Printable View
So who else thinks this new school shooting (Texas) won't change a thing? Republicans are afraid to loose NRA money and redneck voters. We will hear the same bullshit from republican politicians every time there is a school shooting. We need more guns and that they will keep the kids and their families in their prayers. How has that worked out. I need to move to a better country.
The only way it can change is a generational thing. The youth campaign until they are old enough to vote and keep the views.
There are too many good ol boys in the government right now. They should really make all politicians retire at 70. And you can't have family members replace them. Of course why not have an 8 year term limit for Congress (no family members for ten years at same position) . Fresh blood could "drain the swamp".
Or.... the majority opinion in the US remains in defense of the second amendment as we see gun crime and violet crime fall year after year. Dems had control of the White House, Senate, and House and yet didn’t do anything to enact gun control legislation that they constantly talk about. But it’s only Repubs fault to you right? Fact is they know it’s political suicide bc the majority of the public simply doesn’t favor further gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyverSG1
Most reasonable people in the US favour some further form of gun control so I'm going to have to conclude that you are a Russian agent trying to feed me false information. Sorry, comrade.
Really though I think what sticks in most people's craw is the utter unwillingness to even discuss the most obvious changes that should be made.
It's really sad that the gun industry or their mouthpiece the NRA care more for their bottom line than they do about people's lives.
The Dems only had FULL control for two years (2009-2010) and they blew a great opportunity. Healthcare was there top priority and everything else was put on the back burner. I don't think they had any idea they were going to lose control of Congress. Who knows what other legislation would have been passed. I mostly blame repubs because they take most if not all campaign donations given out by NRA and gun manufacturers. And many repubs (not all) always says to prevent mass shootings more people should be carrying guns. Of course the ones that don't come out and say it don't say they are against it. The NRA grades all politicians. Say something against them and you'll lose your A rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkizOr.... the majority opinion in the US remains in defense of the second amendment as we see gun crime and violet crime fall year after year. Dems had control of the White House, Senate, and House and yet didn’t do anything to enact gun control legislation that they constantly talk about. But it’s only Repubs fault to you right? Fact is they know it’s political suicide bc the majority of the public simply doesn’t favor further gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyverSG1
And like what Idol said, most citizens do favor further gun control (better background checks (national database), no weapons for people with history of violence and/or mental issues, ban assault weapons.
"Really though I think what sticks in most people's craw is the utter unwillingness to even discuss the most obvious changes that should be made." - Idol
Republicans will never change their minds about God ("religious freedom", abortion), Guns, and fossil fuels. That's their entire voter base. Turn on one of them and lose elections.
"It's really sad that the gun industry or their mouthpiece the NRA care more for their bottom line than they do about people's lives. " - Idol
Isn't that how most companies are run these days (and long before). At the end of the day GREED trumps everything.
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...arkland-430099
Skiz must only watch fox news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caballero
It wasn't a blown opportunity because Democrats in general, despite all their blabbering, aren't anti-gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyverSG1The Dems only had FULL control for two years (2009-2010) and they blew a great opportunity. Healthcare was there top priority and everything else was put on the back burner. I don't think they had any idea they were going to lose control of Congress. Who knows what other legislation would have been passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
January 3, 2009: Democrats control White House, Senate, and the House of Reps. Ready to see their anti-gun stance?
Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009. (Which is not a loophole at all) Died in Congress.
Attempts to re-enact the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Never even got a floor vote.
But...but...the Democrats did enact some sort of gun legislation though right? Well yes, yes they did:
They passed the "Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010". This NRA backed bill ensured that anyone declaring bankruptcy could not have their firearms confiscated so the person still maintained a means of life defense.
They passed another bill furthering gun rights that allowed guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains.
In July of 2010, while still fully in control, Democrats exempted the NRA from their DISCLOSE Act, which ultimately passed the House this summer. (DISCLOSE = Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act)
Truth is, the Democrats don't want another mass-exodus. When Clinton got the FAWB bill passed, that is what directly led to the Gingrich Revolution.
Finally, there is an ebb and flow to both houses of Congress and they knew damn well that people didn't want the ACA and they were going to pay the price politically. That's exactly why they rammed it through the way they did. They knew they likely wouldn't have the opportunity again. And the ACA was passed just 14 months into having control of both houses. What was stopping them from proposing some form of gun control legislation? Nothing. As I've shown, they simply aren't anti-gun.
And? Just like every PAC out there, they donate more to candidates who support their cause. Why is that noteworthy...? And you act like they're a hate group or doing something bad. They are literally a PAC that helps protect Constitutional rights for the 99.9999% of lawful gun owners.Quote:
I mostly blame repubs because they take most if not all campaign donations given out by NRA and gun manufacturers. And many repubs (not all) always says to prevent mass shootings more people should be carrying guns. Of course the ones that don't come out and say it don't say they are against it. The NRA grades all politicians. Say something against them and you'll lose your A rating.
