Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:50 AM:
The Senate democrats are against the republican bill to strengthen background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I can only guess they are against it because the NRA is for it.
As it always has been, I see theorist only has a problem with gun crime when it involves a white shooter.
Replies (978)
freedom is still fading.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:05 AM
Try this version...
"The Senate [republicans]are against the [democratic] bill to strengthen background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the [those on the terrorist watch list]. I can only guess they are against it because the NRA is [against] it."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:09 AM
"Well, I am sure you will think I am just defending our President...but I agree with both of these!"
Well of course you are defending him dearie. And if he said so, yes, I am sure you agree with it.
It had to be global warming that rasicalized a certain segment of the population back to Mohammed's days.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:27 AM
Here is a little on the above subject that I could find. Notice a leading Democrat has issues with "privacy rights" of the proposed bill. Who has more rights, the pending victim or the mentally ill person.
Then what about the mentally ill that already have guns....any new law would not address this issue unless a person under the care of a doctor for mental illness have guns taken away by the LEOs with the provision of there return once the person is deemed responsible but then who is to make that determination - what a slippery slope.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:43 AM
This President wants to remove guns from the general population and the dutiful Leftists will fall into lockstep..... to hell with what happens to our country.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:46 AM
I'm all for background checks. Should have had them in 2007. Barry couldn't get a gun much less qualify for president.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:48 AM
Now that is an alarmist post! (in it's embarrassing and ridiculous glory!) -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:53 AM
===
Who posted this "alarmist" statement? You?
"Enough is enough," Obama said in a statement on Saturday. He said the Planned Parenthood shootings showed the need to "to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war" for "people who have no business wielding them."
So? This makes total sense! -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 5:56 AM
===
Things that make you go hmmmm.....
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:02 AM
"Try this version..."
Common makes up his own version again!
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:35 AM
There is no evidence that another background check would have prevented the shootings in Colorado. In fact, Colorado has the more stringent background checks they are demanding.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:47 AM
I understand protecting the rights and privacy of the mentally ill... who needs to know they didn't qualify? -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:54 AM
Once again let's refresh. Although Commie claims he tires of responding to Conservatives, make no mistake - I never tire of correcting Liberals. Ever.
===
"The New York Times notes that mass shooters tend to share certain traits, including isolation, anger, and depression. But that does not mean they can be identified before they commit their crimes, because many other people with these traits never kill anyone. "What seems telling about the killers," says the Times, "is not how much they have in common but how much they look and seem like so many others who do not inflict harm."
PROOF from the NY Times that a) most mass killers are not diagnosable. They act like regular folk every day b) most guns obtained by them are legally purchased with background checks MONTHS before they acted out and c) some of them simply stole weapons and killed people. NONE of these instances would have been stopped by what you propose Theorist. Are you simply pushing solutions that will on entrap legal gun owners?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Now that is an alarmist post! (in it's embarrassing and ridiculous glory!)
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:53 AM
Obama would remove guns from the general population in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it. If you are not smart enough to recognize that..... then you have less smarts than I gave you credit for.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:58 AM
"This President wants to remove guns from the general population..."
To imply that all guns want to be removed from everyone is an out and out lie.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:01 AM
To imply is a lie unless Obama implies and then it's just taken out of context.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:09 AM
Dug is now quoting the New York Times. What a clown.
-- Posted by left turn on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:33 AM
I wonder if more background checks would have prevented this.
"Allen faces 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder, The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune reported. Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office records show he is a convicted felon with a rap sheet dating from 2002 that includes home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin, the newspaper reported."
Wonder why this wasn't covered all day on cable news?
Does it matter who's doing the shooting and who is targeted whether the liberals use it as a case for more gun control?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:49 AM
Dug is now quoting the New York Times. -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:33 AM
It's a leftie site like you would absolutely love. Supports and worships your president like you do.
It's a shame you can't read.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:57 AM
"I wonder if more background checks would have prevented this."
Probably not. The article doesn't say how the firearms were acquired, but the odds are pretty good they were not purchased by lawful sellers.
The question ought to be why someone with a rap sheet which includes "home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin" was on the street to be able to purchase firearm, legally or not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 12:06 PM
"We need Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it."
Now you want to force people into medical facilities if others determine they "warrant psychiatric help"? You're not real big no civil liberties, are you.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, we as a nation used to force the mentally ill into institutions for treatment. That began to change in the late 1970s and 1980s, as the demand for Civil Rights for those so institutionalized resulted in a change in how we treat them. This also resulted in an increase in homelessness.
However, by and large, the homeless mentally ill are not the ones causing the crime. The majority of these mass killers appear to be people who have not been adjudged by anyone to be suffering from mental illness, and thus background checks would have little effect upon them. It is only after they commit their crimes that we begin to hear that they were "odd".
What is your solution? Should we require mandatory mental illness screenings of all citizens routinely? Who gets to decide which mentally-ill citizens are a threat to society and which are not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 12:12 PM
The question ought to be why someone with a rap sheet which includes "home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin" was on the street to be able to purchase firearm, legally or not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 12:06 PM
Maybe it's that white privilege thing. Anyone know the color the shooter or victims?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 12:15 PM
"Does it say we shouldn't? that we can't?"
Yes, "shall not be inftnged", what part of that cannot you understand.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:22 PM
"We need a truly universal system of background checks for gun buyers, one that will include purchases made online and at gun shows!"
Theorist you post a lie, because you know better. I have explained to you before, and you have acknowleded. The only way an online purchase can legally be made is by receiving it through a registered dealer who is required to do the background check. Shipping direct to a purchaser is against the law even by a private seller. It must be done person to person if not handled through a licensed dealer.
Gun shows also require background check if done by a licensed dealer. To insinuate anything different is a lie.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:38 PM
"shall not be inftnged"
Should be 'infringed'
Rick's fat finger flue again.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:42 PM
To imply that all guns want to be removed from everyone is an out and out lie.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:01 AM
Common I don't think "guns" want to removed from anything. I don't think they particularly care one way or the other. They are inanimate objects without feelings.
What I posted however is my opinion, which I am entitled to if or not you agree.
And you have no better idea of what Little Adolph would do if given free reign than anyone else does.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:54 PM
"The Senate [republicans]are against the [democratic] bill to strengthen background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the [those on the terrorist watch list]. I can only guess they are against it because the NRA is [against] it."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:09 AM
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:05 AM
Fast!
FFF, I would like your sources, please! And thank you!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:41 AM
My source was posted last week on another thread. Should have read it then. If you would care to read it, it is there.
And I'm glad to see that you and dex finally got your heads out of your rearends and can see what is happening to freedom.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:12 PM
We need Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:43 AM
They already have. It's called obamacare, mandating that EVERYONE have health insurance. Health insurance policies include coverage for psychiatric care.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:20 PM
To imply that all guns want to be removed from everyone is an out and out lie.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:01 AM
As an Illinois state senator, obama made it clear that if it were up to him, guns would be outlawed for the general public. I have no doubt that this is still his perso al belief.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:23 PM
The US has very high levels of gun violence: America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada and 15 times as many as Germany, according to UN data compiled by the Guardian's Simon Rogers...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:41 AM
Of course. Neither Canada nor Germany has the black thug population that the U.S. does. The black thug population being the cause of the vast majority of gun violence in America.
Any luck yet coming up with a solution to Ammerica's biggest gun violence problem? It's been quite some time since I first posed this question. I can wait, but all those dead blacks killed by black thugs ran out of time. Your solution is urgently needed. ASAP
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:30 PM
"Allen faces 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder, The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune reported. Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office records show he is a convicted felon with a rap sheet dating from 2002 that includes home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin, the newspaper reported
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:49 AM
Here's a clue theorist on where to begin with the black thug problem. Read the second sentence carefully.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:33 PM
The question ought to be why someone with a rap sheet which includes "home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin" was on the street to be able to purchase firearm, legally or not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 12:06 PM
Here theorist. Shapley got you started.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Honest folks will always obey the current gun laws, only the thugs and crooks will turn up their noses to old and new gun laws. Give the police the means to combat the thugs and crooks without their hands tied behind their backs. Even if this means that someone might get shot for not obeying a LEO's orders....All lives matters.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:54 PM
Look theorist, even semo is helping you out.
Now don't give away too much guys. theorist will learn much more by figuring it out for herself.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:58 PM
I have a simple solution. Just require folks to get a government permit before shooting people, just like deer hunters have to have a permit.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:04 PM
America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:41 AM
And America has 10 TIMES the population of Canada. What's your point?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:22 PM
Posted by Dug on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:22 PM
Dug: Remember Theorist is a "Lady" so you should not be scolding her.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:26 PM
I have a simple solution. Just require folks to get a government permit before shooting people, just like deer hunters have to have a permit.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:04 PM
Good idea. We could limit it to one permit per person and only one killing per permit. Mass shootings will be a thing of the past. And better yet, unlike all the other laws, the inner city thugs would follow this law to the letter.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:30 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:22 PM
Dug Theorist has a phobia about guns, she goes paranoid whenever a report of gunfire is announced.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:47 PM
Dug Theorist has a phobia about guns, she goes paranoid whenever a report of gunfire is announced.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 7:47 PM
With the exception of black on black gunfire. She goes uninterested in those instances.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:52 PM
Theorist, Just really, you cite an opinion page and for what point? I'm not very sharp but claiming more people die by guns in America and at a faster rate than major wars is reaching.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:09 PM
"I repeat...ANOTHER Mass shooting...and you don't even care..."
No need for the hysterics Theorist! Just because people do not buy into your idiotic take on all of this has no bearing on if or not they care.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 10:32 PM
this is about AR-15-style guns in the hands of the wrong people! -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 6:21 AM
And NOTHING you propose or can be proposed can prevent events like yesterday. NOTHING. You simply go on and on and on about this without a clue.
Do you think that France has a ban on bombs? I don't know but I'll go out on a limb here and say this - France doesn't allow the manufacture, carrying or detonation of bombs.
Yet a couple of weeks ago bombs were detonated, banned rifles were used and 129 people were killed and many more wounded. Even COMPLETE BANS don't work Theorist.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:11 AM
I see theorist is still uneducated about what an AR is or the fact that it is very, very rarely used in gun crimes.
I also see that she and her @ssclown politicians still don't give a crap about the overwhelmingly largest gun violence problem we have in America. Black thugs. No solution or even talk about that.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:32 AM
"NO! I never said force! I said " a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it."
And I am asking what you mean by "warrant"? It is one thing to make it available to those who seek it. It is another to make it available to those who "warrant" it. Who decides if it is "warranted", and what manner of treatment is provided? Is involuntary confinement "warranted"? Who decides when it is? What avenue of appeal exists in such cases?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:40 AM
"Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage."
Democrats like to tell people what they ought to be thinking.
"Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you did nothing - again."
This one wants tell us how we need to be praying, too.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:44 AM
- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:44 AM --
And you dance around the questions. Who decides? Are you in favour of locking up those deemed to "warrant" it, despite their having committed no crime? That is a scary amount of power to cede to authorities who, even as we debate this, are being protested for abusing authority.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:49 AM
I haven't proposed arming the mentally ill. I am asking the hard questions that need to be asked when such simplistic "solutions" are proposed. Who decides who is mentally ill? Some have proposed, through internet memes and discussion boards, that those who question these "common sense" proposals may just be mentally ill. You have hinted at it yourself. That is problematic, and exhibits the nature of the problem: do we empower the government to strip the rights from those who question their power?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:54 AM
We didn't have this many mass shootings when Mr. Bush was president, even though we had the same gun laws. We didn't have this many racial protests under Mr. Bush, even though we had the same law enforcement.
When, exactly, does all this "healing" begin?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 8:02 AM
"We didn't have this many racial protests under Mr. Bush..."
I'd be fairly certain that you've figured out that the higher level of "racial protests" are directly related to the higher number of shootings that are caught on video recordings, which show clearly what went on. I'm not sure if President Bush deserves this "credit" for a lower number of racial protests.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 8:23 AM
"We didn't have this many mass shootings when Mr. Bush was president, even though we had the same gun laws."
Per the NRA...
"The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year," said the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action in a firearms safety fact sheet released Jan. 17, 2013."
If the NRA numbers are correct, that means from the start of the President Bush administration to now, an additional 150 million guns have been added. That's a significant difference.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 8:29 AM
"I'd be fairly certain that you've figured out that the higher level of "racial protests" are directly related to the higher number of shootings that are caught on video recordings, which show clearly what went on."
I disagree wholeheartedly. The whole "Hands up, don't shoot" thing was disproven by the videos, but that has not quelled it.
"I'm not sure if President Bush deserves this "credit" for a lower number of racial protests."
I didn't give him "credit" for it, I merely pointed out that there seems to be significantly more since this administration took office, promising "healing". If this "healing", methinks the diseade was preferable.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM
"The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year,"
A syrvey of colonists in the Eighteenth Century reported firearms ownership of roughly one firearm per colonist. If the number you cite is correct, then that number continues to hold, as it was reported to have done in the 1970s.
