Technically I think it's called a bump stock. To me if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. The other obvious answer is to limit magazines to a reasonable number, let's say around 10. If he hd to pull the trigger for every shot and change clips after 10 shots I feel sure even gun enthusiasts would agree the death and wound toll would have been dramatically less because people would have time to run. Your question on non citizens got me thinking. I'm certain everything I written contains some errors. I also am certain if you apply that standard to Fox news your spend the rest of your life trying to count their misstatements.

Fine President!

Best since Reagan and on the way to being better.

Regan buried this country in debt and was into dementia at the end of his term. That's a pretty low bar.

:BigApplause:

If you are correct, this current President in one year is well under the bar, and continues to bury the bar by his attacking any American hero who disagrees with him.

Reagan did not bury the country in debt. The only way to get into debt is to spend more than you take in. The President cannot spend money. Only Congress can spend money and only Congress can create debt.

Revenues to the government increased after the Reagan tax cuts and the Congress as they are wont to do, spent more than the increases.

Regulating bump stocks to me is a no-brainer. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated. They are very difficult and expensive to obtain. A bump stock makes a semi-automatic firearm perform as if it is fully automatic.

But I don't think that limiting the capacity of a magazine will slow down anyone very much. I can change magazines in about two seconds, maybe less.

I would be Ok with limiting the capacity of magazines as long as I can be guaranteed that no bad guys will have more rounds than I have.

"they're the 99% and they live along MLK Blvd..,in the inner cities...where we FEAR to go."

Conservatives fear a lot of things. Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, gays, transgenders, taking away their guns, immigrants, Jade Helm, the United Nations, a "War on Christmas" even Starbucks coffee cups.

Should we give all those scaredy cats a teddy bear for Christmas?

I think you mean President Reagan. Tip O'Neill and the Democrats buried the country in debt with their uncontrolled spending. O'Neill promised President Reagan spending cuts and never followed through. What a surprise...he was just another lying Democrat.

While they are not banned, machine guns, or more correctly, fully automatic firearms, are very highly regulated and as such are extremely difficult and expensive to obtain.

A fully automatic weapon was not used in Las Vegas. A device that makes a semi-automatic gun perform like and fully auto, called a bump stock, was used. I agree with either banning or applying the same regulations to bump stocks as fully automatic guns.

Liberals consider ANY firearm to be a 'machine gun'...a truly ignorant lot.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt.

US Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent

If the government ever "came after you"...your guns will be worthless, because they will use viruses.

And a person is 43 times more likely to be shot by a family member than an intruder when there is a gun in the house.

The unemployment rate was 4.8 in January of 2017 and 4.1 in November of 2017. That's the lowest it's been in ten years.

How do companies make huge profits at the expense of our national debt? Do you understand that companies are taxed on their profits? If a company makes more money, the government gets more money.

The problem is not our companies being too successful. If anything the fact that they have been held back by high corporate taxes and excessive regulations have made them less profitable than they might have been. That means that the government received less money from them that they might have if they made more profits.

The problem is Congress always spends more money than it takes in. We have no law that limits the amount that they spend. the budget that is set forth at the beginning of the year is a joke. There is no law that says they must adhere to it. That is why we desperately need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Yes spin the numbers, all you got is spin.

Obama's debt bought nothing except political gift giving.

Infrastructure deteriorated and Military diminished

Interesting but the fact is that only Congress can create a deficit or debt. We tend to blame or give credit to whoever happens to be president at the time, but Congress is who has the pocketbook. The president can only spend the White House Budget.

During President Obama's two terms, more money was added to the debt than during the terms of all the other presidents combined. Take a look at who controlled Congress during those years.

I think Presidents have veto power over budgets. I don't know the answer as to whether or not the budget was passed over a veto but I'm guessing it wasn't. If it was he is blameless. He doubled the national debt. Giving a tax cur without cutting spending is heading in the same direction.

"As there was a deal in 1983, there was a deal in 1982 — a budget deal. Democrats will tell you that Reagan teamed with O’Neill to raise taxes and save the day. For instance, President Obama has said, “If Ronald Reagan could compromise, why wouldn’t folks who idolize Ronald Reagan be willing to engage in those same kinds of compromises?” I’ll tell you what “folks” know, some of us: that O’Neill and the Democrats promised three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in taxes raised. The taxes were raised, of course; the spending cuts never came. Reagan kicked himself, hard, for that deal."

Read more at: National Review

Sounds like a paranoid delusion to me.:shrug:

Obama buried us...he added $10 trillion.

You combined fear and loathing...

"We" fear blacks...as do you. You won't wander down MLK Blvd at 1am either. We fear what some Muslims do: List of Islamic Terror Attacks The Mexicans ARE breeding us out. They WILL be the majority in 30 years.

The others...are loathed...not feared.

The rest...whatever...you're the one obsessed with those.

But nowhere NEAR the $10 trillion Obama added.

Yes they will...and you've been "primed" to be susceptible...the flu shots...sensitized you to the "killer strain" they've got developed. At least that's what some people say.

