Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My interest is in eliminating trivially easy access to firearms from prohibited parties, which is a futile task as long as anyone can buy an AR15 from their local facebook swap page without a background check. If this 'inconveniences' gun rights anarchists, I couldn't care less. Boo hoo. Read Scalias majority opinion. He agrees.
This would have the largest and most immediate positive effect. Although I would like to at least try to do more about keeping lunatics away from firearms. (We're not doing anything currently.)
One thing I don't get is the determined pushback against trying to stop the flow of firearms into the ghettos. I get it that the gun and ammo manufacturers want their sweet, sweet blood money. But why the average American is on board with dumping thousands of firearms into places like Compton makes no sense to me at all. You would think that even racists would be against this sort of thing. But the desire to keep the guns flowing apparently trumps the desire to keep the guns out of the hands of gang members.
As for how to flip the Off switch on poverty, the answer is narcotics. Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work for alcohol and we had the exact same problem. Different players. Same problem.
If we want this to end, sell narcotics at pharmacies (those that are willing to sell heroin and cocaine). Make the addict sign a release, "I realize this is just about the stupidest thing I can do to myself." Charge them the real market price of narcotics (considerably less than the black market price). And shut the gangs out of the business.
Drug use will abate when there aren't gang members pushing narcotics on unwilling communities. It won't end, of course. Some people are going to turn to drugs no matter what. But it will abate. And gangs will need to find a new source of revenue -- like employment.
A society that judges everyone by its most relentlessly upwardly-mobile types is a dumb and naive society. I am a business owner, an employer, a paycheck signer. I work in a ruthlessly competitive field and I win. I don't see this country teeming with opportunity for everyone like your typical Work-a-day Joe Lunchbox Pickup Truck Conservative talking his partisan line imagines exists out there and loves to pompously throw in the face of people raised in circumstances that are radically different from his own and are totally oppressive in nature. Its that weird thing where people who have a little are really big on looking down on people who have nothing since it probably makes their own trivial accomplishments in life seem more relevant. The American fallacy is that we would rather let 100 starve if it just prevents 10 lazy bums from getting a free ride. Other countries would rather accept 10 lazy bums on the dole if it prevents 100 from starving.
Sound like you are guilty of the exact failures that you are "pompously" condemning others for having committed.
There was a book written in the 70's called "The Saturday Night Special" by Robert Sherill, where he skewers both sides of the debate pretty well (and exposes just how tired and old this debate actually is).
Sound like you are guilty of the exact failures that you are "pompously" condemning others for having committed.
I'm pointing out the rich irony is that you look down on people for not 'helping themselves', while you yourself are almost certainly someone who could be looked down upon per what I pay in taxes... and isn't it funny how people like you are so quick to judge others and prattle on with your herd narratives about 'bootstraps' and 'opportunity' when I could just as easily inquire into your own life and ask you why you didn't buy a home with cash at 25, like I did?
And does this make me better than you?
If the answer is yes, then OK. At least you're intellectually consistent, but if the answer is no (and the answer is indeed "no"), then consider why you judge an immensely underprivileged group through the prism you do, when you yourself aren't exactly some great paragon of achievement per the standards set by other people who write big tax checks that go into the treasury to pay for the schools your kids attend and the dumb battle'tainment wars your kind just loves to cheer on from the sidelines.
I'm pointing out the rich irony is that you look down on people for not 'helping themselves', while you yourself are almost certainly someone who could be looked down upon per what I pay in taxes... and isn't it funny how people like you are so quick to judge others and prattle on with your herd narratives about 'bootstraps' and 'opportunity' when I could just as easily inquire into your own life and ask you why you didn't buy a home with cash at 25, like I did?
And does this make me better than you?
If the answer is yes, then OK. At least you're intellectually consistent, but if the answer is no (and the answer is indeed "no"), then consider why you judge an immensely underprivileged group through the prism you do, when you yourself aren't exactly some great paragon of achievement per the standards set by other people who write big tax checks that go into the treasury to pay for the schools your kids attend and the dumb battle'tainment wars your kind just loves to cheer on from the sidelines.
I'm pointing out the rich irony is that you look down on people for not 'helping themselves', while you yourself are almost certainly someone who could be looked down upon per what I pay in taxes... and isn't it funny how people like you are so quick to judge others and prattle on with your herd narratives about 'bootstraps' and 'opportunity' when I could just as easily inquire into your own life and ask you why you didn't buy a home with cash at 25, like I did? And does this make me better than you?...If the answer is yes, then OK. At least you're intellectually consistent, but if the answer is no (and the answer is indeed "no"), then consider why you judge an immensely underprivileged group through the prism you do, when you yourself aren't exactly some great paragon of achievement per the standards set by other people who write big tax checks that go into the treasury to pay for the schools your kids attend and the dumb battle'tainment wars your kind just loves to cheer on from the sidelines.
The rich irony here is that in order for you to draw these conclusions you have already judged my situation based simply on what I've posted here. You know nothing about me, whether I am dirt poor, Mr. Gotrocks, my race, background, where I was raised etc etc. But you post makes absolutely no sense without the context of you having judged me.
i.e. IMO, you assume that I am a well off White who has no familiarity with the disadvantaged and looks down on them with contempt. You assume all of this based simply on my prose, English, etc. So you see, you are guilty of what you presume to accuse others of. It's easy to make clever attacks on the messenger, which is what you are really doing. Quite another to actually address the message which you have failed to do.
Quote:
And does this make me better than you?
The question is irrelevant to the topic. See above.
Imagine had Neeson declared that there were too many abortions in the USA and that there needed to be tighter controls on them. It would be headlines for a month along with boycotts of his films.
And then when it comes to his personal views having nothing to do with his acting, lets see, the CEO of Chick Filet didn't get a pass and his personal views had nothing to do with the food did it? Neeson isn't the hypocite, its the media and talking heads that have more orifices than they were born with that are.
It's always, "You want to take away my guns! You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands!"
Anyone have a hypothesis as to why?
There's some kind of emotional symbolism wrapped up in gun ownership that I don't quite understand either. Like I said before, I own an AR-15 because at the time I bought it I thought it was a good idea. It's not that useful to me now and it is not my first line of defense for my home (a taser is). I actually keep the bolt for the AR-15 locked up because I'm worried a kid will get his or her hands on the weapon, so the weapon itself is usually non-functional. When I tell other gun owners that they look at me like I'm crazy.
There's some kind of irrational fear that some people have, and gun ownership is a kind of insurance policy against those fears of.... loss of freedom?... loss of masculinity?.... something.
I don't have it so I don't get it, but the basic equation is: I have a gun = I am free
I really don't see it that way. That AR-15 is mainly a $800 decoration for me that I wish I'd never bought. I take it to the range like 2 or 3x times a year. My money is much more important to my freedom. I do realize that there is no reason even discussing gun control because of these irrational emotions regarding them. What I tell my friends that support gun control is that they should move on to "crazy person control." You'd probably have more people in America support locking mentally disabled people up and throwing away the key than even background checks on guns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
