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.
Maybe rethink this a bit. Once our elected official is in Congress, for example, the special interests begin to have their way. This is the reason they sponsored their candidate in the first place. Once in power, the elected representative has all the more access to more power and more money as now there is more than the PROMISE of influencing legislation if elected, they are now actually IN a position of power -- voting. The documentation and disclosure of what we DO know in this regard is staggering. The cost to run for POTUS, for example, in the millions beyond ever before. There is also much that is not disclosed in terms of what money is flowing to whom and why. To be unaware of this problem, this influence of money in our political system, is simply not to bother looking into the matter deeply enough, but the information and evidence is all overwhelming and readily available enough. You just have to bother listening, looking it up.
Maybe NOW we're getting a little astray from the original question, but no doubt related, because what difference does the agenda of the NRA make if they don't have the power and influence to promote it with Congress, right?
How much did you get for your vote? If nothing, why would you vote for someone that lied to you?
The second amendment is redundant in today's world. You Americans can play with your guns though and claim that you need them, when all evidence points to the fact that the US has the highest gun crime rate by FAR in the civilised world. Yet of course it can't be the fault of guns, can it? The NRA has a big agenda and far too much power which is sad to see from across the pond, yet unfortunately it seems like many Americans support the NRA, so the gun crime problem will not get better any time soon.
The second amendment is redundant in today's world. You Americans can play with your guns though and claim that you need them, when all evidence points to the fact that the US has the highest gun crime rate by FAR in the civilised world. Yet of course it can't be the fault of guns, can it? The NRA has a big agenda and far too much power which is sad to see from across the pond, yet unfortunately it seems like many Americans support the NRA, so the gun crime problem will not get better any time soon.
You lack of cultural diversity is duly noted.
What's the smallest town\ most rural setting you've ever lived in?
Have you ever owned a gun? hunted? fired a gun?
Have you ever lived in a crime-ridden area as other than a young man where you had more risk of being targeted if you were older or female?
Basically, I think you lack the background to really grasp the situation at hand.
How much did you get for your vote? If nothing, why would you vote for someone that lied to you?
I don't really get into the whole he "lied" she "lied" thing, because when I listen to politicians, I listen in the context of politics. This is not the same as listening to someone who can say what they wish without the fear of losing millions of votes and millions of dollars. This isn't like talking to your favorite butcher. I try to cast my vote in favor of those who seem more in line with what I think is right, regardless how they communicate that to me and America. Needless to say, politicians can't really make firm promises about much in terms of outcomes, because they require all the other votes to pass legislation, true even for the POTUS. Nevertheless, we forever hear about how he or she "lied" to them because whatever outcome didn't transpire exactly like was "promised." Not sure how you or anyone else votes, but for me it is usually a vote for the least of evils and not with a whole lot of faith that my interests are being looked out for over those of special interests funneling all that money their way. I try to be a realist.
What's the smallest town\ most rural setting you've ever lived in?
Have you ever owned a gun? hunted? fired a gun?
Have you ever lived in a crime-ridden area as other than a young man where you had more risk of being targeted if you were older or female?
Basically, I think you lack the background to really grasp the situation at hand.
Not sure about our friend across the pond, but I would be interested to know what is actually meant by "the situation at hand."
Based on these questions posed above, I think I can probably qualify as having the proper background to better grasp the "situation at hand," but I've never looked to a gun as the way to address it.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many law-abiding people would not have been killed or injured by way of gun incidents and accidents as compared to how many crimes have been prevented by law-abiding gun carriers? Dick Cheney comes to mind.
I don't really get into the whole he "lied" she "lied" thing, because when I listen to politicians, I listen in the context of politics. This is not the same as listening to someone who can say what they wish without the fear of losing millions of votes and millions of dollars.
Sorry, I can not make heads or tails of this. Fear of losing millions of votes? You are suggesting they should lie to get people to vote for them?
