And that differs from obama... How?

Your Parliamentary actions are nothing more than a tempest in a teacup, bone china at that.

Who cares? Who cares that Trump is running for POTUS at this point? Reminds me of a joke:

A brave asks the chief how he comes up with all of the names of the newborn babies, since the chief is the one who decides.

Chief: If I wake up in morning, baby is born and snow is falling gently, I name baby Snow Falling Gently. If baby is born and I see a hawk flying over, I name baby Hawk Flying Over. But tell me, Two Dogs Fucking, why are you so interested?

 

If baby is born and I fart loudly, I name baby Trump.

totally impressed with your ability to ask a question, completely ignore the answer and then fly off on a totally different tangent as if that was the topic all along - you should think about becoming a politician!

Were you aware of this statistic? Among legal gun carriers, for every fatal shooting of a criminal in self-defence, there are two fatal accidental shootings and 78 suicides. So that's, what? 80 innocent deaths that wouldn't have taken place without gun ownership, for every life saved in self-defence.

Then, of course, there are the massacres to take into account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

Sometimes a fart sounds like,  Truuuuuummmpp!  :'-D 

Can't do it, love muffin! I have scruples, y'see... Even though I exercise my right to own a gun, I respect your desire not to have one. And I understand why; I really do. Somewhere in the middle the answer lies.

I am not prostitute.

 

According to [U.S.] Government (!) statistics, of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, 2/3 are suicides.

Some people apparently just need killin'.  :-B

My guess is that a substantial number of the rest are police shootings.

In a related note, I saw that as of 2015, the police have seized more money from civilians, without a trial or being accused of a crime, than money stolen by "criminals".  Literally, they stop cars going down the road and ask if they are carrying large amounts of cash - then just take it.

The money is split up among police agencies to cover "costs".

In case anyone wonders, it is nearly impossible to recover this money.

Not that I don't believe you - because I do believe that police are only just the other side of the line of being criminal (takes a thief to catch a thief) - but where did you "saw that"?
 

Umm, that one I do NOT believe. If you said that police officers split it up to cover costs - namely, their personal mortgages and vehicle expenses - that, I would believe. Also, if it was reported in the news, those same officers are likely in jail now for committing a crime.

And you lot wonder why USians would want guns? If we give up our guns, who protects us from those who are supposed to protect us? Hmmm?
 

Well, now that your investigative reporting has revealed it, at least it can be stopped and the thieves tried. Either that, or we are going to slide lower on the Corruption Scale (U.S. is ranked 16th worldwide).

Do post your source.

There have been numerous reports about it. It's called civil forfeiture. Here's a couple to start with
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/asset-seizures-fuel-police-spending/
http://www.vice.com/read/the-police-can-take-your-cash-without-charging-you-with-a-crime

Very interesting and also predictable - baldly relating a story. Yes, forfeitures can happen, and certainly they do, but people are not without recourse. Trust me, if someone is [stupidly] carrying excessive amounts of cash in their vehicle or on their person, there could be an illegal reason why. People carrying large amounts of cash legally will do something about it. People carrying large amounts of cash illegally likely will not, and they probably will be charged with something as soon as the cops find out what illegal act(s) were committed.

Also very interesting is the second link where the article describes police running amok in situations, overreacting or performing illegal acts in the name of police work.

I suspect that if Americans gave up all their guns, police would return to their "To Protect and to Serve" role...  (fail)
 

There are a lot of people who don't trust banks, especially after the past 10 years.

We have all watched what happened in Greece, where a government that was spending more than it took in, and was up to its eyeballs from bailing out banks, used deposited cash as "their own money".

People stood in lines at ATMs - every day, so that they could pull enough cash to buy groceries.

No matter if we agree or not, there are many migrants in the US, and many of them cannot even open a bank account.

I can think of a lot of reasons to not put your money in a bank and keep at least some of it as cash, and they don't involve doing anything particularly illegal, except for maybe having some side jobs.  In any event, if they are convicted of a crime, then seizing property is one thing, but taking people's possessions, without other strong proof, or just for minor crimes is not right.

Owning a knife or gun is not proof or even cause that I might have committed a crime.  Same with carrying cash.

Imagine the situation where a single Mom tries to make ends meet by engaging in prostitution.  We don't like to talk about it, but it happens, it is a crime, and it is all done in cash.   Is it really the correct response by police departments to seize this poor woman's hard earned cash, just because she is vulnerable ?

 

I think you answered your own question there with one word: Crime.
 

Is it fair for police departments to seize cash from a drug dealer just because he was desperate and turned to drug sales instead of a regular job? Perhaps the police should just bring the guy in, deliver the cash to his wife/kids and concentrate on real issues, like speeding or traffic violations.

Seriously?

 

Are the migrants here legally? The ones I know who come here don't want a bank account because they don't want to be traced. Tough darts.

If a person is not convicted of a crime, nor accused of a crime, what basis is there for seizing their property?  That is a fundamental right in the US Constitution, similar to the gun ownership aspect we both hold as important.

Anyone can be accused of a crime, and probably convicted of "something".  In the nearly 30 years of living in CA, they average 1500 new state laws per year, so over 40K laws, on top of what we already had.  What are the odds that the average person has any idea what these are ?

Is it really the same basis, to seize property, especially cash, for misdemeanors vs serious felonies ?  Are you saying it is ok for a police officer to pull over your wife because she made a small driving error, and take your paycheck while she was on the way to deposit it in the bank?   It was against the law - right ?

Suppose you are on your way to the shooting range with 3 of your nicest rifles, and you do a rolling stop.  Is it ok for the police officer to "suspect that you might be on your way to a crime", seize your guns, keep one for the local agency, give one to the FBI, and the other to the state police? 

After that, they can spend up to 1 year before making a "decision" on whether or not to charge you, during which time you cannot legally do much of anything.  Regardless of if they decide to charge you or not, after this year period, you have to hire a lawyer to sue them to get back your rifles.  This process can drag out another 1 - 2 years, and typically costs $2-5K in legal fees.

Are you really sure that you support this concept?

A paycheck isn't cash. Mine were hardly enough to warrant suspicion, even when I was at the top of my earning level. Now, if my wife were to be pulled over after a minor driving infraction and allowed(!) a LEO to search the vehicle*, whereupon the officer discovered my trunk was full of cash, I'd have some 'splainin' to do. Especially to my wife.  (nod)

*I have never advised anyone to ever allow a vehicle search for any reason. All of my vehicles were bought pre-owned; how do I know what the previous owner stashed under the carpets or somewhere in a hidden compartment?

 

The one rifle I own would probably cause suspicion, especially if I had ammunition for it. It is a sniper rifle, albeit an old one. If they saw the targets in the back, they'd know I don't miss.

 

   

I don't live in Cali, friend. I wouldn't live in California, way too liberal for my tastes. Pelosi is out there. OUT THERE. I'd suggest you move. Tomorrow, or sooner.

Too liberal in what sense?

Come on, man. California.