Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(08-16-2016, 10:37 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 07:20 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 06:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Michael Moore: It's not only gun laws we need, but the defeat of the right wing. We are the majority, and we want gun laws, we want our country to stop invading other countries, we want an anti violence against women act; above all, we want an adequate safety net, not more trickle-down economics.

1. I feel left out.   I want an anti any crime against Rags act.
2. US and Russia are naughty, naughty : http://www.businessinsider.com/arms-sale...sia-2014-8  Mikey needs to consider who is exporting arms, not gun laws.
3. Yeah, we sure do need to stop invading/meddling in other countries.
4. Yes to safety net, no to wars of choice.

....

Now we know how Mike got to be so biiiggg.

Indeed. One has to wonder why Moore never mentions the fact that Nobel Peace Prize winner Barry Obama (supported of course by Hillary's state department tenure) has been the most lucrative arms dealer since WWII. Perhaps it slipped his mind?

I am not sure exactly what this has to do with Moore's or Obama's or Hillary's views on gun control.

America's alliances are good business for American arms makers and arms dealers. The question is then whether we should put our allies on notice that we might break our treaties with them, as Trump wants, or just stop selling arms to them. Would that reduce the arms they get? I don't know. The arms industry might just move to another country. So, that kind of arms control might be as tough as you claim gun control is. I'm not sure. Would selling fewer arms to our allies reduce the number of guns in the hands of our enemies (depending on how one defines our enemies)?

The article raises doubts in my mind right away, when it calls US arms support for the rebels in Syria as "disastrous." Most of the rest of the arm sales under Obama are to long-standing allies.