Are you suggesting that the Dems would change their mind on those topics?Quote:
"Really though I think what sticks in most people's craw is the utter unwillingness to even discuss the most obvious changes that should be made." - Idol
Republicans will never change their minds about God ("religious freedom", abortion), Guns, and fossil fuels. That's their entire voter base. Turn on one of them and lose elections.
It isn't greed. It's a Constitutional right that the Supreme Court has upheld time and time and time again. Do you honestly believe the SCOTUS is somehow profiting from their rulings?Quote:
"It's really sad that the gun industry or their mouthpiece the NRA care more for their bottom line than they do about people's lives. " - Idol
Isn't that how most companies are run these days (and long before). At the end of the day GREED trumps everything.
Not sure if I buy that. Nor do I think that most people who are in favor of increased gun restrictions could tell you what the current laws state. And on that note, lets talk a little more about fundamental terminology shall we?Quote:
And like what Idol said, most citizens do favor further gun control (better background checks (national database), no weapons for people with history of violence and/or mental issues, ban assault weapons.
There is technically no such thing as an "assault weapon". The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. But someone of your fervor for gun control should know the difference. The term "assault weapon" is a political term, developed by anti-gun folks to expand the category of "assault rifles." (I'm going to stop using quotes now bc fuck all that). The US military uses the very common M1A1 Carbine. It is a fully automatic assault rifle, so it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is held. AKA a machine gun. Back in the 80's the fed closed the "register" for these guns and ever since it is illegal to sell or transfer new machine guns to civilians. This is very different from the commonly vilified AR-15, a semi-automatic. It is not a machine gun or assault rifle. So why do you want to ban them? My guess is because you're not informed on what they actually are or how they function.
These guns that you call "assault weapons" are just like a shotgun, deer rifle, or a revolver, they fire a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled. No more. Do you wish to ban or increase regulations on those? In order to even buy a revolver in my state of Colorado, current regulations require that you be an adult, a non-felon, never convicted of a violent crime, pass a background check from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (who syncs with the FBI), and provide validated information such as name, address, etc. for records for sellers and authorities.
Next, you cannot restrict gun ownership for people with a "history of violence and/or mental issues". We have the presumption of innocence in the US and until you have been convicted of a crime, you are innocent. You cannot punish people by taking away their rights without due process. That notion is the foundation of our civil liberties.
Lastly, let's talk about how the entire idea of needing further gun legislation is bullshit. The AR-15. A favorite of many people including myself (I own two). According to the FBI Crime Statistics, rifles (which includes the AR-15 and pretty much anything with a long barrel) account for less than 2% of homicides. Comparing FBI stats year to year will also display that while gun ownership is increasing enormously, gun violence in the US is decreasing every single year (with the exception of a tiny rise in 2016) . Lastly, the federal list of "assault weapons" consists of 16 rifles and a short list of shotguns. All of these guns put together accounted for 0.6% of gun deaths since 2004.
The truth is, there is no more inherent danger in assault rifles than there is in any other gun. In fact you could very easily make the opposite argument just based on stats.
Wrong again. I don't watch biased bullshit. That's also why I don't watch any of the other cable news channels as they all cater to a demographic. If you think Fox is any worse than CNN or MSNBC then you're just blind or dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyverSG1Skiz must only watch fox news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caballero
First off, I'm not anti-gun. I like shooting guns. But everyday citizens don't need "assault rifles" at home or handguns that carry more than six rounds (especially large caliber). We need restrictions on what guns citizens can have at home. If you want to shoot "assault rifles" and hand cannons, have at it. Do it at firing ranges. Let's keep those weapons stored at ranges. If you need a rifle to hunt for food, bolt action works just fine. If you can't get a kill without an assault rifle, you deserve to die of hunger. A 22 or 38 is plenty for home protection. Most people shot at home are shot by their own gun. Shoot an invader with something more powerful in your home and you'll blow your eardrums.
Fuck the constitutional right bullshit and the scotus. The Scotus is a joke, just like our current democracy (no matter who is president). Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. This is not the 1700 or 1800's anymore. The right to bear arms was for citizens to protect the country from invaders (foreign or domestic). People needed guns back then to hunt and personal protection. We have law enforcement to keep order and supermarkets to feed people.
I don't trust any politician to do the right thing. I'm not a Democrat (and definitely not a Republican). They all have ulterior motives. It's about keeping certain groups/people/companies happy so they can keep their jobs safe. It should be about doing what's best for the country.
We need federal gun laws that ALL states follow with a centralized database that includes ALL gun owners. Having each state with different gun laws doesn't work.
