Which Gun Control Policy Is Really More Important? (illegal, drugs, FBI)
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.
The part I bolded implied that you believe we should cut spending in those programs (maybe that isn't what you meant ). Those programs keep people alive and healthy so if we are going to spend money on anything it should be taking care of Americans and I was just pointing out how much money we spend and waste on the military which could be put to much better use without cutting social programs.
I meant exactly what I said; SS & Medicare are eating us alive. They're putting the entire Federal government in the hole. The IRS pulls in enough from individual income taxes alone to pay for 100% of discretionary, the interest on the debt, and have money left over. This is before things like corporate income taxes (the thing those evil Republicans want to cut), customs, and excise taxes (all those little hidden taxes on everything from indoor tanning to semis that arguably just end up getting paid by consumers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise..._United_States).
So you think that income taxes should be paying for Social Security and Medicare?
Last edited by happygeek; 11-22-2015 at 12:35 PM..
I meant exactly what I said; SS & Medicare spending are eating us alive. They're putting the entire Federal government in the hole. The IRS pulls in enough from income taxes alone to pay for 100% of discretionary, the interest on the debt, and have money left over.
So you think that income taxes should be paying for Social Security and Medicare?
Thought so.
Over military spending, our second highest expenditure, yes. They are not putting the government in the hole. The senseless wars did that; we were at a surplus prior to them.
Many senior citizens already live in poverty and can barely make ends meet, often relying on family or food donations just to eat. If the money going into social security and Medicare isn't enough to take care of retirees and cover healthcare costs, then either there isn't enough going in to start with or the money going into it is being spent on other things (I am guessing the latter).
If we are going to bankrupt the country (which it won't if managed properly) at least do it taking care of people instead of perpetuating war and spending billions on abandoned military projects.
If we are going to bankrupt the country (which it won't if managed properly) at least do it taking care of people instead of perpetuating war and spending billions on abandoned military projects.
So you do think we should be using the individual income tax to pay for SS & Medicare?
They want their rights, but they don't want anyone else to have them, especially persons of color or different religions. But conservative politicians make too much money off of war AND from the NRA to pass either.
Could you expand on this, I would like to know just what rights the "conservative politicians" have and the rights they are denying people of color and religions.
In America they can't actively impose rights/laws on one group and deny them to another, but when you hear what these people think (the average conservative Joe as well as the politicians) it's obvious there are racial and religious biases. A black person, Hispanic person or Muslim with a gun is considered a dangerous criminal while a white person with a gun is a second amendment defender and "good guy" with a gun. We see this in practice with how the justice system treats people of color verses white people.
The OP asked which law was likely to get passed (domestic or global) and I was saying that if you go on the premise that foreign enemies will be getting our guns to commit terrorist acts, conservatives would rally around the idea of preventing foreigners from accessing weapons in or from the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Gun buy backs have been proven to be effective ways of reducing the amount of guns floating around a populous, but an overhaul is needed for true effectiveness here in the US. We have gone over the cliff. We can climb back up, but it's going to take a lot of work and gun nuts are unwilling to compromise.
We have had very successful "gun buy backs" in this country, but it is voluntary, there is no law forcing people to sale their guns to the government. Now are you suggesting that we "expand" it to make it mandatory the same way Australia did? What compromise are you proposing that the "gun nuts" are unwilling to accept?
You make these statements without offering any solution.
I think mandatory for high capacity, assault type weapons, voluntary for pistols and rifles.
Gun nuts will not bend on any type of increased gun regulations from extended background checks and waiting periods, to higher standards of who can actually own a gun, to bans on high capacity weapons, and revoking open carry. They somehow have it set in their minds that any of those policies infringe on their 2nd amendment rights (they don't) and that things are safer the way they are even though there is mountains of data that proves otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Do you agree with Hillary's idea of holding the fire arm manufactures liable for the irresponsible use of their goods?
Hmmm... Not sure. Maybe not the manufacturer, but the dealer. If the dealer did not go through the proper checks and allows someone who shouldn't have a gun to buy one, then yeah maybe. But I think a lot would depend on the specific circumstances of each particular incident.
So you do think we should be using the individual income tax to pay for SS & Medicare?
The most effective answer here is to return responsibility for basic personal security and dignity (health care is a separate issue) to the lowest level of local control possible; that way, the truly needy can be served at lest cost, and those who are simply put off by the necessity of a regular job (and a growing percentage of those deadbeats are white and male) can be weeded out, identified and "red-lined" (a reference to a practice realtors used to use to identify rotten neighborhoods).
Assistance in developing a "national vagrancy database" is the only really-suitable role for the Federal government in this instance.
In America they can't actively impose rights/laws on one group and deny them to another, but when you hear what these people think (the average conservative Joe as well as the politicians) it's obvious there are racial and religious biases. A black person, Hispanic person or Muslim with a gun is considered a dangerous criminal while a white person with a gun is a second amendment defender and "good guy" with a gun. We see this in practice with how the justice system treats people of color verses white people.
The OP asked which law was likely to get passed (domestic or global) and I was saying that if you go on the premise that foreign enemies will be getting our guns to commit terrorist acts, conservatives would rally around the idea of preventing foreigners from accessing weapons in or from the US.
I think mandatory for high capacity, assault type weapons, voluntary for pistols and rifles.