Tus, it is not such a significant difference.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 8:51 AM
I hold the Divider-In-Chief to blame for doing what he has been doing for the last 7 years.... dividing the American public. The police departments all over the USA have been stained by a few bad apples and as a result there is no respect for the LEOs nor the laws of the land. The President of the USA must Lead and not Divide the country. If Pres. Pinky has ideas that will improve the country let him bring them to Congress in person and filibuster them till laws are passed and then signed by him into law. What else does the President have to do but to serve and protect the American public....and not to attend a Weather Channel Meeting by the climate changing airheads for example.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM
I think it is time to ban Gun Free Zones.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 9:50 AM
Theorist, We have all discussed this subject until it is like beating a dead horse.
You are constantly saying that we need stricter gun laws but have as yet to give your opinion of what you are suggesting other than a longer wait period.
Please explain what you think is the course of action that will make this huge difference and how it can be implemented without infringing on the 2nd amendment.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:22 AM
Obama has spoke about the terrible tragedy and mentioned thoughts and prayers, praised law enforcement, and said we don't know why this happened. We know they were well armed and equipped with weapons and this is now an FBI investigation. It could possibly be terrorist related or possible work force related and we should remain vigilant for the facts.
He also said we need to make it harder for individuals that mean to harm others to get weapons. Again he referred to the event as a tragedy.
````````````````````````````````````````
I feel much better now.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:26 AM
Iamhere,I asked theorist about what HER end game solution would be before. Never got an answer.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 AM
Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 AM
Yes I know. Just thought I would try. She talks a lot and says nothing.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:35 AM
Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:26 AM
Don't we all. :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:36 AM
FFF? Are you reading what I post? It was used in THIS gun crime! Duh!
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:40 AM
That doesn't change the fact that ARs are used in a minuscule number of gun crimes.
Figured out what an AR is yet, and how it functions?
Any solutions yet on the biggest gun violence problem this country faces, inner city thugs?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:58 AM
"Armed Citizens Deter Terrorist Attacks In Detroit, Police Chief Says"
"DETROIT (CBS Detroit) More guns, fewer problems. That, at least, is Detroit Police Chief's James Craig's view of Detroit and fears about a possible terrorist attack.
While cities around the world are on heightened alert following a devastating ISIS attack in Paris, Detroit's police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:00 AM
Record number of guns, record number of gun deaths...do the math!
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 9:10 AM
I did and found no correlation with record number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and the number of gun deaths. And by the way, we aren't even close to a record number of gun deaths.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:02 AM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM
Still no reply to everyone's question about what exactly do you feel should be done specifically?
You started this thread but don't give your thoughts on how to fix this problem. That should have been your first post so we could all discuss it.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:31 AM
"...ownership of roughly one firearm per colonist."
Right one musket or flintlock pistol per colonist. And those colonists were surrounded in many cases by hostile indians, wild bears or wolves, Canadian tories, French trappers, Spanish explorers, and criminals.
Except for criminals those threats are gone, but if we must keep the ratio muskets to citizens constant, I guess we'll have to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:42 AM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:34 AM
I wasn't being hateful. It is the truth. We are just trying to figure out exactly what it is that you think will fix this problem. You say different things at different times so other than trying to search all of your posts I would just like to know in one post the things you think would make a difference and if it can be done without stepping on the 2nd amendment. That's all.
Do you read?
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:35 AM
How polite is that?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:55 AM
"I disagree wholeheartedly. The whole "Hands up, don't shoot" thing was disproven by the videos, but that has not quelled it."
What video? I have seen one from the store and one from Brown lying in the street. I have not seen any video of Brown attacking.
The one I was referring to was from Charleston where the officer claimed he was being attacked. The later video showed Scott walking away, being shot and the police dropping an object by him and he was handcuffed after he was already dead.
Or the kid that was shot 15 or 16 times while on the ground.
Those are what throws doubt on police testimony on having to shoot because they "feared for their lives." This is what current "racial protests" are about.
Note when when the Charleston church shooter was immediately arrested and charged, there were no "racial protests." Likewise in North Charleston when Slager was arrested and charged, there were no "racial protests."
99% or more of police officers do their jobs well and effectively. Protests arise when there's doubt and conflicting testimony, and needless to say that's particularly true when the victim is an unarmed black guy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:09 PM
"We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there's nothing that we can do to stop them," Obama said in an interview with CBS News on Thursday.
To me this is a BIG hole in the background checks that shouldn't even be there and should have been closed LONG ago.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:29 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM
Theorist: Doubt if you have any guns in the house so why not post a sign outside saying - Gun Free
Zone - and see what happens.
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:09 PM
Common: If you feel so sorry for the thugs why do you leave Bollinger County and move up to Ferguson or St. Louis so you can be close to your friends.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:29 PM
Iam: Agree, merge the two data bases together would be an easy fix to enhance the background checks.
How polite is that?-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:55 AM
Iam: Don't worry about being polite with Theorist, she isn't with her comments to others on here.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:34 PM
I don't feel sorry for the thugs in the least. Having a video of events leading up to and including an arrest, protects the police officer more than the thug.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Common: Doing the crawdad that our current President made famous.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:57 PM
Posted by semo471 on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:34 PM
Just don't understand why she started going after me. Don't know how to say anything that she doesn't try to turn around and act like I have done something. If I try to get her to answer a question she accuses me of being a bully. I just don't like to assume things and a lot of times her responses are vague.
I don't let it bother me though I don't have time for that.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:02 PM
I feel much better now.-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:26 AM
OJ: I feel so warm and fuzzy knowing that our Crawdad-In-Chief doesn't know work place violence from terrorism. What would you call a house full of bombs and bomb making equipment and the occupants of said house - terrorist! It's a shame that the neighbors who had suspicions of the packages received and the number of men coming and going at the house did not notify the police - they were quoted as being afraid of being labeled racist....give me a break.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM
"Record number of guns, record number of gun deaths...do the math!"
"The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that where there are more guns, there are more homicides."
None of that is supported by the FBI's crime statistics, which show that firearms-related deaths peaked in the early 1990s and have fallen since.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:11 PM
"Those are what throws doubt on police testimony on having to shoot because they "feared for their lives." This is what current "racial protests" are about."
In Mizzou? Ay Yale?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:13 PM
I have seen nothing about people being shot at Mizzou or Yale, when did the police shoot any unarmed college students?
Students protest about a lot of things, what's wrong or strange about that?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:24 PM
I have given multiple ideas for implementing safeguards against gun violence. On this thread alone, I have advocated more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods (takes the impulsive shooter out) and finding help for the mentally and emotionally needy...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 11:34 AM
Still no ideas on how to stop the biggest perpetrators of gun violence, the inner city thugs?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:28 PM
when did the police shoot any unarmed college students?
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Does Kent State ring any bells?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:38 PM
when did the police shoot any unarmed college students?
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Does Kent State ring any bells?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:38 PM
If I try to get her to answer a question she accuses me of being a bully. I just don't like to assume things and a lot of times her responses are vague. I don't let it bother me though I don't have time for that. -- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:02 PM
BINGO! You've pretty much nailed the Theo-cycle. I asked simple questions and get snarky responses.
Doesn't bother me, just odd...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:39 PM
"Does Kent State ring any bells?"
What does that have to do with police shooting unarmed suspects?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:45 PM
From the Los Angeles Times today - another hit to the notion that expanded background checks would do anything...
"Requiring background checks for weapons sold at gun shows might not have had any effect on Wednesday's shooting in San Bernardino, in which 14 people were killed. So far, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has determined that two of the weapons used in the assault were legally purchased at a gun shop in Corona."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:45 PM
What does that have to do with police shooting unarmed suspects?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:45 PM
What does THAT have to do with unarmed college students? No matter which government agency is doing the shooting. You didn't ask about unarmed suspects you specified college students.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:49 PM
"I have seen nothing about people being shot at Mizzou or Yale, when did the police shoot any unarmed college students?"
I didn't say anything in this post about shotings, either:
"We didn't have this many racial protests under Mr. Bush, even though we had the same law enforcement."
So, there.
You are the one who limited racial protests to shootings, not I.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 2:15 PM
Not sure where you get your statistics, but this list show 6 major incidents during the President Bush and four during the current administration. Strangely enough the the last four were all the result of police shootings.
So it looks like if it were not for incidents with police there would have been none.
* 2001: Cincinnati riots (Cincinnati, Ohio): In a reaction to the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black male, Timothy Thomas by Cincinnati police officer Steven Roach, during a foot pursuit, riots broke out over the span of a few days.
* 2005: 2005 Toledo Riot (Toledo, Ohio): A race riot that broke out after a planned Neo-Nazi protest march through a black neighborhood.
* 2006: Fontana High School riot (Fontana, California): Riot involving about 500 Latino and black students.
* 2006: Prison Race Riots (California): A war between Latino and black prison gangs set off a series of riots across California.
* 2008: Locke High School riot[32] (Los Angeles, California)
* 2009: 2009 Oakland Riots (Oakland, California): Peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Oscar Grant, by a BART transit policeman.
* 2014: Shooting of Michael Brown, later riots break out after the shooting was believed to be racially motivated.
* 2015: The Death of Freddie Gray was an incident in which a suspect died in police custody and later protests turned into riots in Baltimore.
* 2015: On the anniversary of the Shooting of Michael Brown, the original Ferguson unrest resumed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 4:26 PM
"No matter which government agency is doing the shooting."
Of course it does. You may not be aware that there is a distinct difference between local police and the National Guard. had the local police been called in there most likely would have been no one killed. If you can't comprehend this I'll explain it further.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 4:30 PM
That is EXACTLY why I push for this! At least two of their weapons were bought legally...now stay with me....A crazy person who killed 14 people bought their gun legally...Now, do you see a problem???
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 6:54 PM
They weren't crazy people. They were muslim terrorists.
And yes, I see the problem. muslim and inner city thug ideology.
Come up with that solution yet to solving America's biggest gun problem which is inner city thugs?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:06 PM
Are there background checks on home made bombs? Can I get one at a gun show through the loop hole?
Theorist, Did the Muslim mail order bride buy the guns legally or did her government employee husband buy the guns legally?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:32 PM
Common, You may be right, If the state or federal government had not been involved all would have been fine.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:36 PM
OOPS, I was thinking of Ruby Ridge and Waco.
So what was your point?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 7:38 PM
"A crazy person who killed 14 people bought their gun legally...Now, do you see a problem???"
Unless you've perfected the time machine, your measures will do nothing. He had neither been ajudged to be crazy nor had he killed anyone at the time of purchase. Now, stay with me...how would your proposed measures have prevented his purchases?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:02 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 4:26 PM
Your comprehensive list leaves out the current Chicago protests, the Mizzou Protests, the Yale protests, the Vanderbilt protests, the Ithaca college protests, USC, Ole Miss...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 10:10 PM
- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 12:29 PM
Theorist this is something that should have been a no brainer and should have been implemented into the background checks LONG ago along with those on the "watch" list.
Do you agree they have seriously dropped the ball on this?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:02 AM
Theorist as Wheels has pointed out, all of your points have been addressed, explained and refuted by one or more of us, yet you drag them out again and again trying to counter facts with emotional pleas to do the same old thing. If people don't buy into your oft refuted proposals you attack them.
If you truly have comprehension or memory problems, just go back months or years and reread what has already been addressed by many of us, I will waste no more of my time with you.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:11 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:21 AM
I feel that ALL states should have to "run" every buyer thru the no fly and watch lists but even then you have the issue that if they want a gun they can get one and I see no way that you can prevent that.
It is too easy to get one on the street.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:31 AM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:27 AM
Just because someone may have depression or anxiety that doesn't make them a killer in the making. Who is to interpret who is sane or not?
I don't believe that the shooters in CA. were insane. It wasn't "spur" of the moment either as they were wearing body armor and were very calm and VERY well prepared. That means planning.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:47 AM
With the hysterics, I am beginning to question in my mind if Theorist could pass a mental test.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:53 AM
The muslim terrorists in California were not insane. Never were. No background check or waiting period would have prevented them from legally buying a gun. Your solution fails.
Now, blacks in inner cities are dying every day at the hands of thugs. You have that solution worked out yet for this, America's biggest gun violence problem? People are dying. They desperately need your solutions. Or maybe America's biggest gun violence problem matters not to you. Blacklivesmatter? Guess not.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:02 AM
If or not Obama permits this San Bernardino affair to be labeled a Terrorist attack, it clearly is one.
He clearly is delusional with his references to global warming/climate change being a bigger threat than ISIS and other world terrorist operations.
His avoidance of calling a spade a spade is a major problem.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:02 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:53 AM
I wouldn't say hysterical as much as she is just trying to find a way to solve the problem. I don't think a lot of new laws will do the trick though. It just won't stop the flow of gaining weapons illegally. We have to do something with the ones causing the issues but I don't know what.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:04 AM
Wheels, Very well said about Mr. O.. That is calling it what it is.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:21 AM
"There is no federal waiting period!"
There is a California waiting period, where the firearms were purchased. It didn't help. Making it federal would not have changed that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:25 AM
"He clearly is delusional with his references to global warming/climate change being a bigger threat than ISIS and other world terrorist operations."
It would appear that the terrorists have been successful in "terrorizing" Mr. Big Wheel. Perhaps if he hides under his bed the ISIS JV's won't find him. And he talks about others being hysterical. That is funny.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:32 AM
Mr Common
I am more concerned about Barack Hussein Obama than I am about being targeted by a Terrorist. I can recognize a problem when I see one.
Obama is a/the problem.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:38 AM
"I can recognize a problem when I see one."
