(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); After numerous, in-depth studies were conducted, someone found out 98% of NGU is liberal. That being the case, democrats deserve a thread of their own to discuss politics.

Note: That "98%" stat was just a joke referencing You must login or register to view this content.



Discuss.

P.S. Don't forget to vote in 2014 so we can take back the house and start making real progress

Circumstances and situations change everything. I can't see the future but if you want to think in that sort of hypothetical, there are lots of things that if expanded, can be abused. For the starters, George Bush signed the Patriot Act. That basically violates the entire Bill of Rights and allows the government to start tapping your lines and spying on you without due process. But like I said, I'm not a huge fan of drones to begin with. I think they not only need to become more accurate, safer, and precise, but we should only use them if we know innocent lives aren't at risk. And in there lies the true essence of politics. If a Republican President started this, conservatives would be cheering that it's keeping us safe and they'd rather have jihads or whatever die instead of Americans.

This probably will be figured out in the future but the argument at hand is "will it be used on American soil." I'm saying that Rand Paul is just using fear and hypotheticals as a tactic to stir hate for Obama and make himself seem like a knight in shining armor that'll save America in 2016. The man is just a modern McCarthy in my books. The only way a drone would ever even be thought of to be used on American soil is if there was some huge national threat that could only be solved by a drone (which will honestly probably never happen). Not only will it not happen because of how far-fetched it is, but no President will want to deal with that sort of public backlash.

Haha here are some more:


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.

Lol question, would like to be more informed.

What is US's history of using guns, and maintaining those gun laws that would follow? I seem to understand hearing about uneducated (Or even worse) educated individuals stacking up as much as they possibility can to supply a small army. Uh, what is the requirement for purchasing all these guns anyways? These are individuals, what the hell are they doing collecting weapons for? How does that help society? What a bunch of zombies are going to come out of nowhere and start plaguing the streets and cause an epidemic or something? Do they even distribute the guns that they are buying? Perhaps the gangs are being supported behind the scenes from people who want to see chaos reign in the world. But what i do know for certain is any idiot carrying around a gun, is an idiot who will be the shepard of his own destruction.

American politics seems much more interesting than British politics.

To put it simply, there's been a recent uproar in the guns debate because of the many shootings and fatalities occurring in the US lately. Basically democrats want an assault rifle ban, better regulation of guns, and distribution of clips with less ammo. All of which is totally reasonable in my opinion because no citizen truly needs an automatic rifle. The rest just calls for a better process and background check to obtain a weapon. This debate really requires everyone putting ALL POSSIBILITIES of what could reduce gun violence on the table, rather than having just one theory and dismissing everyone else's. Yes I'm in favor of Obama and Biden's proposals but I don't think we should stop right there. I believe we should look into getting better mental care outreach as well to prevent unstable people from getting near guns.

I am however against the whole "reducing gun violence requires more guns" theory. The NRA has just gone haywire with all their recent ads and antics. They even went as far to compare the PRESIDENT OF THE FRICKIN' UNITED STATES CHILDREN'S SAFETY to ours! I was baffled at the stupidity! Of COURSE the President's kids need way more security than an average child. Average children aren't at risk and threatened on a daily basis. And even then, I don't see how arming teachers everywhere with guns that a student could potentially take at some moment will be helpful at all. Not to mention that since the USA already has the most gun sales (and since more guns supposedly equals less violence,) why aren't we living in a perfect utopia right now?

In the end, the NRA and gun nuts ultimate counterargument is that "we need guns to fight back if there's a government takeover." Absolutely ridiculous. No one is suggesting we take away all guns from every law abiding citizen. We're merely asking for better regulation, universal background checks, stricter rules, an assault rifles ban, and a slight form of ammunition control. All of which is again totally reasonable. Not only that, but even if the army started a takeover today, we would stand You must login or register to view this content.

I know that no regulations will completely stop violence. I also know that you could blame the Sandy Hook shooting on Adam Lanza's mom. But I still think that if there are any measures that we can take that'll even save 1 life, we should do it. With these proposed ideas, I definitely think gun violence would go down even if it's just a little bit.

Side note: Here's a poll of what the US citizens want: You must login or register to view this content.
As a politician, you're supposed to represent the people. Makes you question why the Republicans would rather take the NRA's side instead of the peoples'.

I think your right, and yeah I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't be able to survive an attack from the very army funded by us. I think someone said this before, but the army is nothing but a gang in uniform lol. I don't know why new gun laws are talking so damn long to be passed, you'd think that they would wait for the next loon to kill about 100 dozen more people with an enhanced AR and a blindfold. But no, even if that happens they would use it as an excuse to monitor the streets and make the little man pay the price for what a nasty organization represents. Ha ha ha, that's funny, politicians don't represent people, they only represent themselves. As noble as fighting for other people sounds, it is futile.

Protecting the people is just an excuse to get more guns and control more people, we live in a world where protection equates to control.

Lol Rand Paul wins presidential straw poll at the CPAC. What a shocker. Even though it means nothing right now, I hope he's the Republican nominee in 2016. That'd mean Hilary will win by a landslide.

Would she be the first female American president? So that would be the first black president and first female president consecutively :p

We in the UK had a female prime minster, Margaret Thatcher, she was the longest serving Prime Minister in the 20th century.

That is correct! I think they'll end up going with Marco Rubio as their nominee though just to win the Latino vote.