Gun nuts will not bend on any type of increased gun regulations from extended background checks and waiting periods, to higher standards of who can actually own a gun, to bans on high capacity weapons, and revoking open carry. They somehow have it set in their minds that any of those policies infringe on their 2nd amendment rights (they don't) and that things are safer the way they are even though there is mountains of data that proves otherwise.
Hmmm... Not sure. Maybe not the manufacturer, but the dealer. If the dealer did not go through the proper checks and allows someone who shouldn't have a gun to buy one, then yeah maybe. But I think a lot would depend on the specific circumstances of each particular incident.
I do agree that there seems to be a bias between white and black criminal cases, however, these would reflect the judges bias and not the politicians.
One reason there is such a push back on high capacity magazines is how they want to define a term "high capacity". In Oregon for example, they wanted all arms that can carry over 3 rounds defined as "high capacity", this bill failed because by definition in their proposed law a BB gun would fall under this definition. Most gun owner would agree that there needs to be tighter access to guns, but it isn't up to the federal government to set regulations, this should be left up to the states.
Hillary, in her last debate, stated that she would like to see the firearm manufactures bare some of the punitive damages for the use of their goods. Seeing how the the Federal government can not pass laws singling out a specific company the law would have to apply to all manufactures of goods within the United States. This would open up every manufacture to the whims of trial lawyers and would be a disaster for manufacturing in this country. So, Hillary is willing to put all manufacturing at risk for the sake of going after firearm manufacturing.
I agree, a Federal Firearms dealer that "knowingly" sales a firearm to someone who "by law" can not possess a firearm should be held criminally liable.
I do agree that there seems to be a bias between white and black criminal cases, however, these would reflect the judges bias and not the politicians.
One reason there is such a push back on high capacity magazines is how they want to define a term "high capacity". In Oregon for example, they wanted all arms that can carry over 3 rounds defined as "high capacity", this bill failed because by definition in their proposed law a BB gun would fall under this definition. Most gun owner would agree that there needs to be tighter access to guns, but it isn't up to the federal government to set regulations, this should be left up to the states.
I kinda see that, but I don't see the necessity of a gun that shoots more than 6 rounds. That is enough to defend yourself or shoot whatever you're hunting (and if six aren't enough, then you need to back to the range for target practice).
The problem with only setting it at the state level, is that the varying laws may make it hard for someone who shouldn't have a gun get one in their state, but easy in another and with open borders between states, guns can be easily brought in to those more restricted states. Perfect example is Chicago, Il, which most gun advocates go after because their tough laws "don't work." They in fact do work, because over 50% of weapons confiscated there come from outside of Illinois and are brought in from lax gun law states. If they didn't work, people wouldn't need to leave the state to buy their guns. The standards and security checks need to be raised at the Federal level with maybe some flexibility to adjust certain laws within individual states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Hillary, in her last debate, stated that she would like to see the firearm manufactures bare some of the punitive damages for the use of their goods. Seeing how the the Federal government can not pass laws singling out a specific company the law would have to apply to all manufactures of goods within the United States. This would open up every manufacture to the whims of trial lawyers and would be a disaster for manufacturing in this country. So, Hillary is willing to put all manufacturing at risk for the sake of going after firearm manufacturing.
I agree, a Federal Firearms dealer that "knowingly" sales a firearm to someone who "by law" can not possess a firearm should be held criminally liable.
Hmmmm... Well I think all manufacturing companies should be liable for faulty products (which is what recalls are for), but unless the manufacturer knowingly sells their guns to a dealer who is in the habit of practicing shady business, then who buys it from there is kind of out of their hands, but I would have to look into this more before I take a full stance.
We have had very successful "gun buy backs" in this country, but it is voluntary, there is no law forcing people to sale their guns to the government. Now are you suggesting that we "expand" it to make it mandatory the same way Australia did? What compromise are you proposing that the "gun nuts" are unwilling to accept?
Would such a 'buyback' be any more successful than the one in Australia? The last numbers I saw, in Aus firearms accounted for about 38% of homicides and knives were a close second at 36%. The US is similar, guns followed closely by knives, and at about the same ratio, accounting for nearly 80% of homicides.
It's not a gun problem, it's a crime problem. The imposition of more laws infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens does nothing to change the actions of criminals, who by definition aren't paying much attention to whether something is 'against the law' anyway.
Which is most likely to get passed? By public vote, considering the rampant xenophobia of conservatives probably the global thing. They want their rights, but they don't want anyone else to have them, especially persons of color or different religions. But conservative politicians make too much money off of war AND from the NRA to pass either.
Gun buy backs have been proven to be effective ways of reducing the amount of guns floating around a populous, but an overhaul is needed for true effectiveness here in the US. We have gone over the cliff. We can climb back up, but it's going to take a lot of work and gun nuts are unwilling to compromise.
Military spending is eating us alive; it's almost as high as healthcare and a lot of it is wasted. We don't need to spend 7 billion dollars on a helicopter that doesn't work.
Personally, I can see why your opinions are part of the problem as to why we can't get anything passed in this country.
You, in two paragraphs, were able to call the opposing view racists, Theophobes, and gun nuts. This is a debate forum and name calling is certainly not going to get anything accomplished in this country. It will most certainly get you labeled as a troll though.
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.
). Those programs keep people alive and healthy so if we are going to spend money on anything it should be taking care of Americans and I was just pointing out how much money we spend and waste on the military which could be put to much better use without cutting social programs. 