I'm sure that in your own mind, you believe that, but you have to consider the source.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:47 AM
"Wheels is right , ISIS has been contained..."
Were that what he really thought, he'd be right for at least once.
It also depends on how you define "contained." In Syria and Iraq, ISIS is losing jihadists, losing ground, losing resources, losing weapons, losing fuel, losing leaders, losing support, etc. That's being contained. Sending one guy to France has nothing to do with being contained.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:53 AM
You do realize not all mental health records have been reported to NICS?? Problem!
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 6:27 AM
Yet more proof you pay no attention. I've outlined my background in the criminal justice system which included background checks through all available resources including municipal, state, federal, mental health records etc. I supervised and helped train officers to do the same. I dealt with criminals, victims, LEO, criminal justice and correctional facilities and personal on a regular basis. I went into prisons, jails, treatment centers, halfway houses etc.
I could go on, but you simply are a waste of my time as you have an agenda and are unwilling to let go no matter what anyone presents.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:54 AM
"...no matter what anyone presents."
Aside from the above resume, what's been presented?
If the US has about 4% of the world population, and 40% of the world weapons in civilian hands, should not you happen to see a glimmer of a solution?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:00 AM
Just reporting facts which you can't dispute, and have trouble dealing with..
Hysteria would be trying to close the borders because of Ebola!!
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 7:42 AM
Too many of your "facts" are nothing more than your opinion.
For instance state's ruling background checks. I believe you will find, if a state is running the program they must meet or exceed federal standards. If they do not, it is the Feds job to shut them down. Just another of your so called "facts"!
I wouldn't put any more stock in your "facts" than I do in Obama's. You have repeatedly reported lies as facts.
So far as Ebola or any other infectious disease, do you condone people traveling from country to country with no oversight after either being exposed to or infected with one of these diseases.... it appears you do.
I hope you do understand that diseases can be used as a weapon. Quite frankly I would as soon take a bullet as be infected with something that a cure was questionable on.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:07 AM
"Wheels is right , ISIS has been contained..."
Don't know what the airhead from Scopus is trying to infer here.... but to make it clear, Wheels has not stated that ISIS has been contained.... far from it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:14 AM
If the US has about 4% of the world population, and 40% of the world weapons in civilian hands, should not you happen to see a glimmer of a solution? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:00 AM
So you advocate disarming Americans down to something like maybe North Korea? China? Venezuela?
Nice vision you have there Common.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:17 AM
".. trying to infer here.."
That surprises no one. Not unusual that you fail to understand, again.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:19 AM
The solution is not more gun control laws but to enforce the ones already on the books. Give the LEOs back the means to combat the thug, crooks, and terrorists that are bent on harming Americans. The LEOs, FBI, ATF can control the back market on guns if they are given the means to do so - more officers, more computer equipment, and more money to maintain top notch effectiveness. The mental health issue should also be addressed with more facilities to handle those in need of help. All of these proposals need money to make it happen and two of the ways is to grow the economy by sound business decisions and to get the blood sucking freeloaders jobs thus freeing up money and creating a larger tax base.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:52 AM
That surprises no one. Not unusual that you fail to understand, again. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:19 AM
You should have said "that doesn't surprise ME". There is no one else like you - you're alone in your crazy leftist world.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 8:55 AM
address the issues brought to the table, please...mental health reporting (or lack there of) -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 9:07 AM
It's *your* issue. Nearly none of the mass killings in the past decade or more would have been what you seem to think is "the issue". None. Despite the evidence you get stuck on things like this. It's illogical.
I admire your passion but please point it in the right direction.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 9:29 AM
From Theorist link "......The gun must be purchased from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles (193 kilometers) from the purchaser's legal residence....."
Kilometers for those who just got here.:)
If that story wasn't about a democrat I'd think it was a spoof.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 1:24 PM
- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 12:43 PM
Theorist
May make sense to a Leftist but to no one. with deductive reasoning powers.
There is no parallel..... an abortion stops a beating human heart in 100% of the cases, a gun sale, never does. It's owner may use it to do so in a small minority of the cases.
Have you ever thought about taking a course in logical thinking?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 2:48 PM
Theoris, No I did not read it all the way through, it kept stopping due to a long running script. What did I miss?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 3:21 PM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 3:03 PM
What is it that you think more laws will do? It will do nothing! Laws aren't the problem! The problem is the illegal guns and those that use them! They don't get them legally and don't get background checks. They go and find one and buy it with drugs, cash, or the steal someone's LEGALLY bought gun! So how is MORE laws going to stop that??? It is already against the law!!!
GEEZ!! I GIVE UP!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 3:39 PM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 12:43 PM
That has to be one of the most stupid articles and actual bill of all time. What a TOTAL waste of taxpayer money!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 3:53 PM
Well this thread has morphed into a colossal waste of time so far as the panic stricken wailing about extended waiting periods and stronger background checks since the San Bernardino Terrorist attacks. The guns were purchased two years ago.... pray telling how a waiting period would have prevented this.
And the clueless President who jumped on the opportunity to call for more gun control before the victim's bodies were cold, as has become his modus operendi. What a bad joke he is.
Now when the FBI has declared this a case of Islamic Terrorism, the little coward is hiding under his desk rather than eat his hastily spoken words.
Same old samo... never let a good crisis go to waste!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 9:20 PM
Posted by Rick'to on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 6:45 AM
From which tribe do you descend? Just curious you don't have to answer. I know that is a personal question.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:14 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM
You just don't get it. Just like that stupid bill you posted a link to. Those who purchase guns legally are not the main problem. As far as comparing accidental deaths by guns to willful, thought out cold blooded murder of infants there is no comparison. The female murders have it hands down.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:28 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM
Theorist: Both of the AR15s were modified and thus made illegal. Wonder if the killers did this modification or did a gunsmith do it....interesting to find out.
Now that the government has finally concluded that the two killers were Terrorist (something 90% of the population already knew) Hillary and Pres. Pinky are once again doing the crawdad and trying to take the words gun control back and insert Terrorism.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:30 AM
You have to sign your life away to get sinus medicine, but apparently you can buy as much deadly ammunition as you want, and no one suspects a thing...-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Theorist: If you noticed, all of the equipment needed to make the pipe bombs (excluding the gun powder) can be separately purchased at any hardware store or even at Wal-Mart. The gun power can be bought at sporting goods stores for use in the reloading of shells. Don't know how much can be purchased at a time and how often....maybe "Red Rhino" can help us out here.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:41 AM
Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:41 AM
No matter what you say Semo she just doesn't get it. You might as well be talking to Obama. He doesn't get it either. Like talking to a brick wall.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:44 AM
Posted by Rick'to on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 6:42 AM
Rick: T--kȟa šni. Hé witk--tkoke.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:01 AM
They were bought legally...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM
Yes! Two years ago. How long would you like the waiting period to be?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:10 AM
Gun control proponents are like wives in a "discussion", they start getting shrill and irrational when you start inserting logic.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Wheels: As long as I agree with girlfriend, she doesn't get shrill and irrational. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:25 AM
- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:25 AM
Try disagreeing Semo471... makes life more exciting.
With some of the stuff Theorist comes up with, my guess is she is a good wife to somebody.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM
Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:25 AM
LOL.. Just smile and say "Yes, Dear".
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:31 AM
"are like wives in a "discussion", they start getting shrill and irrational when you start inserting logic."
Exactly! Wives should be kept barefoot and pregnant. Wives should not be allowed to vote. Wives do not have sense to hold a job outside the home or balance a check book.
-- Posted by notrump on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:43 AM
- Posted by jim_frost on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:43 AM
You must have spelled your name wrong Jill.
And that would be "your" opinion apparently, as no one else mentioned it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:47 AM
Posted by jim_frost on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:43 AM
What a stupid and degrading remark.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Try disagreeing Semo471... makes life more exciting.-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM
Wheels: I want to make it to 51 years. ☺☺
Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Iamhere: After 50 years, that approach has work fine for me.
Posted by jim_frost on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:43 AM
Jill: What a wife/husband do or say is their concern and I for one don't need a PC person to say any different.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:58 AM
"Wheels: I want to make it to 51 years. ☺☺"
Semo471,
I have made it to 58 years, working on 59.😸😸
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:03 AM
"Wheels: I want to make it to 51 years. ☺☺"
Semo471,
I have made it to 58 years, working on 59.😸😸
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:04 AM
Ooops.... double dribble!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Ooops.... double dribble!-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Wheels: The ball goes over to the other team. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:12 AM
That's OK Semo471, the coffee is gone and I need to do something productive anyway. Later.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:25 AM
Yep, the guy broke a bunch of gun laws in a state with some of the toughest gun controls laws. Let's pass a bunch more gun laws that will be a burden on honest citizens, some more laws that bad people will ignore. Yep, that's the answer, focus on the guns, not the people using them illegally.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 6:45 AM
what does an honest citizen do with an assault rifle? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 7:49 AM
Assault rifles are just rifles. Period. There's really nothing that fancy about them. They cannot be modified legally to do any more than a shot gun - one firing at a time for each pull of the trigger. Legally they cannot be "automatic" - only semi-automatic.
They can be used in self defense and prevention. You know - "safety" - like seat belts.
They are used in competitions throughout the US. Here's a 10 year old that won a national competition. Look down in the link and you'll see her with what appears to be an AR-15. From CNN:
"Meet Shyanne Roberts, a 10-year-old competitive shooter who is out to prove something: Children with guns don't always mean disaster.
"I want to be an inspiration to other kids and be a leader," said the girl. "Kids and guns don't always mean bad things happen."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 8:01 AM
I learned to shoot when I was around 10. 2 of my Dau.'s hunt and 1 has a CCW and carries all the time due to her work.
I saw a video of this girl and she is awesome. I will be teaching my grandau. and she will also hunt. That is something I feel women can enjoy just as much as men.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 8:37 AM
what does an honest citizen do with an assault rifle? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 7:49 AM
As long as it is legal, why does it matter?
-- Posted by motrans on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:13 AM
Posted by motrans on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:13 AM
motrans: Agree
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:27 AM
I'm still trying to figure what Muslim holy day the victims were celebrating at that holiday party.
About firearms, I think people get confused about the terms used. A fully automatic keeps shooting as long as the trigger is held. A semiautomatic only fires once with each pull of the trigger. Any that upload another round into the firing chamber by mechanization are automatic. Only guns that require manual uploading of the chamber are not automatic.
Someone correct me if I got it wrong.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:29 AM
Sioux Lakota..born on Pine Ridge Reservation , Sovereign PC37 Posted by Rick' on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 6:57 AM
You descend from some great people. Tragic history though. Your people, (as have other Native Americans), had more than their share.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:41 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:53 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 10:53 AM
I think we have had a recognized establishment of wealthy Democrats calling their shots for a long time. How else could anyone explain Hillary being even remotely considered for their nominee?
It is good that Trump and other candidates are highlighting the same behavior from the Republican elite.
I think most so far never figured Trump would get this far and I thought by now Carson would have been linked to child pornography or Mexican drug cartels or both in via some anonymous news source. Remember Steve Forbes campaign had to answer questions about child molestation after some twit called a late night talk show and said she thought he looked like a child molester. The media twisted that everyway but loose. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 12:04 PM
"Basic rights are freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression. (note the right to carry a tool designed only to kill, is not one)"
Basic rights or natural rights, whatever you choose to call them do indeed include the right to life. And I, as well as all others have the right to defend my right to that life with whatever means are necessary. If that happens to be a gun which levels the playing field in protecting my right to life, then I have every right to carry one. The right to the tool is implied when no guarantees can be made for the protection of the right to life.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 2:30 PM
That 'often held to include' part disqualifies the rest of it in my opinion.
Our founders recognized natural rights come from God. Many often add and subtract to those basic rights to farther an agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 2:56 PM
I have no remorse in the destruction of moles and groundhogs.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 9:47 PM
Wonder if this was another drug deal gone bad, guess we will find out the rest of the story later.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 8:39 AM
Where is the victim's right to life and freedom from torture? -- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM
Good question. Do you consider the cutting up of an unborn baby into pieces for sale torture?
700,000 abortions a year.
11,000 homicides by guns a year.
Car accidents/homicides/suicides, rope accidents/homicides/suicides, gun accidents/homicides/suicides. We live in a free society supposedly framed by a Constitution. We are guaranteed certain rights.
Assault rifles are not just for killing. Like cars. Like ropes.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 10:18 AM
Again.... When do you say enough is enough??
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 8:19 AM
When do you beleive we should start holding those who commit these crimes accountable as oppossed to holding the tools they use accountable?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 11:32 AM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 12:56 PM
Theorist, I know quite a few people who own AK 47's they bought them before the ban. Not one has been used to kill a human. All were bought for the same reason. Deer Hunting.
That is one reason to own an "assault rifle".
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM
Again.... When do you say enough is enough??
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 8:19 AM
Had even 1 person in the SB shooting been allowed to conceal carry the outcome could have been dramatically different.
Do you agree?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
Definitely as well.
It's why a University of Missouri law professor is suing to carry on campus with a permit.
We'll see how that turns out.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 2:38 PM
In other words...someone should NOT have a firearm.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM
Another "Premature Ejacuation" from Theorist!
Now before someone gets their panties in a wad, I am using the term in this context.....
