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.
I never said we weren't doing anything. You know why you wrote it that way even knowing that isn't what I said.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you wrote here, "And yet we don't do it. What good does it do to agree it might help but then do nothing to put it in place?" Or maybe comment #307 wasn't yours, but upon double checking my vision and such, sure looks like yours. Or maybe it's "water under the bridge" and of no importance if we're agreed as it seems we are that LOTS of our time, money and effort as a government is going toward mental health services. The question is whether we're doing enough.
Evidence when it comes to all too many homicides, especially mass killings, is that we are not, so who to support in this regard? The Republicans or the Democrats? I'll leave it to you to research their voting records...
I am against all violence period and sympathetic to those who must resort to violence for self-protection, but of course the idea is for all of us to have less need for that as well..
There will always be people that prey on the weak. Weak minded or weak in body. Not much a weak minded person can do about that except ask for help and if you don't know you are weak minded... As for weak in body, most people understand that. A 110 pound female knows she can't physically overpower a 300 pound wrestler. My 79 year old father with an artificial hip and knee can't run and hide if someone breaks into the house. A select few of these weak bodied individuals having a gun will dissuade a criminal from preying on them. It's like the lottery, there is a chance you will win. There is a chance you will lose and when a criminal vs a 145 grain jacketed hollow-point, the criminal always loses. With my dad it would be .410 buckshot from a pistol.
Think like a criminal the next time you are at a store. Who could you mug? Then think about them being armed. Would you try it then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Agreed, but what we are willing to pay for law enforcement, the judicial process and the housing of criminals is a bit more of the challenge at hand vs what we all wish in the ideal world. Criminals who commit acts of gun violence tend to be held closer to your wishes. As for "hell on Earth" prisons, as long the penalty is justified by the crime is also the law (theoretically anyway)..
I think the net number of criminals would drop. The weak willed that could do a 5 year stint in today's hotel with bars would be on a chain gang breaking rocks or digging a ditch from sunrise to sunset. The next day they would fill that ditch in. And the punishment would not fit the crime. It should be many times more painful than the crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
This is another debate altogether and no one can argue that even the SCOTUS is not fallible, but between you, me and the SCOTUS, I recognize what the SCOTUS decides head-and-shoulders over the rest of us, most certainly including Tea Party type self-anointed Constitutional experts. The law provides for the overturning of bad/wrong decisions, especially over time, and I dare anyone to use the Constitution to suggest they are above the law in these regards.
I should not have someone who does not know me decide what is best for me. If no one threatens me, I will never hurt someone else on purpose. Even if I do on accident, there are laws to punish me. But I should be able to choose the gun of my choice or no gun at all. Same with insurance, retirement, etc. If everyone followed these rules, we wouldn't need so many laws and lawyers in the first place - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ie=UTF8&btkr=1
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Read my comment a little more carefully and please note I specifically referenced the NRA combined with gun manufacturers. These contributions, the exertion of influence across the board, and the effects are very well documented. All you need do is the research, not just when it comes to lobbying for or against gun control, but most everything else that has vested special interests wanting to protect and advance their significant opportunities to extract more profits by way of legislation favorable to their industry..
I tried to find the gun manufacturers that gave to Cotton's campaign. They didn't give over $20,000 each because that's the lowest number given on that site. I don't know of many that can give that much. Beretta, S&W or a few of the other big ones. Maybe Arkansas based manufacturers like Wilson Combat or Nighthawk but they are small potatoes compared to some companies.
This is what I'm talking about. All you have to do is copy/paste just about anything into Google to find out these numbers for yourself. People don't bother. Not that these numbers are not also subject to scrutiny, but at least worth factoring in with the rest, right? Whether they are what you heard before or not! Just check it out. There is an overwhelming mountain of this sort of evidence all pointing to the same thing, not to mention Trump and the others clearly pointing out how special interest money works its "magic" with our legislators.
I wish the article had given more detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I suppose your heartburn in this regard makes you a bit more interested in buying and using guns than the average American, and that's your right of course, fine, but I wonder if you would concede that if law enforcement finds silencers to be more significant an interest to criminals, is the delay and paperwork really that bad a trade-off on balance with all of us knowing that silencers for bad purposes are not so easy for bad guys to come by? These are the sorts of trade-offs, that regulate rather than prevent law-abiding citizens to acquire the likes, that I am more inclined to suggest is what best we can do. Regardless whether criminals can get around the law or not, because that argument applies to all laws. Drugs, taxes, speeding, you name it...
