WolfPAC (Politics)

[Drone6o3]

Guys...

Please put Benito Mussolini (Bernie Sanders) up in the poll so I can vote for him, please.

Edit*
Also I support our country being militarily isolationists, as did Washington and Eisenhower. I support being a world power economically internatinally, but feel we should only be a military power at home and with out closest allies (Including that of Canada, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, South Korea and Japan. Along with Possibly the Philippines, France, Saudi Arabia, and the Nordic States.)

Second Edit*
I also think putting James Mattis (AKA General Maddog Mattis) in the poll would be appropriate as I'd vote for him wholeheartedly, but he's too small of a candidate as of now, and I wouldn't expect you guys to really know much about him. XD

[Autumnwolf17]

Please put Benito Mussolini (Bernie Sanders) up in the poll so I can vote for him, please.

Consider it to be a poll between the two current frontrunners, just because it's the most likely scenario in November. I've been meaning to cycle through questions at a faster rate so we can cover more and debate more, because we haven't been doing much of that at all. I welcome any poll suggestions anyone may have for the future.

Also I support our country being militarily isolationists, as did Washington and Eisenhower. I support being a world power economically internationally, but feel we should only be a military power at home and with out closest allies (Including that of Canada, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, South Korea and Japan. Along with Possibly the Philippines, France, Saudi Arabia, and the Nordic States.)

I'm more of a Dick Cheney kind of guy, personally, but I can understand that point of view. It's the weird mix of isolationism and militarism that Trump has that really bothers me. Still, doesn't military support for our allies kind of necessitate at least some further intervention in order to secure their interests? Especially with South Korea, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Second Edit* I also think putting James Mattis (AKA General Maddog Mattis) in the poll would be appropriate as I'd vote for him wholeheartedly, but he's too small of a candidate as of now, and I wouldn't expect you guys to really know much about him. XD

Believe me, I'll be all over it if a credible third party or independent candidate comes up to be a serious challenge to the two frontrunners. I've been watching the Libertarian primaries, for instance.

[Drone6o3]

Also I support our country being militarily isolationists, as did Washington and Eisenhower. I support being a world power economically internationally, but feel we should only be a military power at home and with out closest allies (Including that of Canada, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, South Korea and Japan. Along with Possibly the Philippines, France, Saudi Arabia, and the Nordic States.)

I'm more of a Dick Cheney kind of guy, personally, but I can understand that point of view. It's the weird mix of isolationism and militarism that Trump has that really bothers me. Still, doesn't military support for our allies kind of necessitate at least some further intervention in order to secure their interests? Especially with South Korea, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi's got themselves covered, and Israel has one of the finest damned militaries in the world. If the UN would stop jumping down their throats the Middle East would be the Jewish Capital of the world right now, instead of just the River Gaza. (Mostly because Israel would be attacked, counter attack and gain land, and then NOT be forced to give it back from the UN...) As for South Korea, yeah there's no leaving them for now... We made a promise to protect them and I don't see anyone trying to pull a Nixon with them, so we're chill.

[Vortex_Master]

Opinions change

[Drone6o3]

Bro... Founding fathers were all chill with fully auto machine guns for all, and you're all "Not even semi-auto".
I vote you go to Canada XD Everything you want is there! (Not even joking, most of what you want is up there o-o)
Also I've known of more crime used with illegally obtained fire arms, and more restrictions on the legally obtained ones aren't helping anyone.

*Edit
I once knew a police officer who was off duty playing BasketBall in a park with some friends, and when he got back to his car the window was broken and his trunk was raided of 2 M4's, 3 Pistols, and Riot Gear (Bullet Proof Vests and Leggings). Last time I checked he got those legally, but the shistains that have it now didn't. God only knows were those weapons and armor are now

*Edit 2
He had all that stuff because he was State Police and lived near Atlanta... He is 2nd in line as a "First Responder" to be in joint forces if SWAT needs to be called in.