"Ejaculation definition, an abrupt, exclamatory utterance. See more. Dictionary.com; Word of the Day; ..."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 4:34 PM
The video that follows shows a guy hitting more with less ammo, sometimes 1 shot at time.
Were those old military rifles updated with accessories?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 9:17 PM
IMO, the Texas wild hogs need to be rounded up put in safe areas and after proper vetting shipped into Mexico.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 8:54 AM
Nah, I think they should be rounded up and shipped to the Humane Society where the bleeding hearts of the world can adopt them and make pets out of them.
Once they have trained and serialized the wild hogs, every immigrant from Sand Country receives one as a mandatory gift at the Point of Entry into the United States of America. The Agricultural Dept will be responsible for documenting and checking them as they do a much better job of following the movements of animals than Immigration and Border Control does of people. The immigrant will be responsible for feeding and loving care and would be checked regularly by volunteers from PETA for compliance.
And that my friends will let even Trump off the hook, so he can move on to more important ideas.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 9:40 AM
What happened to theorist? I was waiting to see her reply to my earlier post.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 10:48 AM
Posted by Rick' on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Feral Hogs are vicious! Those things will kill you in a heartbeat. They will chase your a** down.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 11:22 AM
MDC says them hogs are dangerous to handle as they carry diseases and should not be considered a food source. If left to decay those diseases are easily spread by vultures and other scavengers and are likely to infect the other species the conservations department claims as their game animals.
Guns and terrorist take a back seat to our greatest enemy.....the feral hog.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 11:39 AM
Donald Trump is no "greatest enemy" IMO. Greatest enemy?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 11:52 AM
Uh Dug say that if he gets elected and tears this country to shreds and turns it in to WWII Germany. Yup no threat from that idiot.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 12:26 PM
The greatest enemies of the USA are Pres. Pinky and Hillary the email queen Clinton.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 1:05 PM
Concentrated financial control coupled with powerful political leverage world wide ranks high in my view of what's dangerous to our country.
Let Trump continue to stir the pot. If by chance he gets elected, he may delegate all the hard stuff, make some sort of big signature legacy for himself, get bored and leave early. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 1:39 PM
Dug say that if he gets elected and tears this country to shreds and turns it in to WWII Germany. Yup no threat from that idiot.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 12:26 PM
"if" he does that then yes. But I hardly think he's worse than a) the man in the White House or b) al Qaeda or c) take-your-pick.
I can't believe he'll win the nomination or the election. If his plan is to increase the largesse of the federal government in spending and removing the rights of Americans then he would be a big threat. I don't hear him saying that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 4:42 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 6:52 PM
Theorist: An assault rifle believe it or not can be fired one bullet at a time. If a person does a lot of target practice using an AR-15, then that person might be able to hit a rabbit with one shot.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 8:17 PM
I would like to hear Theorist's definition of an assault rifle.
A while back I assaulted a ground hog that was assaulting my barn foundation. Is my Winchester 74 22 an assault rifle?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 9:18 PM
Old John
My assault weapon of choice for ground hogs is still my old Stevens Visible Loader Pump that I purchased for $5 when I was in the 7th grade. I have four or five 22 calibre rifles front single shot to semi automatic, but that one is my favorite.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 1:59 AM
Those are already banned. You can't buy a selective fire rifle, or any fully-automatic rifle.
Thanks for the definition. You've supported our position that the things people are seeking to ban aren't assault weapons.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 7:14 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 6:52 PM
Thanks for the reply in your usual smart mouth language. I never mentioned a rabbit I specifically said "Deer Hunting". For rabbit I would choose a shotgun. You really need to know the subject better before you reply. It is very apparent that you have no clue what you are talking about.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:01 AM
Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:01 AM
Iamhere: She only reposts items from the gun control websites and like you said - no clue.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:12 AM
Semo I only had asked where she was bc I had not seen her post for a few days. I wasn't being snarky or smart. Her reply was anything but nice. I don't know where in the world she got that I was talking about rabbits. I guess she pulled that out of her own hat. ;)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:25 AM
I think assault rifles were created to help Protective Child Services take custody of little Cuban boys at the request of the one in the other blue dress.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:38 AM
Actually this is the post I asked about Theorist.
Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 11:02 AM
and it was made to kill many quickly and efficiently....Correct? -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 10:40 AM
Many feral hogs?
It was also made to compete with and enjoy the sport of hunting and competition.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 11:04 AM
Needing a gun that can fire quick successive shots would suggest you are going to miss?? -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 11:34 AM
Or you need to kill as many feral hogs as you can. If left alone they will destroy the ground they occupy till they starve themselves and other animals.
They are a human-caused problem and IMO need a human-initiated solution. An AR15 packs a big punch.
There are many types of guns for many uses. It's been a while but maybe Shapley can confirm this - in Illinois you can only hunt deer with a shotgun and slug. No rifles allowed. In Missouri you can, of course, use a rifle.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 11:38 AM
"The AR 15 rifle used by Adam Lanza was sold legally...and it was made to kill many quickly and efficiently....Correct?"
Incorrect. First, it was not an AR-15, it was a Bushmaster XM15. It was made to fire rounds quickly and efficiently. The manufacturer has no knowledge of whether those rounds will be fired to kill animals or humans, to maim or cripple, or to destroy inanimate targets.
Bushmaster weapons are used by military and police in various nations, but are also popular as a sporting firearm. The ones sold for civilian use are not available with a fully automatic mode, and thus do not fit the definition of "assault weapon" you posted.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 12:33 PM
"Actually...if there is a sport in hunting, I would assume it would have something to do with being an accurate shot...Needing a gun that can fire quick successive shots would suggest you are going to miss??"
Your assumption is incorrect. But, even if it were so, are you suggesting that only sharpshooters be allowed to hunt?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 12:36 PM
"There are many types of guns for many uses. It's been a while but maybe Shapley can confirm this - in Illinois you can only hunt deer with a shotgun and slug. No rifles allowed."
That is correct for standard firearms season. There is also muzzle-loader season, which permits the use of black-powder firearms, including rifles. Some counties also have handgun seasons, which permit hunting with pistols.
From the Illinois DNR site:
"Deer Hunting
"Legal Firearms *Shotguns, loaded with slugs only, of not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller than 20 gauge, not capable of firing more than 3 consecutive slugs; or
*Single or double barreled muzzleloading rifles of at least .45 caliber shooting a single projectile through a barrel of at least sixteen inches in length; or
*Centerfire revolvers or centerfire single-shot handguns of .30 caliber or larger with a minimum barrel length of 4 inches."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 12:40 PM
Here it goes again, one of those bad automobiles injured one person at Mt. Auburn & William this moring.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 2:02 PM
"If a hunter misses his prey, then that bullet in theory hits something...is he held accountable?"
If he hits something significant: a house, another hunter, or an automobile, yes. That is, if he is found out. Typically, however, the bullet will strike a tree. It is a responsibility of a hunter to be aware of what lies beyond his intended target. There are also laws that limit hunting within the proximity of roads, etc., to minimize the possibility of collateral damage.
A hunter shooting from a tree stand, if he misses, will most likely strike the ground, since he is shooting downward at his target.
Shotguns, even when armed with slugs, have a very limited range, so it is unlikely his shot will strike anything which is beyond the hunter's sight distance.
"Are you suggesting they are just shooting to kill something?"
No. There are varying types of hunters. Sport hunters hunt for the sport of tracking and acquiring game. Subsistence hunters, who are the minority, hunt to put food on the table. Sport hunters generally have a specific animal in mind when they set out to hunt, and do not usually shoot other types of animals when on the hunt. Even when they find the type of animal they seek, they will often refrain from hunting until they find one worthy of a shot. This is, perhaps, the type of hunter you refer to when you say "I would assume it would have something to do with being an accurate shot", they pride themselves on the ability to take game with the minimum number of rounds expended. You may recall the film 'The Deer Hunter', in which "one shot" was the goal for felling their prey.
Subsistence hunters are often opportunists. They may set out for a specific animal, but will often kill whatever comes along that will put food on the table. When you're hungry, it doesn't pay to set your mind on Elk, to the exclusion of a tasty raccoon, beaver, or opossum.
There are also those ranchers who may not be classified as "hunters" by some. They hunt predators and pests to protect their herds. They find the AR-15 equivalents quite useful when they stumble upon a pack of coyotes, prairie dogs, or other "varmints". The .223 semi-automatic is often billed as a "varmint rifle", useful in the pursuit of such pests.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 2:47 PM
Maybe T should give it up on SO and ask her dear Leader to demand ISIS(er,ISIL,can't omit Israel ya know)quit clinging to their guns and religion?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 3:56 PM
The AR 15 rifle used by Adam Lanza was sold legally...and it was made to kill many quickly and efficiently....Correct?
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 10:40 AM
Doesn't kill any more quickly or efficiently than any other semi-automatic rifle.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 6:27 PM
Sold legally is the problem, Rick! This crazy, messed up kid had no business with and of the weaponry he had...and that is proven by the children and teachers he killed!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 6:50 PM
And yet your government allowed him to have one. The same government that is going to do background checks on all the refugees.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 7:08 PM
Thankfully he didn't have a car...oh yeah, he did. How many people did this crazy guy kill with his car?-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 6:50 PM
Theorist: Now we are getting down to the real reason that all those people were killed....it's the automobile's fault, if Adam didn't have one he couldn't have gotten to the school. Ban all cars. Cars are killers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 7:29 PM
Wheels Are you in Alabama ???
-- Posted by Peedo on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 7:46 PM
T,your govt of choice has decided not to offend visa applicants by checking their social media. Perhaps that bat sh*t crazed anti-American Islamic terrorist woman would have never been allowed entry,gotten armed and killed 14 innocents. How about that for a background check? Oops,not PC.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 8:30 PM
Your government of choice, democrat controlled, is against legislation to strengthen background checks to keep guns out of "crazies" hands. Of course your government has proven to be incompetent when executing background checks as they are. Only a shat for brains would beleive it would suddenly be competent at executing any new background checks.
You're just not that bright, are you?
Figured out the functional difference, if any, between and AR style rifle and any other semi-auto rifle.
Come up with any solution yet for the greatest cause of gun violence in this country, inner city thugs. Lots of black inner city thugs died last night. They desperately need your expertise. Remember, "blacklivesmatter".
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 8:35 PM
"Apparently you are incorrect..."
What does a two-year-old needing a heart transplant have to do with this?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:20 PM
"This crazy, messed up kid had no business with and of the weaponry he had...and that is proven by the children and teachers he killed!"
Again, you need to share that time machine with the authorities. He committed the killings after the purchases, quite some time after. He was not disqualified at the time of purchase. On what grounds do you propose that he ought to have been stripped of his rights?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:25 PM
I think her proposal is to introduce a new federal "ESP" program to predict what someone will do in the future. Or maybe an "Armchair Quarterback" program to second guess legal transactions.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:28 PM
I just now went through all the delays and ads to play the video on KFVS. When did it mention needing a heart transplant?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:34 PM
When I click on it, it takes me to an index. The heart transplant is the top story.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM
Shapley, I think she meant the story about a child struck by a stray bullet on I55. As far as I know it is considered an accident with no charges filed but a civil suit could be an option if pursued.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 9:51 PM
Wheels Are you in Alabama ???
-- Posted by Peedo on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 7:46 PM
Not yet Peedo, but I will soon be headed in that direction. Thirteen days and counting. 😊😊
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 11:31 PM
I couldn't get the link to work, so I Googled "accidental shooting eleven-year-old", which produced several results, nearly all of which referred to a juvenile as the shooter. Most noted, as did Old John, that no criminal charges were filed, which makes sense if no laws were broken, but that the firearms owner could still be subject to a civil suit, which is to say they can be held accountable. Why do you think that makes my statement incorrect?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 6:51 AM
Looks to me like it was the automobile's fault, if the kid wasn't in the car he wouldn't have got hit. Same logic that Theorist has about blaming the gun and not the shooter.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 7:49 AM
I'm curious Theorist, what would you charge the shooter with?
Accidents do happen and if no laws were broken what makes this any different than, let's say a farm accident where a child is run over by a tractor?
Could be carelessness of the operator in both cases, but would you be as outraged over both..... I sincerely doubt it. It is rather obvious, you have a phobia about guns, you need professional help.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:22 AM
"And yet, he is not held accountable...so your statement is incorrect."
Not so. According to the new link, they are investigating to determine whether or not the firearms surrendered were the ones that resulted in the injury. Then, they will determine whether or not charges will be filed. Nor do the failure of charges mean the family cannot pursue civil charges. Ergo, it is too early to say my statement was incorrect.
The Sheriff's statement that it was a "terrible accident" appears to be made to reassure others that there is no serial shooter on the loose. There is nothing in his statements which say the shooters (who apparently voluntary reported themselves as possibly responsible, and surrendered the firearms) will not be held to account.
The article does not say anything about the design of the shooting range, nor why it is oriented such that an overshot would reach the Interstate. The shooting range would appear to be poorly designed and, as such, the designer could be held accountable, as well.
The effective range of a 9mm round is about 100 yards, its maximum travel would be about 300-350 yards. A quick Google search does not list any public ranges in that area.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:42 AM
When I was a youngster and if I remember correctly, the 22 long rifle ammo stated on the box "Range One Mile". Many times we used the rifle to put air holes in 55 gal drums for burn barrels. Last time I tried that the bullets dented but wouldn't penetrate. Maybe the shells have been made cheaper or the gun is worn?
