What? No it wouldn't? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.

Trainers, 100%. The flats would probably look just as good if her heels weren't right next to each other.

Hullo friendly wall people!

Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.

There's more than one way to do it. You can simply have open party list proportional representation, where people vote for who gets on each party list and in what order. Then in the general election everyone picks parties and the seats are awarded proportionally according to the lists that were chosen by the voters.

Or, you can have a open election with any number of candidates running for office from any number of parties. Voters pick candidates using a method that lets them choose as many as they like, like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting. Then the seats are awarded to the winners, with the awarding method being the thing that creates proportional representation.

With the first way it's extra important that candidates appeal to the party's base. With the second way there's potentially multiple strategies for winning a seat.

I wouldn't, but that's because I think retaining the title after leaving office is ridiculous.

Yeah but you need a hard ID that the guy has a gun. The second worst thing to letting a former president get shot is killing a random person at a rally because you thought they might have a gun.

I highly suggest everyone in this thread read Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel. HIGHLY suggest you read it to understand the kind of person in America that does this and why.

It's my understanding that you're only required to protect the information if you've actually agreed to do so, which is obviously a retirement for being given access. Elected officials are a weird area where they have a much easier time getting clearance, but they've still made agreements to protect the information.

Trump was authorized to handle classified information in the first place, which is why his mishandling was a problem. I haven't read the actual law, but I'm pretty sure ordinary people who happen across classified information have no duty at all in any direction. If you can show me an example of a random person getting in trouble for sharing classified information that they didn't steal or get others to steal, well, let me know.

Are they under any obligation to protect the classified information if they're not the ones who leaked it?

You're both right. The beer people drank back then was usually very low alcohol content. It was essentially fermented just enough so that it would stay safe to drink for a while. There was stronger stuff, yes, but especially the stuff they had on ships was very weak.

So, taking away the guns is a solution to mass shootings I just don't think we should do that. (You could argue they'd switch to cars.) The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:

We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn't have mass shootings. That's really my fundamental point. Mass shootings are a social phenomenon. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don't actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.