Quote:
This isn't like talking to your favorite butcher. I try to cast my vote in favor of those who seem more in line with what I think is right, regardless how they communicate that to me and America. Needless to say, politicians can't really make firm promises about much in terms of outcomes, because they require all the other votes to pass legislation. Nevertheless, we forever hear about how he or she "lied" to them because whatever outcome didn't transpire exactly like was "promised." Not sure how you or anyone else votes, but for me it is usually a vote for the least of evils and not with a whole lot of faith that my interests are being looked out for over those of special interests funneling all that money their way. I'm try to be a realist.
No, I have never accused someone of lying because the outcome wasn't what they promised. I accused them of lying when the outcome isn't what they promised because they voted for that outcome.
I can't be sure I understand the question here or the correlation, but no, I don't feel the same way about the ACLU. What I feel that is consistent across the board when it comes to lobbies, is that the more powerful tend to be those with the most money, and they use that power and money to influence our elected representatives in ways that I am very sure our Founding Fathers would find contrary to their intentions.
Also, we all know that power and money tend to corrupt, the more power and money, the more likelihood of corruption (regardless the publicly stated goals).
Whether it be the NRA "gun lobby," or the NRA "gun rights lobby," when it is the amount of money swaying our representative's votesrather than a true representation of what their constituents want, we've got a problem. If you don't recognize that problem for what it is, regardless the lobby, you too have a problem.
I've never really bought in to this whole idea of campaign finance reform or getting big money out of politics as something that is important. Why? Because in the end, it doesn't matter how much the lobbies spend, it is still the voters who decide who gets elected and who gets thrown out.
People who try to rip the NRA speak out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, they let on like the American people overwhelmingly support more gun control and the only thing standing in their way is the evil NRA, but on the other hand, they claim that the NRA has a stranglehold on congress and politicians vote with the NRA for fear of losing their jobs.... Well ask yourself, what is the only reason a politician might lose their job for crossing the NRA? Because the NRA will let voters know and the voters will vote them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
If considering the number of homicides by firearms per capita in the U.S. vs other countries is "cherry picking," then so be it, because that is one mighty big cherry no matter how much you want to suggest otherwise.
.
By looking at the statistics in the context of those that involve firearms, you essentially make your argument useless. Of course there are going to be less homicides by firearm in places that have inherently less firearms, just as there are going to be less incidents of traffic fatality in countries where vehicles are not the primary mode of transport. You cannot use a firearm to murder someone where a firearm does not exist. That doesn't mean that you can't use some other weapon or method. The proper context is looking at the amount of homicides in general compared to the US, because just because they don't have access to a firearm does not mean those homicides don't happen, it just means they don't happen with a gun.
The second amendment is redundant in today's world.
If people feel that way, then what they have to do is go about the process of repealing the Second Amendment as prescribed in Article V. of the Constitution. You can't just ignore a part of the Constitution because you think it's redundant in todays world. Do you have respect for the process of law, or not? Until it is repealed, it remains in effect and law of the land.
Quote:
You Americans can play with your guns though and claim that you need them, when all evidence points to the fact that the US has the highest gun crime rate by FAR in the civilised world.
Well, that is true, but why should it be a surprise that "the US has the highest gun crime rate by FAR in the civilised world" when they have the highest rates of gun ownership in the civilized world? That doesn't mean that those same homicides don't happen in other places, it just means that a gun is not involved.
Quote:
Yet of course it can't be the fault of guns, can it? The NRA has a big agenda and far too much power which is sad to see from across the pond, yet unfortunately it seems like many Americans support the NRA, so the gun crime problem will not get better any time soon.
This is how democracy works my friend. The people decide. The NRA only has as much influence as voters allow it, because voters are the ones who decide who gets elected and who doesn't.
Sorry, I can not make heads or tails of this. Fear of losing millions of votes? You are suggesting they should lie to get people to vote for them?
No, I have never accused someone of lying because the outcome wasn't what they promised. I accused them of lying when the outcome isn't what they promised because they voted for that outcome.
Not sure the source of confusion, but when a politician speaks (at the national level), even one wrong word at the wrong time can cost millions of votes and millions of dollars, often as reflected in the polls from one week to the next (though we can't really track the flow of campaign funds quite as quickly or easily). Does this really need explaining?
As for the accusation of "lies," can you provide an example of a politician who "lied" to you, so I can better understand what you are referring to beyond just the rhetoric?
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.