Anyway, we were always warned to shoot under a swimming turtle head as not no chance a miss and skip that could travel to the road a 1/4 mile away.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:59 AM
1938
Jackson police chief Cleman Slinkard warns he will arrest without warrant anyone who discharges firearms within the city limits; the warning was prompted by an occurrence at noon Sunday, when a stray bullet crashed through the window of Albert Schloss' home in the southern part of the city; it knocked a glass off the dinner table and thudded into a partition door; 10 minutes later, the family would have been sitting at the table.
From the archives
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:13 AM
By the way, when I access the original link on the desktop computer, it takes me to the video. The tablet takes me to the index, which did not appear to provide a link to the video, though I did not scroll down the whole of the index to see what possible news story of many might have been related to the discussion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:15 AM
Last time I tried that the bullets dented but wouldn't penetrate. Maybe the shells have been made cheaper or the gun is worn?Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:59 AM
OJ: Why not ask Theorist, she's the expert on all gun matters.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:33 AM
The 300-350 yard travel on a 9mm I posted was based on a bullet fired horizontally, as would be typical at a range, and based on the data I had which suggested one would fall about 3 feet at 170 yards. a six-foot man firing horizontally with the pistol held at eye level would then be the worst case.
Obviously, a pistol fired at an incline, which would likely be the case here since it overshot the berm, would travel farther. However, the loss of velocity ought to have been sufficient to prevent the bullet from breaking the window, let alone having enough velocity remaining after shattering the glass to penetrate the girl's skin. The range would seem to be very near the interstate for that happen.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:46 AM
"He should have been charged with negligence causing serious bodily injury...."
You are very quick to want to charge people, particularly where firearms are involved. The Sheriff investigated, and determined charges were not warranted. Are you suggesting that, based on your limited knowledge of the case, presumably based on a handful of news reports, that you are better equipped than to sheriff to make that determination?
As has already been noted, the lack of charges does not preclude a civil suit. Ergo, it is still too early to say the shooters are not held accountable.
I cannot access the video on this computer, so I do not know the particulars. I trust that the sheriff has sufficient information to make that call, however. Do you have information he lacks? Or are you simply of the mindset someone was hurt therefore someone has to pay?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:51 AM
For all gun related claims call the law office of Theorist/Commonsensematters/Left Turn at 1-800-Liberals-R-US and they will call back at once with their advice.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:03 AM
This obsession is sad, very sad!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM
He was held accountable: he was subjected to an investigation to determine whether or not he was culpable, and found not to be so. That is the same accountability to which those who kill with automobiles, construction equipment, or any other tool are held. That it did not turn out to your satisfaction does not mean he was not held to scrutiny.
"Just admit your mistake....geez"
Just as you have admitted to yours? I don't see a mistake as having been made. Apparently you have a different idea of accountability than I. That's not a "mistake", it's a difference of opinion.
That ought to be sufficient to prove me correct. Care to admit you were wrong?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:26 AM
btw...women hunt too ☺
-- Posted by Rick' on Mon, Dec 14, 2015, at 1:14 PM
Thank You Rick. Yes we do. As far as hunting I love venison along with rabbit and squirrel. While it isn't a necessity I like it. Theorist seems to feel in this day and age no one should hunt apparently due to grocery stores I guess.
It is the way you were brought up I guess. I had older brothers. Also ex-hubby hunted. I also like to fish but I am sure that my rod and reel should be outlawed as well since it "causes" death to fish.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:33 AM
He was, as I said. And he may yet be further. Again, you have a different view of accountability than I.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:35 AM
"He was negligent"
An assumption on your part. Again, do you know all the circumstances surrounding the incident? What if it was a mis-firing of the handgun, a ricochet of the bullet, or some other happenstance that has less to do with negligence and more to do with chance?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:38 AM
Give it up Shapley she wouldn't admit she was wrong if her life depended on it.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:40 AM
Well, given that her view of "wrong" means "disagrees with her", that is understandable. Not right, just understandable.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:45 AM
Just admit your mistake....geez
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:15 AM
Ever here the term "tragic accident"? I realize in your mind it doesn't exist but in reality it does.
Just admit it...Geez
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:46 AM
I think I have finally stumped Theorist with a question that she can't answer!
Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM
I said they were "held accountable", I didn't say they were punished. The two are not synonymous.
As far as I can tell from the scant details, a thorough review of the situation was made, and it was determined that insufficient justification for charging the shooter with a crime existed. He was, however held to account for his actions, and he accounted for them.
per Merriam-Webster: account means:
"a : a statement explaining one's conduct
b : a statement or exposition of reasons, causes, or motives"
The indications are that he was held accountable, and he gave account.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:20 AM
thanks for the respectful post.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:12 AM
No problem just returning the favor. :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:24 AM
Seriously all BS aside I am interested in your thought to my post. This one.
Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:31 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:27 AM --
Already done so. To hold accountable is to be required to give an account. The indications are that the shooter did so.
Where does the definition require anything more?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:40 AM
"How do you know there wasn't someone carrying in that room?"
The accounts report no additional weapons were found. Also, it was a gun-free zone, so we should assume the law-abiding citizens complied with that requirement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:43 AM
Posted by Rick' on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:06 AM
Rick a lot of people think that things such as this can't happen here. The truth is it can very easily.
People also laugh and talk about the "hysteria" about ISIS. What is scary is that Obama is playing right into their hands.
He tells America to ignore them and act like they aren't a threat and just keep going abt your business. Do you know the reason for the calmness and lack of struggling and outburst and no prayers to God, etc.. when they decapitate someone in front of the camera? They take them out all the time and rehearse it until the captives becomes "conditioned" and thinks it is just another "rehearsal" so they don't shout and denounce ISIS and then it happens.
We are now "receiving" threats that are unfounded and after a while we will become "conditioned" and our response will become lax and then something WILL happen and we will be caught with our pants down.(so to speak)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:49 AM
"Aha! So you either think everyone WILL follow laws, or you think they won't. (Reality, some will some won't)...new laws which are enforced are warranted."
I said, quite specifically, that the law-abiding citizens would not. That rather fills the definition of "law-abiding". That leaves on the non-law-abiding citizens armed in a gun-free zone. That, of course, explains much in why the non-law-abiding citizens choose gun-free zones in which to commit their crimes: they have a pretty high probability of not encountering anyone with a firearm to stop them when they do.
That, of course, is why some schools and other facilities are now seeking to repeal the gun-free zone requirements. It makes sense, to many, to have law-abiding citizens with guns in such places to counter the non-law-abiding citizens who have them.
Yes, I agree, new laws that allow which permit law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into such places are warranted.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 12:03 PM
"Only the guns of the shooters have been identified. I assume if someone carried one in...they could have carried one out."
Most of the people who might have carried one out were carried out. To the best of my knowledge, no one other than the shooters were reported to have left prior to the arrival of first responders. According to the police timeline, all the people in the building at the time of the shooting remained in place or hid in other parts of the building.
I am confident that, had someone else been armed when the police arrived, some mention would have been made of that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 12:07 PM
"So you either think everyone WILL follow laws,"
Where, in my post, do you get that impression. Obviously not "everyone" WILL follow the law, since the shooters obviously did not. Obviously all law-abiding citizens will follow the law, as that is the requirement to be classified as a "law-abiding citizen".
I accept that there are some who fall into the category between "shooter" and "law-abiding citizen" who may carry firearms but not shoot with them, but there are, at this point, no reports of such persons present at this shooting. Given the thoroughness of the coverage and the investigation, methinks if such persons existed they would likely have been found out by now.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 12:10 PM
So, there again, you pretend to know what I think. Yet you chide me because you claim I do the same thing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 12:12 PM
stinky 471, I don't believe I have engaged in gun control laws. If i have, please point it out and I will then address the issue.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 1:07 PM
Posted by G. H. on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 1:01 PM
You aren't kidding! Bass would go nice with that also. Barkley Dam and Kentucky Lake and Dam are great fishing for crappie.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 1:21 PM
Buy elastic! Less chance of "accidents" that way...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:53 AM
Uh.. No Thanks. I am a blue jean girl myself.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 1:26 PM
We knew what you meant it is all good. Well the grammar Nazi might say something though.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 2:26 PM
I don't believe I have engaged in gun control laws. If i have, please point it out and I will then address the issue.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 1:07 pm.
Left Wing Nut: Glad you are not one of those gun control nuts.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 2:47 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Dec 12, 2015, at 12:59 PM
Anything could have changed the outcome...weather, someone rushing the shooters, a sick baby...anything. Your suggestion I assume is that a carrier might have stopped this is possible but not probably. I believe a another gun in that room would have meant even more injuries in the crossfire....but we will never know. How do you know there wasn't someone carrying in that room?
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:36 AM
Well good thing there weren't any armed LEOs around to protect someone. They might have shot someone with the crossfire.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 7:20 PM
FFF, you think every Tom, Dick and Harry are equivalent to a train LEO?? Then explain why Missouri is number one in Accidental gun deaths for children under 3!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:44 PM
I have as much confidence in Tom, Dick, and Harry's skills as I do train LEOs.
What's Tom, Dick, and Harry have to do with accidental toddler deaths?
Deaths by medical mistakes are the #1 killer in America. You trust doctors?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 9:28 PM
I have thought many times when in a crowded gathering, what happens if a gunman walks into the space and starts shooting? If it is a large room, such as a Church or auditorium and someone with a concealed weapon opens fire at a distance of 50 feet or greater, chances are that they would dispatch a hit that would stop the killer are not good. Most concealable weapons are not going to be accurate enough and hit hard enough at those distances, due to their size. In my mind they would need to get closer, and how would they handle that? Luck would have to play a part. Just blasting away is certainly not the answer.
When taking the concealed carry class, you shoot at 21 feet. That or less is the distance at which most attacks against your person is most likely to occur. Knowing your weapon's capability and your own before deciding to be a hero is very important.
Our Church is in a decent area and yet twice I have been present when a homeless, disturbed or both, individual has wandered in before services had started and created a disturbance. I think they may have been familiar with the facilities due to being given aid from time to time. Nothing serious but worrisome. When does it happen that an armed and crazy person walks in, as anybody can. It gives you something to think about.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:22 PM
Wheels, You said you are armed and I figure you for one crazy guy.
Another thing to think about is when you suspect law enforcement may have arrived on scene. You don't want to be mistaken for the bad guy because of a weapon in your hand, much less firing one.
An accurate shot at 50' is not unheard of.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:40 PM
I got a 9mm pistol and can put 6 shots out of 10 in a gallon plastic milk jug at 35 ft. and folks that practice more than I do can do a better job than I can. Of course I'm not looking at a terrorist in the eye while target practicing but those milk jugs can be pretty tough. I would take my chances in a room with a person who is legally able to carry a gun than a person who is legally able to carry a rope into a gun fight.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:35 PM
An accurate shot at 50' is not unheard of.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 10:40 PM
I agree, but with a gun with an extremely short barrel as in a Ruger LCP 380 Calibre, you are not looking at long distance shooting. Couple that with shaking like a dog defecating peach seeds and it will not make for a great deal of accuracy.
I have what they call essential tremor and just normally my hands do a certain amount of shaking most of the time.
I kind of figure the best chance in a situation of that type is to be able to put one or two into a shooters vital area at a closer range and while not being observed. Putting the shooter down rather than just wounding them gives one a better chance of saving lives rather than costing lives. Another factor is that some of these people have such an Adrenalin rush going they are very hard to stop.
And you are correct, you do want to be careful about being mistaken for a bad guy as the cops carry their guns openly and have the advantage of more potent ammunition. A 40 caliber gives one much greater firepower but even the smallest 40 caliber is a bit heavy and harder to conceal.
I hope that I never see the day that I have to point a gun at another human, but have mentally prepared myself for that day if I or my wife are threatened by a punk meaning to do us harm.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 11:56 PM
"If it is a large room, such as a Church or auditorium and someone with a concealed weapon opens fire at a distance of 50 feet or greater, chances are that they would dispatch a hit that would stop the killer are not good."
Chances are the gunman will be standing alone, not mixed in the crowd, when he draws his weapon, as he would not want to risk being disarmed before he can fire. If the background behind him is clear of innocents, I see no reason firing at him from 50 feet would not be reasonable. There is a decent probability of striking him. It's not as if you're likely to miss by more than a couple of feet, which would likely be empty space.
If nothing else, it will draw the shooter's attention to you, perhaps permitting others to escape, or to charge him.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 6:53 AM
I was taught if I point a gun at somebody don't make threats , use it .
-- Posted by Rick' on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:53 AM
Yes, first of all try to avoid such situations if possible, but use it if you are going to display it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:28 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 6:53 AM
Each situation is likely to have it's own set of circumstances. My point would be most CCW carriers would have arrived prepared to protect themselves in a bad situation and not so well prepared to stop someone heavily armed and hell bent on mass destruction. Being smart could make all the difference in being effective rather than just a part of the problem.
Only being confronted with such a situation can actually tell what one would do. I would hope that I personally made the right choice.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:50 AM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 8:44 PM
Really didn't see your rambling as a response. I asked a simple question and you start rambling about wind and babies just like always.
