It all falls back to the Heller decision, in which the justices said that governments couldn't forbid the possession of firearms "in common use", their phrasing, not mine.  I think I understand the proviso, I don't think anyone wants highly destructive military weapons in the hands of the general public, at least that's what I'm assuming is behind the phrasing.  But what's "common use"?  An governmental entity can try and regulate the possession of any firearm by saying it falls outside of "common use".  And therein lies the danger.

It seems pretty obvious to me that "common use" relates to the "militia" phrase. Maybe that's why it was put in there, to keep the government from saying a firearm falls outside "common use" if a "militia" person (typical soldier) would carry it.  It seems clear to me that the intent relates to whatever weapon a common foot soldier would carry, up to and including fully automatic rifles.

In the past, summits were the result of lots of hard work by diplomats, making the agreements and getting through the sticking points before the big guys meet.  The summit then became a no-pressure meeting for publicity and photo-ops with an agreements already worked out.  Trump prefers taking the reins in this process, thus you either get spectacular success or amazing failure.  Of course, only a die-hard Trumpkin could spin utter failure as a giant success.

This right here is one of the reasons you need to stay on this board. This illustrates how completely opposite the perception of two sides of the media and culture. It’s like two 180 degree opposite stories are being unfolded. Like a parallel universe where everything is upside down from each other.

The article Lucifer posted shows the summit as a brilliant success - Trump holding off until he gets a much better deal rather than just signing the first thing to ensure his legacy. I can hardly characterize this as “utter failure”.  It’s not over with; both he and nutso Kim agreed to continue negotiations and remain friendly. No other President has gotten even close to this. How the fuck - excuse me but it’s warranted - is that a failure??? Only the left biased Trump hating media can spin that into a failure and you are of course willing only to see it from that viewpoint.

To clarify, this is pretty much literally accurate.  So much stuff posted here comes across as rhetoric, but the founder of the ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, was a devoted communist when he founded the ACLU.  He later recanted after the evil of Joseph Stalin became known and by 1940 was working to purge known communists from the ACLU. 

Obviously he didn't get them all.

No, they had to repackage it. It's called "post modernism" and "identity politics".  Listen to the part of the video I referenced here; fantastic summary:

http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3389.msg60243#msg60243

Walls are more humane.  They'll funnel people toward entry points where they can apply for asylum and be processed, rather than just cross an undefended border and wander around lost until they die of dehydration. I cannot believe you people who think we should just leave the borders open and undefended. What is wrong with you?

People on the left cannot see left bias. They are normalized to it.

 Aussies: Believe you should look out for your mates.
Brits: Believe that you should look out for those people who belong to your club.
Americans: Believe that people should look out for and take care of themselves.
Canadians: Believe that’s the government’s job.

Aussies: Dislike being mistaken for Pommies (Brits) when abroad.
Canadians: Are rather indignant about being mistaken for Americans when abroad.
Americans: Encourage being mistaken for Canadians when abroad.
Brits: Can’t possibly be mistaken for anyone else when abroad.

Canadians: Endure bitterly cold winters and are proud of it.
Brits: Endure oppressively wet and dreary winters and are proud of it.
Americans: Don’t have to do either, and couldn’t care less.
Aussies: Don’t understand what inclement weather means.

Americans: Drink weak, pissy-tasting beer.
Canadians: Drink strong, pissy-tasting beer.
Brits: Drink warm, beery-tasting piss.
Aussies: Drink anything with alcohol in it.

Brits: Drink in proper pubs.
Americans: Drink in soulless bars with big TVs.
Canadians: Drink in places that look like proper British pubs from the outside but feel like soulless American bars inside.
Australians: Think none of this matters as long as beer is served.

Americans: Seem to think that poverty and failure are morally suspect.
Canadians: Seem to believe that wealth and success are morally suspect.
Brits: Seem to believe that wealth, poverty, success, and failure are inherited.
Aussies: Seem to think that none of this matters after several beers.

Brits: Have produced many great comedians, celebrated by Canadians, ignored by Americans, and therefore not rich.
Aussies: Have produced comedians like Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious.
Canadians: Have produced many great comedians such as John Candy, Martin Short, Jim Carrey, Dan Akroyd.
Americans: Think that all these people are American!

Americans: Spend most of their lives glued to the idiot box.
Canadians: Don’t, but only because they can’t get more American channels.
Brits: Pay a tax just so they can watch 4 channels.
Aussies: Export all their crappy programs, which no one there watches, to Britain, where everybody loves them.