All your figures above sound nice, but without credible sources to back them up, they are believable as the bullshit trump spews out everyday.
I'm done, not worth any more of my time.
This is laughable given the historical treatment of certain peoples. I mean the US isn't even consistent with it's bullshit like you can suspend the rights of Asian-Americans because it is war and you can bypass the Geneva Convention as in the case of the Iraqis because you can just refer to that one as an armed conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
Also methinks you killed any semblance of unbiased opinion on guns by stating you own two ARs. But that's just me as reality speaking.
Lastly, representing the rest the the World I'd just like to ask you, what is it with you Americans and your fucking instruments of death? Can't you just find some other hobby like basically anything?
I see you've essentially ignored most of what I posted but ok. Let's address what you've said.
What does need have to do with anything? It is a right of the people. The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyverSG1
I'm not sure how you expect to have any reasonable discourse when you make outrageous statements like these. I don't even know how to respond to nonsense like, "Fuck the Constitutional right bullshit and the SCOTUS."Quote:
Fuck the constitutional right bullshit and the scotus. The Scotus is a joke, just like our current democracy (no matter who is president). Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. This is not the 1700 or 1800's anymore. The right to bear arms was for citizens to protect the country from invaders (foreign or domestic). People needed guns back then to hunt and personal protection. We have law enforcement to keep order and supermarkets to feed people.
I generally agree with you here.Quote:
I don't trust any politician to do the right thing. I'm not a Democrat (and definitely not a Republican). They all have ulterior motives. It's about keeping certain groups/people/companies happy so they can keep their jobs safe. It should be about doing what's best for the country.
The US has loads of federal firearms standards and legislation. Some or note are the FFA which states that any new firearm sold by an individual or business be tracked through a licensed firearm dealer. These sales must also go through a federal (FBI) background check. So no felons, etc... and the "Brady Bill" which extensively expands the list of reasons a person may not purchase a firearm. It also expresses states additional rights for further restrictions.Quote:
We need federal gun laws that ALL states follow with a centralized database that includes ALL gun owners. Having each state with different gun laws doesn't work.
Not sure why you think I would lie about the data... Lying would just further your point, not mine. But ok, ask and ye shall receive.Quote:
All your figures above sound nice, but without credible sources to back them up, they are believable as the bullshit trump spews out everyday.
HR 2324 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009. Died in Congress.
Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-...ouse-bill/2324
Democrats fail to renew FAWB
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-weapons-ban/
HR 5827 - Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010
Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-...ouse-bill/5827
Guns allowed in national parks and on Amtrak
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35484383/n.../#.WwRQ9S-ZP_Q
Democrats exempt NRA from DISCLOSE Act
Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/10...-over-nra-deal
"According to the FBI Crime Statistics, rifles (which includes the AR-15 and pretty much anything with a long barrel) account for less than 2% of homicides."
Source: Dept of Justice study aggregated from 38 sources. Page 15 - https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
"...gun ownership increasing enormously..."
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/...-demographics/
"...gun violence in the US is decreasing each year..."
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...rate-edges-up/
Those stats show gun violence has decreased by more than half since 1993!
"...the federal list of "assault weapons" consists of 16 rifles and a short list of shotguns. All of these guns put together accounted for 0.6% of gun deaths since 2004"
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-data-table-11
The proof is right there in clear data. I hope you now find it more than just "believable". Gun crime is going down while gun ownership is going up. It is an irrefutable fact.
This is an excellent in depth data driven read as well.
Later tonight or tomorrow as I have some time I'll break down some of those FBI stats even further.
I read both of your posts completely. No need to comment on every sentence. Since I know you won't change your mind. All those firearm statistics mean nothing to me. Depending on who collects the data and compiles it, you can make it favor one side or the other. There are many factors that can make the numbers look favorable. Population growth dilutes the numbers. Most of the firearms are owned by a small number of people. Of course more homicides are committed by handguns than rifles. More mass shootings are committed by rifles (long guns). If that shooter in Las Vegas only had a bolt action rifle and handguns, the number of dead and wounded would have been much lower. The public shouldn't have free access to military grade weapons. I don't care if they are semi-auto. Keep those weapons locked up at firing ranges (where they should only be used).
I just looked up "Guns allowed in national parks". The new law allowing guns in national parks was created as part of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. That was put forth by a Democrat to help protect consumers from credit card companies. A Republican added an amendment last minute to allow guns in national parks. Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System. I'm sure the NRA was behind this. Typical republican strategy to sneak in their agenda (or campaign contributors agenda) under the radar. And democrats cave because they are willing to compromise.
Democrats fail to renew FAWB. Obama introduced the idea after Sandy Hook shooting (2012). They tried to renew it when congress was controlled by republicans. Of course it was not going to pass.
Like I said, I'm done with this. We have opposite point of views and are not going to change them.