I sincerely hope you are not a teacher. If you are I feel bad for the students who ask questions and get rambling nonsense, vague and often smart remarks.
I asked you to put all the BS aside just once and you just couldn't do it.
Does it have something to do with the fact that before I started posting you were the only female and now you resent me for "invading" your territory? A lot of your attitude towards me seems like a jealous female. Just saying.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:27 AM
- Posted by Rick' on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:56 AM
Me too Rick.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:32 AM
Posted by Rick' on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:56 AM
On safety also. And when moving to another place or walking to and from the place you are going to sit or climb into a tree stand do not have a bullet chambered.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:44 AM
Accident? On the child's part, yes. The owner of the gun should be held accountable....hmmmmmm....
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Obviously you are looking for any incident to try and prove your point that all guns should be taken from Americans.
Let me pose a question, should your kind succeed and all guns are removed from honest citizens, who do we or our survivors "hold responsible" if we are killed or maimed by a thug with a gun that he did not give up to the oppressive government.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm indeed!!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Wheels, George Bush would be to blame in that case.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:48 AM
Theorist
Has something happened in your life to make you have this obsession with removing all guns? I could understand your view better if maybe there was but we have the right to protect ourselves and also a lot of people DO still hunt to help put food on the table due to lack of money.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:04 AM
"Wheels, George Bush would be to blame in that case."
Sounds as logical as anything I hear from the gun haters. Wonder exactly who told them and when, that they should hate firearms? Most of them do not come off as bright enough to have thought of it themselves.
It comes off as a political ideology by those who would like to control every fact of our existence, but do not have the courage to try it while we are armed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:19 AM
"...this obsession with removing all guns?"
This has always been an "obsession" of the NRA leadership, and to a much lesser degree of a small, vocal minority of their membership.
Note that...
"Strong Majority of Americans, NRA Members Back Gun Control
"A poll finds both gun owners and non-gun owners support background checks, other measures.
"The survey polled about 2,700 respondents across the country and was conducted this month.
"A strong majority of gun owners and non gun owners support stronger restrictions on firearms, according to a national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University.
A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
"The results of Johns Hopkins survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, indicate broad support for a variety of gun control measures. About 70 percent of respondents supported bans on military-style semiautomatic weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, slightly less than the more than 80 percent who backed measures restricting those who could buy guns, such as people with histories of domestic violence or serious juvenile crimes."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:38 AM
That was from a few years ago, but little has changed.
Now the NRA want to make sure that individuals on terrorist watch lists are not prevented from getting weapons.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:41 AM
Common, What is the criteria for being on a No-Fly list?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:06 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:38 AM
Now explain how all these new restrictions will stop ALL the people who don't purchase them legally and cause the most deaths will affect them?
They don't go for background checks or go to purchase them legally. SOOOO.....
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:07 AM
Iam, The government can send all the illegally sold and traded guns to Mexico so the American thugs can't find any.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Yeah they will create a new law telling thugs they have to turn them in which you know they will all line up willingly to turn them over.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM
"Now the NRA want to make sure that individuals on terrorist watch lists are not prevented from getting weapons."
Or, more correctly worded: "Now advocates of gun control want the government to be able to strip people of their constitutional right to self protection without due process."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:22 AM
By the way, you do realize that the shooters in San Bernardino, in Chattanooga, and at Fort Hood were not on the terror watch lists, do you not?
Another empty measure proposed in an effort to "do something", even if it is unconstitutional. (Or, perhaps, the goal is to "do something" particularly if it is unconstitutional.)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:27 AM
I didn't realize you were a woman! Until you posted something about your brothers and girls hunting...
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:50 AM
You never cease to amaze me. I now know not to "take your word" for anything.
I post my own thoughts and if I happen to agree with someone that is just how it is. Unlike you I explain my views and it isn't cluttered with a lot of vague, ramblings that dance around the subject.
People that know me will tell you that I am brutally honest and it gets me into trouble but I feel it is better to tell someone directly what I think or feel instead of "talking" behind their backs. I am not good at being PC.
I am not flattering myself I was just making an observation and must have struck a nerve.
I am not on this forum for anything except to find people to speak with about issues in the news and so forth. I don't know anyone here in person nor am I trying to. So you can retract your claws.
I personally don't care what you think of my posts you are entitled to your opinion as I or anyone else on here is. I find your posts vague and rambling and usually no matter who it is to snarky and rude.
Have A Nice Day! :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 1:44 PM
I can see a mud wrestling contest in the making between Theorist and Iamhere :-)
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 2:09 PM
Posted by semo471 on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 2:09 PM
Semo, sorry I broke my reset button when it tried to push it this time.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 2:21 PM
Common, What is the criteria for being on a No-Fly list?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:06 AM
Still waiting.
Also, who decides the list and who sees the list?
Do the airlines make lists of people not welcome due to too many request for upgrades or body odor?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 2:32 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 2:45 PM
There is no right to fly on an airline. Persons are permitted, or not, at the whims and fancies of the airlines, and the people who control access via airports (the Government, primarily). Airlines are not required to use due process prior to forbidding a person from boarding. They reserve the authority to prohibit persons they see as a threat to good order and security.
Not so with the right to self defense, and to own firearms for that purpose. The government cannot, and should not be able to, prohibit a person form exercising their right merely by virtue of suspecting they are a threat (or claiming that as their reasoning, in any case). No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, nor Property without due process of the law. The right to keep and bear arms, and to self-defense, falls firmly in the category of Liberty.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:07 PM
What is not understood on here is that if a Leftist tells you that you have no rights.... then you have no rights. That is the new American way. All that hope and change BS!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:19 PM
-- Posted by G. H. on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:39 AM
G.H.
Keep up the good work, sounds as valid as any of the rest of the stuff posted on S.O.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:22 PM
"...usually just comments jumping on the bandwagon."
And I jumped to the conclusion that "Iamhere" was just another grumpy old white conservative fundamentalist. Learn something every day.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:22 PM
"...prohibit a person form exercising their right merely by virtue of suspecting they are a threat..."
Maybe you can explain that to the republican presidential candidate gaggle.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:25 PM
"...these new restrictions will stop ALL the people who don't purchase them legally..."
Nothing will prevent all of anything. However, I'd suggest the if there were 100 million guns in America, rather than 300 million, there would be less gun crime, fewer shootings, and a reduction in gunshot deaths.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:32 PM
"Maybe you can explain that to the republican presidential candidate gaggle."
As I understand it, it is the Democrats who are bending over backward to strip citizens on the "no-fly list" from being able to exercise their rights, not the Republicans.
If you are talking about the refugees or other Islamic immigrants/visitors, there are no Constitutional rights for non-citizens to immigrate here, nor to avoid scrutiny if they seek to do so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:58 PM
"...there are no Constitutional rights..."
...but there are for those that are Americans; some republican candidates favor "registering" all Muslims and closing mosques.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:05 PM
"Nothing will prevent all of anything. However, I'd suggest the if there were 100 million guns in America, rather than 300 million, there would be less gun crime, fewer shootings, and a reduction in gunshot deaths."
But you have nothing to support that. You, yourself, have claimed there are more firearms in this country now than ever, and yet the number of firearms homicides is about 60% of what it was at its peak in 1993. It declined through the 1990s and then leveled off, before beginning another decline in 2007.
A state-by-state study suggests that no correlation exists between the number of firearms in a state and the firearms homicide rate. The rates are high in states with a high number of firearms as well as in states with low numbers of firearms. By the same token, the rates are low in some states with high numbers of firearms and also in states with low numbers.
______________
"However, I'd suggest the if there were 100 million guns in America, rather than 300 million,"
And how do you propose to achieve this, given that you claim that "nobody" is suggesting confiscation?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:06 PM
...but there are for those that are Americans; some republican candidates favor "registering" all Muslims and closing mosques."
I have heard only one candidate propose that, and he wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit him in the hindquarters.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:07 PM
"You have labeled me as such..."
...only because I have not noticed any significant disagreement on your part over their unfounded claims. Remember walks, looks and quacks...
You're welcome to be whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:09 PM
"And how do you propose to achieve this..."
There was no mention of "confiscation." It was simply a case of pointing out that the high prevalence of guns correlates with high rates of gun incidents. Just look at other civilized countries.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:14 PM
While I hate to drag race into this, an analysis of the firearm homicide rate does show that blacks killing blacks comprise the greatest portion of firearms homicides in the United States. Among non-Hispanic whites, the firearms homicide rate is comparable to that in countries with much more restrictive firearms laws.
That is a troubling fact, and suggests that it is not the availability of firearms at fault, but some sort of cultural factor is to blame.
However, for non-Hispanic whites, the firearms suicide rate is much higher than for blacks. I do not know what to make of that statistic. However, I find it immaterial to the discussion, since the killing of ones' own self is not, or should not be, a crime. In a free society, one has to be free to take one's own life, or it is not free at all. (Note that this is quite different than assisted suicide.)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:15 PM
"Just look at other civilized countries."
I have. I've also been in many of them, as well as a few "uncivilized" ones. The comparison is flawed on a number of levels, but primarily it assumes that firearms are the only factor.
For example, the firearms ownership rate is much higher in the United States than in those "uncivilized" countries whose firearms homicide rates are much higher. You discount that fact, which undermines the "more guns equals more homicides" claim, by comparing only "civilized" countries. Presumably, any country which has a higher rate, get lumped into the "uncivilized" category, in order to keep the comparison valid.
Methinks the civilizations of those "uncivilized" countries might be offended to think they don't qualify.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:28 PM
Common has ducks and geese on his mind today.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:37 PM
G.H. He referred to the Republicans as a gaggle and replied to Rick with a walk like talk like insinuation.
He always tries to make cute little belittlements when anyone talks about a better idea than big government wealthy Democrat failures. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 6:10 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:27 PM
"...anyone talks about a better idea..."
Really? What better ideas, specifically, has "anyone" talked about?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:42 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 3:22 PM
You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions. Just because I disagree with you on something doesn't make me old or grumpy or anything else. What is your reason to say anything at all.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and shouldn't have to constantly defend their self from smart remarks just because they don't agree with everything you believe. From the first time I started posting on here Theorist has been rude and demeaning and sometimes down right hateful to just because I don't agree with her and there is no reason to be that way.
Debate is good but every remark sarcastic is not.
If we all agreed on everything it would be a very boring forum. Do we get frustrated? Yes because we are all passionate about our views. Do we argue? Yes, sometimes we do BUT you have to respect the fact that everyone else is just as passionate about their views. There is no room for constant attacking and belittling it gets tiring.
As far as I am concerned the subject about Theorist is closed. I will still listen to her views and agree or disagree but I am tired of her rudeness and finally said something.
As far as you it didn't have anything to do with you so you should have just minded your own business.
CASE CLOSED RESET
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:46 PM
Common
One last thing, If I am old you must be ancient because I wasn't even thought of when you were born.
I am 54 years young.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 7:58 PM
"Really? What better ideas, specifically, has "anyone" talked about?"
Go back and peruse the threads and where you see yourself making several posts, just look above and sometime before and you will find one or several.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:00 PM
So you can't think of even one "better idea."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:30 PM
Just look at other civilized countries.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 4:14 PM
So you can't think of even one "better idea."-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:30 PM
Common: Guess if you can't live without having extra gun control laws, then you might want to move to one of those civilized countries.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 8:47 PM
"There is no room for constant attacking and belittling it gets tiring."
I'm all for getting away from that. All I implied was what my first impression was...
"People also laugh and talk about the "hysteria" about ISIS. What is scary is that Obama is playing right into their hands."
That kind of assumption is what led me to initially lump you in with the old conservative men of SO. What's ironic is that the republican candidates are the ones "playing into their hands" with the talk of "carpet-bombing," Muslim exclusion, family killings, etc.
Apparently I was wrong, and I apologize for that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:01 PM
Common, Must be quite an experience putting so much effort into convincing yourself you are right about everything and all others are wrong about everything unless they agree with the notions inflicted on those suffering from the disease of liberalism.
There are many better ideas that have been discussed, you just wouldn't know one if you saw one.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:14 PM
"....to one of those civilized countries."
Good examples are Canada, Germany, England, Australia, Japan, Norway, and I've been to all of them, but have no reason at all to move.
But in any case, I haven't any need for "...extra gun control laws..." it's the country that does. There are just too many guns available. But there is also no reason whatsoever for legal gun owners to give up guns.
The basic question is how many mass killings will it take for something to be done. Will it require a few more classroom of kids to become victims, one mass shooting per day, or two per day?
Eventually, public opinion will override the NRA political contributions.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:17 PM
"...you just wouldn't know one if you saw one."
Sorry about that, but it would seem that you don't "know one" either. All I asked for was just one.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:21 PM
"The basic question is how many mass killings will it take for something to be done. Will it require a few more classroom of kids to become victims, one mass shooting per day, or two per day?
Eventually, public opinion will override the NRA political contributions."
I wonder if some of you would you be happy to see such to reach that eventuality.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:31 PM
Better ideas:
Doing away with gun-free zones, which have become "unarmed target zones".
Locking up violent felons tight enough that they are not on the street for us to worry about them buying firearms.
Ending the "War on Drugs" so there ae fewer non-violent felons clogging the courts, the police, and the prisons. This will also reduce the black-market trade in drugs, reducing a primary driver of violence.