[Vortex_Master]

1.) I am not moving to Canada. Although, it is a great nation. I am an American.
2.) I hope your founding-fathers comment was a joke. It took an average of almost 2 minutes to LOAD a gun back then. Those are the arms we were guaranteed by the second amendment. It has been taken to mean over the years that any and all arms are allowed to be owned by citizens, but do you see anyone carrying around nuclear bombs? No. They are INTERNATIONALLY OUTLAWED. We don't complain about denying other nations those weapons, and we don't complain that we aren't allowed to own them, because letting anyone own a nuclear bomb would be stupid.
3.) Most gun deaths are made with legally purchased firearms. Most of those crimes are crimes of passion that may not have happened without access to firearms or ammunition.
4.) I would actually be completely fine if everyone were allowed to keep there guns. Just limit the sale of ammunition. Not ammunition, no use for the gun aside from a bludgeon. Allow enough ammo for people to be able to protect themselves in the event of true self defense, so... a clip. And allow access to more ammo at firing ranges and to hunters with special permits.

[Drone6o3]

Bro... Founding fathers were all chill with fully auto machine guns for all, and you're all "Not even semi-auto".
I vote you go to Canada XD Everything you want is there! (Not even joking, most of what you want is up there o-o)
Also I've known of more crime used with illegally obtained fire arms, and more restrictions on the legally obtained ones aren't helping anyone.

*Edit
I once knew a police officer who was off duty playing BasketBall in a park with some friends, and when he got back to his car the window was broken and his trunk was raided of 2 M4's, 3 Pistols, and Riot Gear (Bullet Proof Vests and Leggings). Last time I checked he got those legally, but the shistains that have it now didn't. God only knows were those weapons and armor are now

*Edit 2
He had all that stuff because he was State Police and lived near Atlanta... He is 2nd in line as a "First Responder" to be in joint forces if SWAT needs to be called in.

"What Revolutionary War Era Machine Gun" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun (although not mass produced, the founding fathers did know of it's existence)
"Does the second amendment cover Cannons?" http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm (Apparently yes, James Madison feels cannons count)
"Most gun crimes are of passion" That was one passionate handing of the wallet... Totally not just using the gun to intimidate people...
(I'm not citing that one because there are too many reports, and too many I can't find ones I don't feel are too fake for either side -_-)
"I'm an American" http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/coun ... ica/ca.htm Canada's in America... I thought you were Anglo-Saxon anyways .-.

& I personally feel automatic weapons shouldn't be protected under the second amendment, but as it stand it technically should, & TBH Our founding fathers never wanted a Standing Army in the first place, & they sure as hell Hell didn't even want a Strong Federal Government. They wanted us to be like strong City States, similar to Rome was Local Militias and Armies that would only be combined in case of an Outside Threat as a part of a "Continental Army". Hence the "well Regulated Militia". I honestly feel "REGULATED" & "MILITIA" where the major key words we should focus on when covering guns, but not "RESTRICTION" & "AMMO REDUCTION".

First I believe in a Free Market that should allow the sale of anything wanted by the public, with as little restrictions as possible. That includes the sale of Fire Arms and Ammunition. I know many people who can make fire arms and ammunition "Off The Grid" because they're freaking crazy, and don't want them taken away (Including Artillery Morters and Automatics). I don't support the sale of auto-matic weapons, but I don't support the ban of their existence either.

I personally feel Militia's need to make a come back, and people need to take them seriously, and have them used along side the national guard in helping with relief efforts and in war time jointly working with police, and military training exercises. I feel not every idiot should get a gun, but permits to test ability, and training places be available for those without a permit. I feel to get a permit you should be registered with a local militia who are reported to and know your arsenal. Those papers and kept and managed and only handed to the federal government in case of emergency. Different class licences for different skill levels, from handgun, to shotgun, and long rifle, all on one document and checked off as earned.

Militias themselves (Not individuals) should be able to have a base of operations in which they can get higher class weapons with state government approval. (You can legally own a tank in Texas) Such as Machine Guns, and Tanks. The State Government will be aware of anything a Militia Owns, and a Militia will know everything an individual owns. Almost in a form of Checks and Balances. I feel you should be able to own anything as long as you are proven to be responsible. If you mess up and get a restriction on your license you'll have to hand over all weapons they own to the Militia for holding until they can get their state gun license re-evaluated and they get the go to carry again. Similar to a Car License, but with more local and state representation. All of this insuring the strength to create a standing army without the need of keeping one up.