P.S. Have fun with those stats. That I will be ignoring.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787This is laughable given the historical treatment of certain peoples. I mean the US isn't even consistent with it's bullshit like you can suspend the rights of Asian-Americans because it is war and you can bypass the Geneva Convention as in the case of the Iraqis because you can just refer to that one as an armed conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
Also methinks you killed any semblance of unbiased opinion on guns by stating you own two ARs. But that's just me as reality speaking.
Lastly, representing the rest the the World I'd just like to ask you, what is it with you Americans and your fucking instruments of death? Can't you just find some other hobby like basically anything?
Fear is a powerful tool. Many naive people are afraid terrorists are going to take over the country. They need guns to protect themselves. The delusional ones think the federal government wants to get them.
Walter E. Williams
Professor of Economics.
[email protected]
Department of Economics
George Mason University
Past Versus Present Americans
Having enjoyed my 82nd birthday, I am part of a group of about 50 million Americans who are 65 years of age or older. Those who are 90 or older were in school during the 1930s. My age cohort was in school during the 1940s.
Baby boomers approaching their 70s were in school during the 1950s and early ’60s.
Try this question to any one of those 50 million Americans who are 65 or older:
Do you recall any discussions about the need to hire armed guards to protect students and teachers against school shootings?
Do you remember school policemen patrolling the hallways?
How many students were shot to death during the time you were in school?
For me and those other Americans 65 or older, when we were in school, a conversation about hiring armed guards and having police patrol hallways would have been seen as lunacy.
There was no reason.
What’s the difference between yesteryear and today?
The logic of the argument for those calling for stricter gun control laws, in the wake of recent school shootings, is that something has happened to guns.
Guns have behaved more poorly and become evil.
Guns themselves are the problem.
The job for those of us who are 65 or older is to relay the fact that guns were more available and less controlled in years past, when there was far less mayhem.
Something else is the problem.
Guns haven’t changed.
People have changed.
Behavior that is accepted from today’s young people was not accepted yesteryear.
For those of us who are 65 or older, assaults on teachers were not routine as they are in some cities.
For example, in Baltimore, an average of four teachers and staff members were assaulted each school day in
2010, and more than 300 school staff members filed workers’ compensation claims in a year because of injuries received through assaults or altercations on the job.
In Philadelphia, 690 teachers were assaulted in 2010, and in a five-year period, 4,000 were.
In that city’s schools, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer, “on an average day 25 students, teachers, or other staff members were beaten, robbed, sexually assaulted, or victims of other violent crimes.
That doesn’t even include thousands more who are extorted, threatened, or bullied in a school year.”
Yale University legal scholar John Lott argues that gun accessibility in our country has never been as restricted as it is now.
Lott reports that until the 1960s, New York City public high schools had shooting clubs.
Students carried their rifles to school on the subway in the morning and then turned them over to their homeroom teacher or a gym teacher — and that was mainly to keep them centrally stored and out of the way.
Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice (http://tinyurl.com/yapuaehp).
Virginia’s rural areas had a long tradition of high school students going hunting in the morning before school, and they sometimes stored their guns in the trunks of their cars during the school day, parked on the school grounds.
During earlier periods, people could simply walk into a hardware store and buy a rifle.
Buying a rifle or pistol through a mail-order catalog — such as Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s — was easy.
Often, a 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to a boy by his father.
These facts of our history should confront us with a question: With greater accessibility to guns in the past, why wasn’t there the kind of violence we see today, when there is much more restricted access to guns?
There’s another aspect of our response to mayhem.
When a murderer uses a bomb, truck or car to kill people, we don’t blame the bomb, truck or car.
We don’t call for control over the instrument of death.
We seem to fully recognize that such objects are inanimate and incapable of acting on their own.
We blame the perpetrator.
However, when the murder is done using a gun, we do call for control over the inanimate instrument of death — the gun.
I smell a hidden anti-gun agenda.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
People have changed, but so has guns. TV, movies and video games sensationalize guns. And unfortunately, until people change and how we celebrate guns changes, the only solution is to do something about guns.
Cliché but 100% true; "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Also law enforcement and the military is basically where that argument falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBirdFinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBirdFinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787Also law enforcement and the military is basically where that argument falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBirdFinger
The argument doesn't "fall apart", Idol, if you're willing to grant the re-formulation wherein it is pointed-out the general citizenry
finds criminals among it's ranks with much greater frequency than it does Military personnel.
To make the nonsense the NRA spews out be true then the wild west would have been safer than present day middle America which it wasn't.
Do you own a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Have you ever used/fired one?
What, precisely, do you know about them?
You need to point one of the ends away from you except if you're feeling really, really depressed.
It's a simple rule but you'd be surprised how many children screw that up.
When I was in middle school, firearm safety was a required course.