Adhering to the Constitutional limitations on government, with an eye toward the rights of citizens.
Curtail government efforts to raise the cost of labour, as well as mandated benefits which make it too costly to employ unskilled laborers. This has to be done simultaneously with entitlement reform which will reduce enticements for able-bodied persons to avoid employment. This will boost employment and thus reduce the number of idle youth.
Assist Syria's neighbors in providing aid to the refugees which will retain them over there, while coordinating with all enemies of ISIS to defeat them, thus providing a stable country to which the refugees may return.
Hold all citizens to the same standards, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Atheistic, etc. With regards to schooling, law, dress, etc. If Bibles are banned, so are prayer rugs, prayer shawls, Buddhas, etc.
Understand what you are trying to ban before proposing legislation to ban it: define an assault weapon by characteristics, not brand name or model, for instance. Know the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic, and quit blurring the distinction to confuse a gullible public.
Admit that black lives won't really matter until they matter to the blacks that are shooting blacks, to journalists who express outrage when European nations are terrorized but are silent when African nations are similarly terrorized, and to politicians who must begin respecting blacks enough to treat them the same as other citizens by ending affirmative action and other policies which treat blacks as helpless, hapless souls incapable of lifting themselves.
Admit that the reason we don't secure the borders is because a lot of people are enriching themselves through cheap labour crossing the border, and some are politically connected enough to ensure no effort to curtail it will pass. (Nannygate, anyone?)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:43 PM
"People also laugh and talk about the "hysteria" about ISIS.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:01 PM
People also laugh and talk about the"hysteria" about guns.
Good examples are Canada, Germany, England, Australia, Japan, Norway, and I've been to all of them, but have no reason at all to move.
As you've been to the places you are aware that these countries lack the black inner city thug population that this country has, hence their lower gun violence rates. You and your fellow SO Apple Dumpling Gang's irrational and hysterical fear of the NRA would be comical if it weren't so sad.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:17 PM.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:51 PM
Eventually, public opinion will override the NRA political contributions.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:17 PM
Common: One more time guns don't kill, people kill no matter what type of instrument that they use it all goes back to people kill. Now then how do we stop people from killing.....more mental health professionals/facilities, more laws to quickly admit people for care without abusing their rights (tough one), clean up the inner cities of gangs and thugs, and to give the LEOs the means and ways to do their tough jobs correctly in order to serve and protect the public.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:57 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:57 PM
Seems that semo471 is the one with commonsense. Commonsense that really matters.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:00 PM
"Doing away with gun-free zones..."
I'm fairly sure that most criminals don't follow their potential victims until they go into the "gun free zone." I have the impression that most gun free zones are where children might be, and the reason for it is minimize opportunity for accidental weapon discharge.
It's basically the same situation as guns in the home, where it is much more likely the someone in the family will be harmed accidentally, than someone in the family will be protected from a home "invasion."
To be continued...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:01 PM
"I'm fairly sure that most criminals don't follow their potential victims until they go into the "gun free zone."
I take it you haven't figured out why mass shootings take place in schools, movie theatres, and community centers rather than gun shows, police stations, and firing ranges.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:12 PM
Why would I not have figured that out?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM
Boy, is everybody in Bollinger County so dense?
-- Posted by G. H. on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 12:02 AM
No!!
Common is an import and raised the IQ quotient wherever he came from a couple of points at least when he moved to Bollinger County.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 12:31 AM
"Locking up violent felons tight enough..."
I agree 100%.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Ending the "War on Drugs" so there ...."
A review of sentencing is certainly in order, but to eliminate the "black market" it may be necessary to legalize portions of the trade.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Adhering to the Constitutional limitations on government...."
I'd suggest that this falls into the "eye of the beholder" category. The 18th century version has already been updated 27 times, and to be fully functional in the 21st century, there may be a few more amendments coming along.
But occasions where one side just screams "that's unconstitutional" doesn't mean that limitations are in fact exceeded.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Curtail government efforts to raise the cost of labour..."
In the past minimum wages were primarily intended to prevent "wage wars" during times of higher unemployment.
"...reduce enticements for able-bodied persons to avoid employment."
Agree completely. No one should be able to receive more for not working than for working. The problem for families is that unemployment may include Medicaid, whereas a low wage probably has no medical. Clearly a single payer system could fix that.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Assist Syria's neighbors in providing aid to the refugees..."
I believe that's a viable solution. Europe is already starting to pay Turkey to restrict refugee flow.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Hold all citizens to the same standards, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Atheistic, etc. With regards to schooling, law, dress, etc."
Concur in principle, given there should always be room for sensible exceptions.
----- ---- --- -- -
"...define an assault weapon by characteristics..."
Seems to have worked fine with the exclusion of fully automatic weapons. The same could be applied to semi-automatic round number limitations, etc.
----- ---- --- -- -
"Admit that black lives won't really matter until they matter to the blacks that are shooting blacks..."
There is little argument with that. The "black lives matter" approach, however, grew more out of police shootings of unarmed blacks, some of which may have been justified and some may not have been. The real driving force was instances where the policeman claimed one version of events and the video showed something different.
----- ---- --- -- -
"...treat them the same as other citizens by ending affirmative action..."
If they were treated exactly the same with school quality, job security, neighborhood calm, etc. you may be right, but that's not the case yet.
----- ---- --- -- -
"...we don't secure the borders is because a lot of people are enriching themselves ..."
That and it's not as easy as Trump makes it seem. The Senate passed immigration reform which included work permits to curtail much of the "enrichment."
----- ---- --- -- -
So a rational discussion of "better ideas" from both sides is possible.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 7:02 AM
"I've been labeled as "old conservative men of SO" for a long time no matter what I post simply because I don't live and breathe Obama."
Actually, some time ago, I agreed in your assessment, that you had no desire to be lumped in as such. I didn't blame you for wanting disassociation from the SO version of "conservatism."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 7:07 AM
"Clearly a single payer system could fix that."
Then we are back to expanding entitlements. Not a good idea, nor a constitutional one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:04 AM
"The real driving force was instances where the policeman claimed one version of events and the video showed something different."
A large part of the original driving force, Ferguson, Missouri, involved an instance in which witnesses claimed one version and the analysis showed something different. It reportedly began after the acquittal of Mr. Zimmerman in Florida, also not dispelled by evidence To the contrary.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:09 AM
"If they were treated exactly the same with school quality, job security, neighborhood calm, etc. you may be right, but that's not the case yet."
School quality is a function of neighborhood quality: property values drive property taxes which drive school investment. There are poor white neighborhoods and poor Hispanic neighborhoods which receive similar funding to poor black neighborhoods. The schools thrive where citizens strive to maintain value, and where the schools can devote their resources to education and not to security, maintenance, and other non-educational priorities. In that regard, they are treated equally.
Job security is not a government function.
Neighborhood calm is a function of the neighborhood. Again, they are treated equally In as much as they are largely left to their own, local, devices.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:17 AM
Ferguson, Missouri, for instance, strove to recruit more minority police officers years ago, which would seemingly go far to reduce incidents of racial tensions between police and the minority communities they serve. They reported very few applied for the positions.
Police work is not glamourous work, but it is a necessary component of civilized society. It seems to work best when the police are locals, drawn from the community at large. But that doesn't work if the community at large will not send recruits to do the job.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:22 AM
Shapley: Wonder how many in Ferguson signed up for membership into the local gangs.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:37 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 9:01 PM
Apology Accepted.
"People also laugh and talk about the "hysteria" about ISIS. What is scary is that Obama is playing right into their hands."
What I wrote there is not an assumption. They actually rehearse those beheadings to the point that the captives no longer respond because they think it is another rehearsal. They do that to make them look weak and subdued and themselves powerful. Then it happens.
It is the same with the threats we are receiving now. They are watching and we are becoming lax. More threats today and they were ignored. It is just a matter of time.
Obama says to just ignore it and go on about your business to let them know that WE aren't scared. THAT is exactly how they want it so they can hit without anyone paying attention.
Sorry but I feel totally betrayed by our own President. It is almost like he wants something to happen so he can appear to be a great Pres. for hunting them down.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:46 AM
"...Ferguson, Missouri, involved an instance in which witnesses claimed one version and the analysis showed something different."
There was no video evidence to corroborate either version. Part of the problem was the initial assumption of innocence without an investigation by a grand jury, which itself was questionable due to witness selection.
All of this was on top what happened on Staten Island last year.
And then the incident in North Charleston where the officer claimed he "feared for his life" and the video showed Scott running away from him.
I have always agreed that almost all of the time, the police are correct, but when video evidence disputes their original claims, racial tensions rise. That's one of the reasons police should be the primary proponents of body-cameras.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 11:26 AM
"[President] Obama says to just ignore it and go on about your business..."
Extracts of what he said include...
"We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam," Mr. Obama said, adding, "That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse."
"I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures," Mr. Obama said. "But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill."
"And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure," Mr. Obama said.
He added, "The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it."
That's not really saying the threats should be ignored.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 11:32 AM
"Sorry but I feel totally betrayed by our own President. It is almost like he wants something to happen..."
And I'm sorry that you feel betrayed, but I don't believe it should be the case. I'm confident that the President would be very happy if nothing dire happened here or overseas.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 11:42 AM
There was no video evidence to corroborate either version.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 11:26 AM
Video evidence is not required to get to the truth. The forensic evidence, testimony and Obama DOJ got to the truth of the matter.
Hands up, don't shoot was a lie.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 12:49 PM
"I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures," Mr. Obama said. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 11:32 AM
Obama creating a straw man - a great liberal tactic. I know of NO ONE who rejects "any gun safety measures". He's lying and the low-info crowd buys it hook, line and sinker.
I do know a lot of people who reject confiscation and additional laws that would only burden non-criminals and non-terrorists. None of them related to "safety".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 12:50 PM
Obama's team are catching would be terrorists and thwarting terrorist threats behind the scenes almost as fast as Obama can let terrorists out of Gitmo to rejoin the fight.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 2:13 PM
The problem with that claim is he equates mandates and restrictions with "gun safety measures"We have largely stripped our youth of firearms safety training, preferring to teach them that firearms are a taboo to be avoided rather than a tool to be respected.
The NRA provides its highly-acclaimed Eddie Eagle Safety materials to schools free of charge, but many reject it because it comes from the NRA, while others reject it because it does not promote the taboo of firearms.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 3:14 PM
"Dearborn , Mich. has the highest population of Muslims in America."
26% of all U.S. ISIS recruits came from Michigan. Yet, Michigan largely turns a blind eye to the problem. When confronted with that statistic, one Michigan official responded that he understood the figure to be only 20%. Some consolation.
I will grant you, that is still not a large number. Only about 70 to 100 persons have been identified as having been recruited by ISIS. By "recruit", they generally refer to those who are either actively spreading propaganda, or who have attempted to travel to Syria or Iraq to participate in the fight. Those who are quietly radicalized while having little or no direct contact with ISIS, are not counted in that figure.
Michigan's problem is that the Muslim population is not assimilating into the culture. In a sense, it mirrors the African-American community in that it remains isolated to a large degree while demanding accomodation from the nation to which they remain aloof.
The question of whether they choose to avoid assimilation, or whether society refuses to permit it persists. However, as we see these cultures drifting farther from assimilation in dress, manner, and willingness to abide by the law, I am inclined to believe it is more an unwillingness to assimilate than a lack of acceptance.
I noted a while back that other cultures huddled in their Chinatowns and Koreatowns and Jewish districts and Irish districts and so forth, but that subsequent generations quickly assimilated and became a part of the larger community which is America. We seem to see a growing reluctance to so, particularly as evidenced by the number of U.S. born Islamics becoming radicalized. Our "melting pot" is not working As it should.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 3:35 PM
"...control of the Panama Canal back to Panama."
Just in the interests of accuracy, control of the canal went to the Panama Canal Commission, not the Government of Panama. The PCC had an American president and a Panamanian deputy, while almost all of the American and Panamanian employees remained in the jobs they had all along.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:10 PM
Not even sure what the Panama Canal has to do with El Salvadorans, Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, etc. coming to the US. Since they're all north of the Panama Canal anyway.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:17 PM
"...but that subsequent generations quickly assimilated and became a part of the larger community which is America."
I'd say that the process is still going on. Earlier generations (mid 1970's) were mainly Lebanese and Armenians, not Arabs.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:26 PM
More than just extremist teachings to worry about, our National Department of Education under the watchful supervision of our Federal leader in Chief brings us this.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:32 PM
Non-assimilation is one thing, assimilation into population that wants to replace our government foundation with their single religion governance is another.
Speaking of the canal, it is going through a major overhaul to enable bigger ships of grain to be sent to China and Asia in exchange for bigger ships of products that used to be made here.
Maybe bigger warships too if the next president allows them built.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:41 PM
"Teachers at W.R. Castle Elementary School were directed to remove the moving scene where Linus shares the true meaning of Christmas by reading from the Gospel of Luke which lasts 51 seconds and which was the most offensive scene according to the district. It's unclear why Silent Night had to go."
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:58 PM
"...control of the Panama Canal back to Panama."
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 4:10 PM
Common: You might want to brush up on the history books.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 6:50 PM
Common........ wrong again!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 7:21 PM
Mr. Big Wheel.... wrong again.
