Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-07-2017, 11:58 AM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,264,633 times
Reputation: 1588

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
People are weird about collecting things.

40 Craziest Things People Collect – Planet Dolan | Obscure Facts About Life

Collecting guns is no more outlandish than collecting Star Wars toys, pinball machines, vintage cars or even air planes.

Do you consider collecting as a sign of mental illness?

Would you say Jay Leno is mentally ill because he owns a hundred cars worth tens of millions of dollars?





How many of those items are designed to kill people efficiently?




If your neighbor were buying up large trucks and fertilizer,would you be concerned? Or would you just brush him off as some weird guy that had a harmless fetish for delivery trucks and fertilizer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2017, 11:59 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,318 posts, read 17,001,523 times
Reputation: 17356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
So, putting emotions aside, which Gun laws would you support?
A Ban on Bump Stocks
A Ban on Silencers
A Ban on High Capacity Rifle Magazines (30 Rounds or more)
A Ban on All AR and Military Type Rifles
A Ban on All Semiautomatic Rifles
A Ban on All Magazines over 10 Rounds, Rifle and Handgun
A Ban on All Handguns and Rifles
A Ban on Bulk Sales of Ammunition (No more than 200 rounds per month)
A roll back on All Gun Laws Nationwide
Don't Care
question is, do you want to reduce gun violence?


If you do, none of those laws listed will do anything to reduce the gun violence.


Very few of those listed would be palatable to gun owners. Some are incomprehensibly stupid. Looks as if diane degette from colorado was on the team that came upo with that list.


then we have CA democrat senator Yee, an anti gun activist who sold machine guns, rockets and auto wepons to anyone with cash.


Some of listed laws are so vague and misguided that nothing but a slippery slope that leads to the erosion of more rights than first stated in the 'laws' would result.


None of them will matter to the gangs, thugs and career criminals, so essentially they are exempted frm those laws.


We read about some innocent guy violating an administrative gun law in DC, possession of empty cartridges, and the heavy handed prosecution that followed. Meanwhile these activist prosecutors and judges look the other way at gangs.


the justice system is full of activists who find it easier to prosecute law abiding gun owners as a warning. Sure you can own a gun, but we will make is very difficult for you to have a gun and use a gun and the consequences are severe and costly. MS13 laughs out loud.


Gun violence occurs in specific perdictable locations, often by the same offenders. Gun violence is not evenly spread across the country, city or state.


start with revamping the prison system which is recruiting central and an institution of higher learning for death and destruction.


The justice system is based on cultural mores from the 19th century.
Too many people get locked up for crimes where we would all be better served if the perp paid back any damages plus resitution to the victim. He can't do that in prison.


Violent offenders get locked up. Prisons must respect the rights of the criminals such that gangs don't run the prisons or run their gangs from inside prison. Prisons cannot be recruiting centers for gangs and islamic terrorists.


Mental health system needs a 21st century refresher course.


Laws alone cannot control society. they need a partner, that partner is the churches and communities set set ethical and moral standards now missing in our society.


Gun laws have a point of diminishing return, beyond which feeds into the ultimate agenda of banning all guns. the ones highlighted in red are totally irrelevant to ensuring public safety and part of the arttempt to slowly ban all guns from private citizens.


Oh, we don't want to ban gun ownership, oh no! Just make it so difficult to buy, use or keep a gun in your home. You can keep your guns if you like your guns!


Morons like obama stand up and tell us the cities and states with the toughest gun laws are the safest places. If that were not a lie, Maine would be awash in blood and chicage the safest town on earth. given that obama as president lied abpout gun laws and most every other topic, the trust in the government has been damaged far beyond the general mistrust and moved into totalitarianism.


Legislators that propose gun laws do so at the sacrifice of potential victims today in exchange for a total gun ban in the distant future as none of those laws would have prevented any of the daily death toll we suffer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:01 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,264,633 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
As I said, being from Texas, that is the way of life. After all, you know what they said about Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Zol75upPA

As far as your interpretation about how to do my job, thank you, I will keep that in mind.


I am from Texas, so I am aware that we all have guns. One of my elderly aunts traveled with a hogleg .357 in her purse. But again, guns are not the question. Large numbers of AR15's is the question. Why does everyone keep trying to move away from that point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,450 posts, read 13,691,600 times
Reputation: 18652
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
I am from Texas, so I am aware that we all have guns. One of my elderly aunts traveled with a hogleg .357 in her purse. But again, guns are not the question. Large numbers of AR15's is the question. Why does everyone keep trying to move away from that point?
I have answered your question.

I have told you that I have known people with lots of guns and that no number would concern me, be it the -15 or another type.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:09 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,513,380 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
And that travesty (adopted as a compromise to get recalcitrant southern Democrats to accept the Constitution at all) was since changed to give blacks the full vote as they deserved, using the exact amendment process I recommended. After we fought the bloodiest war our country's soil has ever seen, against those same southern Democrats mostly over the same topic (black slavery), to beat the common sense and humanity into them that they had previously lacked.

The Founding Fathers weren't perfect, and they knew it. That's why they included the amendment process into what they wrote, giving later people a way to change it with the least chance of a few fanatics making unwanted changes. The FF's believed (and were correct) that the Const should only be changed by a supermajority of a very large and diverse group of population. And this has kept one of the most important and relevant parts of the document - the 2nd amendment - from being changed by a relatively small number of hysterical demagogues pushing an agenda that has failed time and again.
Point was and still is that we must consider all our founding fathers did in light of their time versus ours...