Suppressors went under BATFE control with the National Firearms Act of 1934 due to the depression and it made it easier for people to poach game. Now that we have an abundance of game wardens, poaching is kept to a minimum but suppressors are still tightly controlled. Once something is under .gov control, they never want to give it up. That's why we are fighting so hard now....And a few are actually fighting the NFA of '34 and the Hugh's Amendment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...Protection_Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Thanks! I appreciate what is at least a bit more than just rhetorical banter...
I do my best. I will also sneak in a joke or two if I can.
There will always be people that prey on the weak. Weak minded or weak in body. Not much a weak minded person can do about that except ask for help and if you don't know you are weak minded... As for weak in body, most people understand that. A 110 pound female knows she can't physically overpower a 300 pound wrestler. My 79 year old father with an artificial hip and knee can't run and hide if someone breaks into the house. A select few of these weak bodied individuals having a gun will dissuade a criminal from preying on them.
I can't imagine the belief that I really need this explanation about strong vs weak, male vs female, but sometimes I think people like to elaborate about the obvious, or who knows, but I only have time for this quick comment to let you know you need not have bothered.
I suspect there is more to consider with the rest, but I only have a moment before I am on to other things, and I have taken just this quick moment to let you know, I understand the difference between weak and strong. Same goes with arguments...
How exactly does Wayne LaPierre earn his almost million dollar salary every year. He earns it on the back of hard working people like you. He didn't earn anything. You've given it to him and he's probably laughing at every one of you.
LOL.... Have you forgotten who you're talking to? These Alinsky-ite, "you-are-a-victim", type grievance politics might rile your fellow Liberals, but they don't work on Conservatives natalie, sorry 'bout your luck.... As far as we're concerned ( recurring NRA members ) the NRA earns every dollar we give them. If they didn't, people wouldn't keep signing up to be members. Free Market Principles 101....
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-12-2016 at 12:00 AM..
You make a good argument. I guess I just figure that the less guns, the less amount of killings. I may be wrong.
Less guns might mean less gun killings, but it won't necessarily mean less killings. I'm sure there are people who, if they didn't have a gun, they would have used another weapon to commit their crime.
Neither the (D) or (R) has tried to actually do anything. The only one who *might* address it is Bernie and that is who I am voting for.
The (D)'s overall had a chance but didn't do the right thing.
I'm interested to know what you think the Democrats should have done but didn't, that you think Sanders will do?
Far as I can tell, there isn't a whole lot of daylight between Sanders and the rest of the Democrat party. While Hillary, O'Malley, and the rest of the Dems are 100% hostile to gun rights, Bernie might only be 95% hostile....
I wonder if the OP, who insists money is too much of a deciding factor in politics, has noticed the steady decline of Jeb Bush as of the last few months? THE best funded candidate with $50 million in his coffers is barely a blip on the radar only weeks ahead of the first primary....
Once again, money isn't meaningless, but you've got to have passionate people backing you. If you don't, it doesn't matter how much money you've got. This is why the NRA is so successful. They've got the money and the passion.
I'm interested to know what you think the Democrats should have done but didn't, that you think Sanders will do?
Unfortunately......Sanders noted that Obamacare was bad law but voted for it anyway. The Democrats could have reformed health care to actually benefit the people as opposed to the healthcare/insurance industry.
Knowing it's bad law hopefully he can change it.
Quote:
Far as I can tell, there isn't a whole lot of daylight between Sanders and the rest of the Democrat party. While Hillary, O'Malley, and the rest of the Dems are 100% hostile to gun rights, Bernie might only be 95% hostile....
Maybe you need to read a little more. Besides, it really doesn't worry me because no one is going to abide by any law that restricts gun ownership anyway.
Maybe you need to read a little more. Besides, it really doesn't worry me because no one is going to abide by any law that restricts gun ownership anyway.
I only listen to what he's saying now, not what he's done in the past so reading a little more won't change my mind.
I can't tell much difference between Clinton's proposals on guns and Sanders proposals. The only discernible difference I can see was that he supported the bill that rightly blocked gun makers from being sued for the actions of criminals, a position he is now trying his best to be a fence sitter on.
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.
I wish I had more time..
