Elizabeth Warren
✔
@ewarren
Companies that sell guns have a responsibility to the safety of their communities. @Walmart is one of the largest gun retailers in the world. The weapons they sell are killing their own customers and employees. No profit is worth those lives. Do the right thing—stop selling guns.
Yes because you can not buy guns at other stores !
on guns, ammunition, all financial transactions
capital gains taxed for SS, Medicare, workers comp, just like earned income
unlimit all income for SS, medicare, etc.
Yeah the mass shooters would just still guns or pay more for guns and amo
Will do nothing to stop mass shootings
What percentage of the population are really passionate about owning guns? First of all there are so many places you are not allowed to bring a gun into. You don't walk into a ballpark with your 9MM strapped to your hip.. So beyond that, after working your job are people ready to go to the range and shoot? Not go to the gym, or make dinner, or watch TV, no go to the range and shoot? Really? I get it for home protection BUT you don't need a AK-47 to deter a burglar. Buy a hand gun or a hunting rifle fine.. The weapons that are available for purchase are ing ridiculous IMO.. I feel like this is more about being told you can't have them anymore, as opposed to people being so active in using their guns..
I actually concur. I hate politicians putting pressure on Walmart.
I'm ok with raising taxes on guns and ammo.
every tattooer i know owns 1 or multiple... older people i know all have guns... there's plenty of people armed that you have no clue about in every demographic you can think of. maybe you just don't know enough people, your circle is small of like minded people, or you're just naive to the fact that a ton of people have guns and care about their rights to bear them.
Laws need to evolve and change, and it is long past due these laws on Gun Ownership are tightened up. I don't care If you own a gun. But strict background checks and limitations on what you are legally allowed to buy, is more than fair.. Nobody needs to legally own an AK-47. People can still get them illegally obviously, but it needs to be on the books, that guns like that are banned. Along with tightening up all ownership laws.. That is reasonable.
I'm good with that and more..
buy back program:
full retail paid back to owner (who has proof of purchase)
bought-back guns all to be destroyed
You obviously do not believe in the time value of money. Why should one accept retail paid (maybe decades ago) from the government when some one is willing to pay market value today? Sounds like Cash for Clunkers - d**n waste of good used parts (in this case - fully functioning equipment/machine/hobby/pastime/protection/weapon/whatever you want to call it) - wasteful Dems/idea.
That's now how legislation would work. They would have to specify the fire rate, receiver, magazine capacity and some evil features like forearm grips and bayonet lugs. AK-47 is just nomenclature for a semi-auto rifle with a 30rnd magazine. Even if the specific models were banned, the semi-auto with high cap magazine would still be legal. In effect you still have the same rifle. This is why past assault weapon bans were only placebos.
your takes on me are as ed up as parden's
like everything, guns lose value, they are USED guns, perhaps with sketchy maintenance (until they, like everything else, become antiques)
buy them, destroy, dead simple.
ing nutjobs in AZ had a buy back program then passed or proposed a law that they couldn't be destroyed. cops probably stole and put them back on the market for personal profit.
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-11-2019 at 09:44 PM.
To be fair, IIRC, Walmart stopped selling rifles a few years ago, and they don't sell guns at all in a good portion of their stores. So they've taken some steps.
It's not a bad plan, but it would require more enforcement to ensure that the black market (big as it already is) doesn't expand further. Otherwise, it just not going to work out.
We already do background checks. When people talk about a loophole, or "universal" background checks, they really mean that they want to stop the private sale or gifting of firearns or require them to go through an FFL. And there'd be no way to enforce or track that with millons of unregistered firearms since we have no firearms registry in this country.
And just banning AK-47s or AR-15s is not going to work. There will always be work arounds. You're going to have to be so specific that you might as well outlaw all semi-auto long guns to have any measurable effect.
I honestly don't even think the Walmarts around here sell firearms. Maybe a small case of lever action rifles and a couple shotguns if anything, and a relatively small shelf of ammunition.
Walmart has also stopped selling firearms/ammunition to anyone under 21. So I think going after them specifically is kind of unfounded.
Last edited by Xevious; 08-11-2019 at 11:43 PM.
People passionate for guns is equal to number of people passionate against guns. Vast majority is in the middle
She gets my vote
Whatever needs to be done to get the most dangerous guns off the street ing do it already. I get sick and tired of this debate with the pro gun people acting like it’s too complicated to fix. It’s not too complicated to fix. People are too lazy to try. And are also well paid off by pro gun supporters they refuse to even look at it. Yes of course you are always going to be able to illegally buy weapons. And illegally find ways to put them together. The point is to stop making this so easy. Yes let’s just look at mental health issues. Because Lord knows it so much easier to properly identify people with mental health issues, then it is to stop certain sales of guns..
How an Outrageous NBA Transaction Supports Elizabeth Warren’s Case to Be President
As it happens, “taxpayers getting a stake in the stuff their money is used to pay for” is one of the planks in Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren’s “economic patriotism” plan.
Here is the relevant section:
Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.The link in the second sentence refers to the work of a woman named Mariana Mazzucato, who wrote a book called The Entrepreneurial State (published in the U.S. in 2015), which argues
Like any investor, taxpayers should get a return on the risky investments they are making in R&D.
That can take various forms.
Taxpayers can:
get an equity stake in any company that relies on intellectual property these investments create;
retain royalties on publicly funded innovation or a golden-share of the patent revenue;
or require the companies benefitting from publicly funded R&D
to reinvest profits back into domestic production, R&D, and worker training programs,
rather than into stock buybacks.
that modern capitalist systems are flawed because
“the public sector socializes risks, while rewards are privatized”
and suggests reforms that would help taxpayers capture some of the money that would otherwise go to corporations and their shareholders.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/mikhail-prokhorov-brooklyn-nets-sale-elizabeth-warren.html
Just another reason why BigFinance will try to smother Liz with $100Ms of ads, slander, lies against her.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-16-2019 at 05:45 PM.
Changed my mind jigs. She is a Raytheon . I smell bull . She would be a war presidentShe gets my vote
The next loin cloth she raises will be the first. Give me Clinton in that red dress, or, at least the dress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