Solo gunnuts are stupid, but if you get them in groups they keep each other in check. Militias are necessary to insure better regulation without throwing our whole system out the window. It'll make it so far arms can be more easily accessible, but more regulated so we know where they're going. If you have a criminal record of violent crime than getting a fire arm would be harder to get.

More or less I want a system that insures criminals must work harder to get fire arms and easier for law abiding citizens. As well as more regulation so it's understood what someone is capable of and that measures can be taken to prevent someone from stock piling too much, and from hiding things. All so we get nice records used for police investigation and a more orderly system...

If this sounds rambly or confusing I'm sorry... I am way too tired to really understand what I'm typing completely... I may revise this later to make more sense and better portray my point... This does a good job of explaining what I was talking about with cannons and shit... P.S. The founding fathers knew of machine guns and even tried ordering some for their own troops, but couldn't get a hand on them until after the French agreed soon after the Revolutionary War ended... but they did get them, and James Madison said he liked them or something like that... It's really late XD You can correct that one kind of...

https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-mos ... was-passed

1.) I am not moving to Canada. Although, it is a great nation. I am an American.
2.) I hope your founding-fathers comment was a joke. It took an average of almost 2 minutes to LOAD a gun back then. Those are the arms we were guaranteed by the second amendment. It has been taken to mean over the years that any and all arms are allowed to be owned by citizens, but do you see anyone carrying around nuclear bombs? No. They are INTERNATIONALLY OUTLAWED. We don't complain about denying other nations those weapons, and we don't complain that we aren't allowed to own them, because letting anyone own a nuclear bomb would be stupid.
3.) Most gun deaths are made with legally purchased firearms. Most of those crimes are crimes of passion that may not have happened without access to firearms or ammunition.
4.) I would actually be completely fine if everyone were allowed to keep there guns. Just limit the sale of ammunition. Not ammunition, no use for the gun aside from a bludgeon. Allow enough ammo for people to be able to protect themselves in the event of true self defense, so... a clip. And allow access to more ammo at firing ranges and to hunters with special permits.

*Citation Needed*

[GivinUDaHimelik]

I have a question for everyone? What are your thoughts on what's happening in North Carolina right now?

[Autumnwolf17]

I have a question for everyone? What are your thoughts on what's happening in North Carolina right now?

I think it's been blown out of proportion by both sides. Of course, one could argue that it's no more about the bathrooms now than it was about water fountains in 1964... but hey.

Anyway, I certainly understand the arguments made by the opposition from the perspective of danger for women in allowing easier access for rapists and the like, but I honestly don't think the bathroom law will have a terribly noticeable effect either way. There's clearly not going to be any special enforcement now and it wouldn't make much of a difference in the overall problem of sexual abuse if there were. In all honesty, I would lean towards simply allowing businesses to set their own policies on a case by case basis, but I'm not completely set on that. I still admittedly have some reservations about certain LGBT+ issues... I don't think, for example, that schools should ever adopt open policies for transgender students, though I would support the creation of gender neutral rooms as a compromise.

[Drone6o3]

I basically agree with everything Autumnwolf has stated above, and I would like to thank Himelik for changing the subject. My only issue with the creation of gender neutral restrooms is not ethical or fundamental, rather economic. It would be very expensive to build a new set of restrooms now, and would change the setup for a lot of buildings. As it is now, it's 2 sets of restrooms, set up usually across from each other. Making a design around the number 3 is infuriating and often leads to "Why is my bathroom farther away." which happens enough already in linear setups as often times it's women's restrooms that tend to be farther (from what I've observed).

I personally advocate for removal of restroom doors, and making it a long hallways with singular stalls, that are reinforced and given proper doors for themselves. The lot of them being "Restrooms for disposing of waste regardless of gender, ethnicity, or race because it's just a goddamn toilet you stupid humans who argue over everything."