt within their borders. And for a serious question, do countries have a contest to see who can send the biggest morons as their U.N. representatives?

I can't even imagine the media outrage this would have sparked had it been the Bush administration. Calls for impeachment would be the headlines on every outlet.

So Obama should resign immediately for not knowing the U.S. has only 50 states. Hillary should remove herself as candidate because as Head Of State she did not possess the skill set to identify classified material when presented. Who is pathetic? (That is obviously a rhetorical question.)

I'm not very adventurous when trying exotic or strange foods. I grew up with Cajun friends so I have eaten some things: Blackbird Squirrel Coon Nutria Gar Dog food (had to try it once) Had to swallow my pride a few times.

His strategy is "Apologize for being the United States and promise that we won't call them any 'hurtful' names."

I think that looks more like a smirk. The volcano is saying to global warming nutjobs, "What dumbarses. I spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything, but the President and his administration want to blame it on man."

And yet you have trouble articulating what that stupid stuff is. You just go straight to personal attacks.

And many whites used to support the KKK. As history has shown, after a while they will learn the fallacy of their ways.

When you have no argument, attack the messenger. The problem with you is that you're not even good at it. You can't even defend your personal attacks. If someone writes stupid crap on here, how about pointing out why it's stupid. Instead you want to talk about Trump's hair and mannerisms, or being fake Christians, or being racist. And everybody on here can see that. Well, almost everybody.