And apparently you don't grasp that all the economists that have reviewed this tax package say the huge tax cuts to the corporations and to the wealthy are adding to the debt. In simple terms, if a corporation makes a profit of $100 and pays 30% tax, the government will receive $30. If the corporation makes $125 in profit, and pays 20% tax, the government will receive $25.

Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks said: “If you talk about tax reform, which is in the news every minute of every day, this is not tax reform. This is fool’s gold.”

As usual, the Fox News watchers have it wrong. Obama's policies contributed 983 billion to the debt between 2009 and 2017. This was a result of increased military spending, The Affordable care act, tax cuts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment act which was created to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence increase in national debt. Trump's new set of tax cuts is expected to add over $1.46 trillion to the national debt. There is no justification for this cut. Thanks to Obama, there is almost full employment. The financial crisis was dealt with. This is a simple case of giving money to the wealthy, and increasing the national debt even more.

So "Obama's policies" added ONLY ......... So, he did not mean it when he said the buck stops in the oval office? It was ALL congresses fault? OK, so Obama was just as inept and impotent as I have stated for the past 8 years.

Addressing the tax cuts and the estimate of adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt, you do know that is calculating a never increasing average GDP growth of about 1.5%, right? The CBO can only calculate based on known figures. The truth is that if the GDP growth averages 3%, there will be a surplus. So far, there has been a three month GDP growth of 3%.

The problem is that you're looking at everything as a zero-sum game. If, because of reduction in corporate taxes, more corporations decide to do business in the United States, there will be a much larger base that will feed the government.

And not all economists are saying that the plan is bad.

Here's an interesting little piece from CBS news.

Senate GOP - Breaking news: CBS This Morning asked three...

Obama added $10 TRILLION to the debt.

The CBO numbers are garbage. We'll borrow closer to $2 trillion a year with Trump.

We have NO choice but to borrow...there's no way to EVER pay it back...and we CAN'T/WON'T cut expenses.

Exactly right. The CBO is a joke. Their numbers are usually wrong. I don't know why we even have them. They must view everything as a zero-sum game. No one looks at budgetary numbers like that.

But there will never be a surplus as long as Congress is free to spend whatever they want. Most spending these days has to do with bringing home the bacon in an effort to get re-elected. Members will agree to sign off on each other's pork, sometimes even across party lines.

There are only two things that will stop this lunacy. Number one, term limits for Congress and number two, a balanced budget amendment.

Obviously all the numbers are a joke unless you read it on Fox News or hear it from the fat guy with the bad combover . You people are hopelessly close-minded.

Obviously all the numbers are a joke unless you read it on CNN/NYT or hear it from the fat lady with the bad temper (Hillary for the slower among us) . You people are hopelessly close-minded.

There...fixed it for you. YOU are as closed minded as they are.

There are three different ways to look at the debt increase during an administration and depending who's side you're on you'll either look at the most favorable or the most unfavorable. Like I said, even though we give the president blame or credit, debt comes from Congress spending more than they take in.

On January 20, 2009, when President Obama was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. That's almost double.

That is very simply how much the debt rose during the Obama administration. How much of that he was responsible for is a matter of discussion. Even though Congress is responsible for all of the spending the president still to sign the bills. Now a lot of different factors come into play here. Does the same party hold the Congress and the White House? Were bills passed with a clear veto-proof majority?

You can make numbers look like whatever you want, but the fact is that the debt grew almost as much in the eight years of the Obama presidency than it did for the previous two hundred and forty years of the nation.

We have term limits. it's called "voting'.

And the only thing that will stop this lunacy is to relitigate the Supreme Court decision of Citizen's United, which gave corporations the power to shovel unlimited dark money into the pockets of politicians. And that decision, fyi, was from the conservative "hero" Scalia, and why Republicans were so desperate to keep the Court conservative that they held Scalia's position unfilled for over a year (in defiance of their Constitutionally mandated duty). Ginsberg said we now have "the best democracy money can buy."

Five years after Citizens United ruling, big money reigns - LA Times

Mellin...Citizens United was rulead as it was for ONE reason.

Presidential election now cost over a $ billion to run. You DON'T get that kind of money through $10 donations from the public. They NEED BIG MONEY donations and that's the way they get it.

They RIG the system for themselves,,,and then LIE to us about WHY.

Even welfare benefits them more than the poor. Sure...the poor eat...but Kraft and Tyson end up with the money as the poor spend it right away...using a JP Morgan EBT card. So, JP Morgan, Kraft and Tyson lobby for more welfare benefits.

That's how it works...government comes up with a "problem" and contracts out to "fix" it. The corporations CREATE the problem and then using the government get paid to fix the "problem" they created.