I suspect you emphasize this about the Democrats then versus now in similar twisted fashion to suit your agenda here, but there again the Democrats of that day were/are not the Democrats of today.

Founding fathers did well to put forth the constitution the way they did. On this we agree, and as such, we move forward within that framework, doing the best we can with what they thought would work best for the most part, but much still requires our clear and forward thinking that our founding fathers really can't help us with anymore...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:10 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,513,380 times
Reputation: 3416
The reason that measurable facts were sidelined in political debates was not that people have poor reasoning skills, Kahan concluded. Presented with a conflict between holding to their beliefs or finding the correct answer to a problem, people simply went with their tribe.

It was a reasonable strategy on the individual level – and a “disastrous” one for tackling social change, he concluded.

When it comes to guns, Americans want it both ways. A recent Pew study found that just over half of Americans want stronger gun laws. Even stronger majorities of Americans also believe that most people should be allowed to legally own most kinds of guns – and allowed to carry them in most places.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ol-debate-bias
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:11 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,513,380 times
Reputation: 3416
It is not clear how closely the Republicans and NRA coordinated on Thursday, but they moved in quick succession.

“Clearly, that’s something we need to look into,” the House speaker, Paul Ryan, said in a television interview early on Thursday, noting that he had never heard of bump stocks before.

At 2.14pm, the NRA sent out a press blast suggesting that bump stocks “should be subject to additional regulations”, and calling for more review.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...yed-by-the-nra
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:18 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,264,633 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
I have answered your question.

I have told you that I have known people with lots of guns and that no number would concern me, be it the -15 or another type.





To your answer and the same one given by another poster, this is a sign of a serious lapse in judgment ability. To claim that someone around you could amass an arsenal of a 100, or 500 , or 1000 AR15's and it wouldn't trigger any concern from you is mind boggling. And it shows the total apathy towards innocent people dying by gun nutters, despite the claims otherwise. Normal people would have the thought " WTF?" about such an event. Gun nutters respond with " I dont give a F".




Wow. Each of these ongoing mass murders teaches me new lessons about gun nutters. After Newton, I asked if the deaths of little kids was worth it for them to be able to own AR15 clones. The answer I got was yes, they were. After the largest mass shooting in US history I also learn that nutters are totally apathetic about attempting to determine if the people creating huge arsenals might be wackos doing so to kill large numbers of people.




I wonder what insights into the gun nutter mind the next mass shooting will reveal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,450 posts, read 13,691,600 times
Reputation: 18652
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
To your answer and the same one given by another poster, this is a sign of a serious lapse in judgment ability. To claim that someone around you could amass an arsenal of a 100, or 500 , or 1000 AR15's and it wouldn't trigger any concern from you is mind boggling. And it shows the total apathy towards innocent people dying by gun nutters, despite the claims otherwise. Normal people would have the thought " WTF?" about such an event. Gun nutters respond with " I dont give a F".




Wow. Each of these ongoing mass murders teaches me new lessons about gun nutters. After Newton, I asked if the deaths of little kids was worth it for them to be able to own AR15 clones. The answer I got was yes, they were. After the largest mass shooting in US history I also learn that nutters are totally apathetic about attempting to determine if the people creating huge arsenals might be wackos doing so to kill large numbers of people.




I wonder what insights into the gun nutter mind the next mass shooting will reveal.
WELL, so much for honest discussion for it seems you already have decided what the answer should be and if it was not that, then the person must be nuts.

That is what makes horse races and thank you for your time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,054 posts, read 10,615,153 times
Reputation: 9687
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
I am from Texas, so I am aware that we all have guns. One of my elderly aunts traveled with a hogleg .357 in her purse. But again, guns are not the question. Large numbers of AR15's is the question. Why does everyone keep trying to move away from that point?
1) Because statistically, AR15s and similar firearms account for a minuscule number of firearms deaths. They don't even have their own category on the charts, the number is so low. They are included in the category of rifles, and that category accounts for less than 4% of firearms deaths in the United States.

2) Because it won't end with AR15s. It has been proven over and over again by the anti-gun crowd that they prefer to nibble at gun ownership rather than take huge bites. It will start with AR15s, and when that doesn't stop firearms deaths (which it won't, as has already been proven by previous laws) they will move on to the next "evil" group of guns, and the next, and the next. The term "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a perfect descriptor of the liberal plan for gun control.

3) Because it is nobody's business how many guns or what type of guns I, you, or anyone else owns. The government is not authorized to, and in fact is strictly forbidden from, pass any law which infringes upon the right of the citizenry to own firearms. This was done purposefully by the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and it was done for the purpose of ensuring that the citizenry could, if necessary, produce a viable defense in the case of invasion or unconstitutional government action.

In short, for those of us who actually pay attention and educate ourselves on the subject, the idea of placing a limit on the number of firearms that can be owned by an individual is not only ridiculous but is about one step away from fascism. In case you missed it, the vast majority of gun owners tend to be slightly on the conservative side simply due to the fact that owning firearms has been deemed anathema by the progressive left. Unlike liberals, and contrary to recent media spin, conservatives tend to dislike fascism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top