Americans: Will jabber on incessantly about football, baseball and basketball.
Brits: Will jabber on incessantly about cricket, soccer and rugby.
Canadians: Will jabber on incessantly about hockey, hockey and hockey
Aussies: Will jabber on incessantly about how they beat the Poms in every sport they played them in.

Aussies: Are extremely patriotic about their beer.
Americans: Are flag-waving, anthem-singing, and obsessively patriotic to the point of blindness.
Canadians: Can’t agree on the words to their anthem, in either language, when they can be bothered to sing them.
Brits: Do not sing at all but prefer a large brass band to perform the anthem.

Brits: Shop at home and have goods imported because they live on an island.
Australians: Shop at home and have goods imported because they live on an island.
Americans: Cross their southern border for cheap shopping, gas and liquor in a backwards country.
Canadians: Cross their southern border for cheap shopping, gas and liquor in a backwards country.

Brits: Are justifiably proud of the accomplishments of their past citizens.
Americans: Are justifiably proud of the accomplishments of their present citizens.
Canadians: Prattle on about how some of those great Americans were once Canadian.
Aussies: Waffle on about how some of their past citizens were once Outlaw Pommies, but none of that matters after several beers.

Oh, because I really liked a lot of his ideas from the last election.  I like universal health care, I don't think anyone should be ruined by illness.  Please don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've seen it.  Heck, if I didn't have my job we couldn't get any kind of coverage.  I think the banks are once again out of control and would like to see someone stand up to them.  I love the fact that in the last election cycle he took no money from special interests.  And I really don't like the increasing economic disparity we see here, America was ever supposed to have a landed aristocracy but that's what we're building.

The folks who voted for Trump out of disconnect with both parties are likely to get more out of Sanders.  I like his progressive platform.  I won't try and convince anyone, I think his ideas aren't very popular here. But I don't care about being popular and I never did.  I care about being try to myself and my beliefs.

Sadly I cannot support him this election cycle.  He is too damn old.

Someone finally said something to make me consider universal healthcare and it was Jordan Peterson. (The guy that the left hates because he’s a racist conservative.) He pointed out that it’s easier to start a small business in Canada because they don’t have to worry about providing health insurance to employees. That’s a great point. Tying health insurance to employment is a disaster. You are absolutely right if it weren’t for your job you wouldn’t have coverage. When my husband lost his job and his coverage the COBRA payments were unaffordable. Fortunately I have coverage through my retirement and so he got on mine. 

How health insurance got tied to employment was government meddling in salaries and tax codes. So the right solution is to untangle that. But I don’t know if this country could do that - it seems no one even knows how it got this way much less cares to reverse it. To most people the only way out is a government takeover. I am far from believing that would be anything but another disaster but I agree the way things are is not sustainable. The population as a whole is getting older and sicker, with fewer young healthy people to fork over premiums.

Personally, I think all the primates were here before us and deserve to continue to be here.  If they get knocked out by climate change, well that's a pity.  But I'd hate to see them go under because of our activities.  As it is the Anthropocene (what they're calling the era of sentient humans) is seeing the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

No they weren't.  Non-human primates evolved parallel to us after we split from a common ancestor.  They were not here first.  As for humans taking over habitats, any one human who cuts down forest to plant crops was likely born before any monkeys in the area, so quite literally, that human was here first. Just because wild animals occupy an area at the moment doesn't give them any more right to it than any creature has ever had in the history of the planet. Life has always taken over territory from other forms of life. When you start giving animals more "right" to land than humans, you get starving humans.

I will grant that our species has had a population explosion and is indeed taking over a lot of territory, but all signs point to a limit when the developing nations advance into the first world. Bringing modern technology, electric power (fossil fuel burning) to the third world actually results in much better prognosis for the earth: Populations stabilize or even begin to reduce. The best thing we can do to save the planet and the environment is to spread first world technology to all peoples.

Species won't get knocked out by climate change, they'll evolve into other species more suited to the new climate, just like they've been doing for 4 billion years. Individual species do go extinct, hence why I feel so strongly the Bonobo needs to be protected. It is exceedingly unique. But we cannot ascribe the same value to any and every species; they're just not that special. There are "unique" species in every nook and cranny of the planet and they are there because they evolved for just that spot. If we try to save them all we will be paralyzed - it would be a disaster economically, it already is when government in the name of "protected habitat" prevents humans from growing food or using land for economic benefit.  You can make a case that almost any species is endangered, because conditions change all the time whether man made or just naturally. To use that to restrict and control human progress is disastrous.  Personally I feel it should be used only in very limited small number of cases, such as the Bonobo.