Question for those who support repealing the Obama Care Mandate. I understand it's limiting your freedoms to have to pay for insurance. But if you have income and don't want to pay for insurance don't you agree you should have to sign an agreement that if you get hit by a bus the ambulance will take you home put on your sofa and give you a bottle of aspirin and say good luck. Why, because if you go to the hospital and need a million dollars of care who pays for it? Everybody else who uses the hospital pays that bill. Seniors pay for medicare every month so why do they support a system that lets working people get subsidized care? When Fox News says heh seniors pay for the working people who want to party instead of paying for insurance why is this a good thing?

You are a fvcking idiot...

If a person has income and they go to the hospital, THEY are on the hook for the hospitals bill. If they refuse to pay, the hospital will send it to collection and could pursue a court judgement to lien their assets to satisfy the bill. Just because a person does not want to pay for something, does not mean the government steps in and pays the bill - that would be ideal in a liberals world.

"Everybody else who uses the hospital" does not pay anyone else's bill. Most people have insurance, all insurance companies (including Obammacare, Medicaid, and medicare) have a pre negotiated rate per code (every illness or service required has a code assigned to it for billing purposes). People that have insurance would only be required to pay the deductible, if they have one. People that do not have insurance and have income or resources to pay the bill, are charged at full rate (not the cheaper pre negotiated rate the insurance companies have)...

FYI - The person that has income most likely pays property tax and a portion of that is going to fire / paramedic services. If they ride in the ambulance to the hospital they will in most cases receive a bill for that transport...even though the equipment and personnel were funded by their property tax money.

What working people get subsidized care funded by seniors?

You should stick to something your qualified at, like cleaning the house!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Dougie...I'll give your ass some time to heal after dirt gave you a good f@cking...

I agree...if you're poor and have no insurance...they SHOULD just bring you home to die. WHY should everyone else pay for you to "get better" so you can leech some more?

Absolutely both parties deserve blame for spending money they don't have. It's the fundamental problem of any democracy. But if we are talking about accepting responsibility the buck stops with the president. It diminishes Reagan's accomplishments.

If you are talking about a 10K I will agree with you. If you are talking about 1 million it's called bankruptcy court.

You have to understand the games and trickery employed by members of Congress to get you to vote for them. Most people don't have the time nor inclination to follow every action taken by Congress. One of the biggest problems is that your Congressman and Senator will brag about all the money he takes hoke to your state or district. Since most people are only concerned about themselves and their neighborhood, they think that their guy is great. What most people don't see is all of the additional spending that is done so that your guy can bring home the bacon to you. What a lot of people also don't realize is that Congress tries to maximize their income by taking more and more from the states and then controlling how it is spent by mandates. Since they take out their costs, less money goes back to the states than if they just left it alone and let the states handle state issues.

Another great device is hearings and investigations which are not the job of Congress. These cost billions of dollars and rarely ever accomplish anything other than to get the member's names and faces on television.

Congress will do almost anything to avoid legislating, which it really their only job. Everytime that they vote on something, they risk alienating some of their constituency. Even when they do vote, those votes may be pre-approved by the party leadership. A prime example is this latest tax reform bill. Rep Peter King and a few others that live in states with high state taxes voted no on the bill. That was OK with the party leaders because they knew that if they voted for the bill it might hurt their re-election chances. They also knew that they had more than enough votes to pass it so those few votes weren't necessary.

The Senate had to such luxury every Republican had to be on board and if they weren't John McCain would have been wheeled in from his deathbed to vote.

Often a member will be able to vote for or against a bill in its initial stages which will save him from voting on the final bill.

It's all a game and a show. No one really can be sure about any of these people. The only thing that we really know about them is which party they belong to which gives you an idea if their basic philosophy somewhat aligns with yours.

Term limits by voting is a nice idea, but it's naive to think that it will work. The number one job of people in Congress is to get themselves re-elected. And they don't do it by doing the job they were sent to do.

It's always such a good idea to start a discussion with this statement. It will help to solve so many problems.

Taxes don't hurt as bad as spending does. I agree congress says I give you this and people vote for them not thinking about who is going to pay. All politicians put a spin on everything. When we talk health care the dems will pull out a 5 year old with a rare genetic condition and the republicans will tell you all businesses are going under. The truth is in the middle and we need a health care system so we have to do some critical thinking. Primary rule is follow the money. In 8 years of Obama care the economy has rebounded, that's a fact. The republicans want to repeal it because of the Obama Care surcharge on upper incomes. I know because I pay it. If you want to make my insurance cheaper so yours can go up in cost vote republican and try to find the error in my logic (please don't give me a triad on what could of, would of, should of been done).

Yes...it is...it's distraction while they keep on stealing from the treasury.

Which GUARANTEES that they are corrupt crooks. EVERY one of them.

Their #1 job is "earning" for those who put them there. Taking form the treasury and giving it away...THAT is their #1 job. THAT is what will get them elected.

Many think the electronic voting machines are so crooked that "voting" doesn't even matter any more. Results are pre-programmed in and our vote means nothing...well it ALWAYS meant nothing when BOTH candidates are well vetted and corrupt. Telling you pick this one or that one...isn't really a choice.

ONLY if the f@cking idiot listens.