The sequence of events was that the original Panama Canal Company was changed to the Panama Canal Commission in 1979 under the Panamanian governmant with an American CEO. In 1999 it was renamed the Autoridad Del Canal De Panama with a Panamanian chief administrator.
Throughout the years since 1979 the control of the canal has remained with the Company/Commission/Authority. The purpose all along was to insulate Canal operations and funding from the Panamanian government. At least until 1988, which is the last year I was there, the Commission was entirely self-sufficient with all maintenance, repairs and operation being done in-house.
The fear back then (and probably today) was that if the Government of Panama was given direct control of operations and finances, they might have been tempted to divert funding from maintenance to other uses/pockets. And if the Canal were to experience increasing maintenance delays (costing customers millions in demurrage) the shippers could eventually invest in larger ships to go around South America.
The new set of locks will increase length capacity by about 200 feet and allowable width by 55 feet.
No charge for the history lesson...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:19 PM
"The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903."
Common
Are you trying to BS us into believing the canal is operated without the input of the Panamanian Government. Nobody gives a rats rear end if or not you were ever there. I sincerely doubt your presence altered the course of history.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:27 PM
Wheels: Looks like Common won't ever admit that he was wrong....must be following just like his fearless leader Pres. Pinky - blame it on Bush II.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:38 PM
I don't know much about the canal but remember we were told by Carter the original agreement was a 100 year lease and the lease was up. Many did not like the idea of America giving up control and it was said to be worked out in American favor. There was concern the Chinese, Japenese or Russians could end up saying who could use it.
Remember, a lot of folks didn't consider Carter the most trusted man in America back then.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 8:41 PM
"Are you trying to BS us into believing..."
I don't really care what you believe. Wallow in ignorance to your heart's content. As is typically the case, you continue to have an unmistakable weak spot when it comes to accepting factual information.
It would seem that your "BS filter" is defective and operating backwards or in reverse, thereby preventing you from understanding simple facts.
Such as...
"After the United States removed Noriega, the Panama Canal underwent a management revolution. Once the political conditions were met to prevent the canal from becoming a source of elite patronage, the canal could OPERATE AS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE FREE OF ADVERSE POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. [Caps added to help Mr. Big Wheel understand.]
Under the Panama Canal Authority, the canal professionalized its management and began making long-term investments with an eye to the commercial potential of the canal for the first time since the 1920s. Most importantly, for the first time in its history, the Panama Canal was no longer run as a public utility. Rather, it became a profit-making enterprise run for the benefit of its shareholder: the Republic of Panama. The canal has been able not only to meet the added payments to the Panamanian government specified in the Panama Canal Treaty, but also to turn itself into one of the most profitable transportation enterprises on the planet, despite continuing steep competition from trucks, railroads, and intermodal transportation within the United States.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:09 PM
Common
I will ask you once more.... Are you trying to BS us into believing the canal is operated without the input of the Panamanian Government?
Or don't you know the answer?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:14 PM
OPERATE AS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE FREE OF ADVERSE POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. [Caps added to help Mr. Big Wheel understand.]
Can't be more clear than that...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:17 PM
Was it a federalize to professionalize thing?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:18 PM
"The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903."
Mr Common
The above is quoted from Wikipedia. I think I trust their information more than yours. You still never answered the question.... I will take that as you do not want to answer.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:31 PM
"...gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903."
You still don't get it do you? Whether under US "control" or Panamanian "control" the canal is operated by the Panama Canal/Commission/Authority without the input of either the US or Panamanian government.
I'm sure you can understand what an independent agency is.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:39 PM
Brian Williams has nothing on common, he's been witness to everything.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:47 PM
Theorist and Common from your strong President.
The perpetrators of the Paris attacks were not "masterminds" he said, but rather "a bunch of killers with good social media".
"It's absolutely vital for every country, every leader, to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business," he said.
He sure has everything under control. He has no clue.
This was right before the Climate Change meetings you know that is more important than ISIS.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:56 PM
Sure, I was stationed at the US Southern Command in Quarry Heights, Panama for 4 years. I don't know who Brian Williams is or when he was stationed there.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:59 PM
I'm sure you can understand what an independent agency is.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 9:39 PM
I understand well enough to know that there are damned few truly independent commissions.
You may be naive and believe what you want to believe Common. Until you can prove to me that thy are truly independent. I will continue to question that they are.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:25 PM
The Canal was always supposed to revert to Panamanian control in 1999. However, the original treaty gave the U.S. permanent authority for security and protection of the canal. The Carter treaty changed that, ending U. S. Security obligations in 1999. Panama is now responsible for security of the canal.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:30 PM
Sorry, I have absolutely no need to prove anything to you. Question facts to your hearts content.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:32 PM
Posted by Rick' on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 6:34 AM
Careful Rick. Miccheck might call the FBI.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 7:45 AM
"The second treaty is titled The Panama Canal Treaty (Tratado del Canal de Panamá),[2] and provided that as from 12:00 on December 31, 1999, Panama would assume full control of canal operations and become primarily responsible for its defense."
Common: If you would have read my second link you would have seen the above....have a nice day.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:00 AM
"If ISIS really wanted to hurt the USA , blow up the Panama Canal ..."
One simple reason is that they can't, and would be afraid to if they could.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:07 AM
"If ISIS really wanted to hurt the USA , blow up the Panama Canal ..."
One simple reason is that they can't, and would be afraid to if they could.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:07 AM
What would they be afraid of...... Obama's wrath?
ISIS afraid..... now that's funny and the silliest thing you've posted in quite a while.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:23 AM
I've been a bad boy..-- Posted by Rick' on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:23 AM
Rick: What a waste of the Feds time sometimes following you around....they need to be following the table cloth wearers around and putting a spy in all the Muslim mosques.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:34 AM
"ISIS afraid..... now that's funny..."
The most significant Muslim enemy in the Middle East is the nation of Israel. ISIS is virtually next door to them, but they refrain from overt or even covert attacks on Israel. Why would that be the case?
Turkey has been attacking ISIS, and Turkey is just north of ISIS. Why doesn't ISIS attack Turkey?
I have no idea what your answer might be, but the correct answer is that they are afraid to because they know that their "caliphate" would be destroyed.
It takes little courage to behead civilians. Were they to foolishly attempt an overt attack on Israel, NATO, or the US, they are aware that they would lose. There are enough Baathist, Sunni former Iraqi military officers in ISIS that know what a full American military retaliatory attack would look like.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 11:36 AM
Common, How long were you stationed in the Middle East?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 11:41 AM
"The most significant Muslim enemy in the Middle East is the nation of Israel. ISIS is virtually next door to them, but they refrain from overt or even covert attacks on Israel. Why would that be the case?"
They won't mess with Israel because they know Israel has their back to the wall and have a leader who unlike the American leader has no problem with annihilating extremist muslims.
But Panama.... give me a break, Panama would do nothing and Obama would do nothing to help them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Just how many ISIS killers has the US taken out in the past year and how many has Israel annihilated?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 12:43 PM
Just how many ISIS killers has the US taken out in the past year and how many has Israel annihilated?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 12:43 PM
I haven't kept count Common. We are talking about two different things here. First you indicate full out war to annihilate ISIS and now you are deflecting with our limited war where we kill one and they recruit 3 more. You are jumping all over the place. If attacked by ISIS in full scale war, it is my opinion Israel would clean their clock.... Obama will not for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, he is soft on muslims.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 12:52 PM
"If ISIS really wanted to hurt the USA , blow up the Panama Canal ..."
That would be less of a factor today than it would have been in 1944, when the Japanese devised a plan (and built a submarine) to do it.
We have less of a need to transfer our fleets back and forth between oceans and, when we do, the ability to do so, due to nuclear propulsion and improved logistics for refueling and resupplying, we could (again) make do without the canal were it a necessity.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 1:24 PM
"Obama will not for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, he is soft on muslims."
Tell the 6000 how "soft" he is...
"The number of fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed. Jones said the military effort was having a "devastating" impact on ISIS.
"The estimate was calculated by U.S. Central Command and finds ISIS fighters have been killed in Iraq and Syria by coalition airstrikes, according to a U.S. military official. CENTCOM has kept a running estimate of fighters killed,
I am very well aware that Israel, NATO, or the US military could easily "clean the clock" of the ISIS JV military "force."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM
"I am very well aware that Israel, NATO, or the US military could easily "clean the clock" of the ISIS JV military "force.""
Common,
You can quit trying, you have already convinced me, you are a complete idiot.
You continue to call ISIS "JV" in spite of the fact that the loser in the White House has already admitted he was wrong in calling them that.
Next if we can so easily defeat them.... then why in hell don't we do so and get it done with? Why are we running these expensive bombing missions taking them out a couple at a time when we can so easily defeat them? That is a legitimate question. What is your response?
Perhaps another question should be.... by what percentage have we reduced their forces by the rather nebulous number of 6ooo that we have offed?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 3:34 PM
"Those who voted for him -- TWICE -- are getting what they deserve."
Yes Rick, and we are getting what they deserve right along with them.
If they would have vetted Obama as thoroughly as Theorist wants to vet each potential gun purchaser we definitely would not be living under Obama's reign of terror.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 5:19 PM
-- Posted by Rick' on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 5:30 PM
Your recollections are accurate!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 5:36 PM
The pity is that he still has a year of his lame duck administration to go.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 6:26 PM
I predict the last year will be the big year for executive orders and more administrative rules. Will he go around congress to close Gitmo?
Maybe after he's out he can go to Puerto Rico and use his organizing skills to make them an independent nation with him as king puppet to Putin.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 6:38 PM
Theorist, Are you sure you didn't mean to say your way farther off now?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 6:43 PM
I question anyone's truthfulness that states they are better off now than they were 7 years ago.
If you have worked to put money aside it pays a grand amount of around 1/2% now on CD's and Money Market accounts. Some people are depending on the interest off savings to supplement their social security. Thank God I do not have to live off either or I would have to curtail some activities.
What did you do before Obama Theorist.... work 4 jobs instead of only 3?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 7:34 PM
"You continue to call ISIS "JV"...."
It seems to be getting more and more obvious, that no one has ever won money, by betting on the acumen, aptitude or ability to exercise rational thought of our Mr. Big Wheel.
The first thing one notices is that when he begins to be overwhelmed, the whining and cries of "you're an idiot" come to the front.
First thing...
He says that, "it is my opinion Israel would clean their clock...." And that's totally correct. NATO, or even Turkey would also "...clean their clock...." as would, without any question, the US military. The reason, surprisingly enough, is because we and they, all have what can be called "varsity" military forces. Consequently, those with the "clean clocks" i.e. ISIS, can legitimately be considered "JV."
Then there's the inference that "... the [President] in the White House has already admitted he was wrong in calling them that." Actually, I'm not sure if he admitted that or not. He may have stopped using it, but he was right then and he'd be right now.
Then there's...
"...then why in hell don't we do so and get it done with?"
The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Line 11 assigns Congress the power to declare war, so why don't the republicans "...do so and get it done with?" Perhaps it's not been done because the American people do not want to get into a third land war in the Middle East with our "boots on the ground" when it should be Arab boots.
Or of course...
"...by what percentage have we reduced their forces by the rather nebulous number of 6ooo that we have offed?"
Kind of goes to show that some people are not very capable when it comes to reading links provided to fill in details. Had you read it, you would have known that intell estimates are between 9000 and 18,000, which means ISIS has been decimated by somewhere between 33 to 67%, and note that this does not include the numbers killed by the Peshmerga, the Iraqis, the Russians, or even Syrians. Whether or not they have more that they can muster remains in question.
It does get a little tedious to repeatedly have to explain things to you and GH (among others) but it's OK; a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. (That part's sarcasm.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 7:47 PM
"Had you read it, you would have known that intell estimates are between 9000 and 18,000, which means ISIS has been decimated by somewhere between 33 to 67%, and note that this does not include the numbers killed by the Peshmerga, the Iraqis, the Russians, or even Syrians."
I was pretty sure you would come back and hang your hat on that number. I se eI was correct. So now that they have been decimated to around 67% of their original force, when will this exercise be over? Hell the Mexicans in Matamores can put more Mexicans than they have left on a city bus. Maybe we could have them go over and pick them up and take them to Guantanamo Bay for safe keeping. Problem solved.
Now to reality.... how many military experts do you suppose you can snow with that BS Common?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 7:59 PM
None.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:13 PM
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed.Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM
Common: The people that counted the VC deaths during the Vietnam War probably were the same ones that counted the JV ISIS fighters deaths. (the youngens won't know what I'm referring to)
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:43 PM
None.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:13 PM
For once he told the truth.... I better fix myself a cocktail!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 8:53 PM
So you got confused again. The military experts understand the situation, they would agree, none would be "snowed."
At least you got a drink out of it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 9:01 PM
"The military experts understand the situation, they would agree, none would be "snowed.""
Not the ones I have seen interviewed on TV.
Common,
Just because you spent enough time in the military to receive a pension does not a General make of you.
Your propoganda is too close to the Obama agenda to impress a true military man.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 9:36 PM
Whatever you want to believe is fine. I just consider the source.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 10:06 PM
Whatever you want to believe is fine. I just consider the source.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 10:06 PM
What a relief that you approve of what I believe. I think everybody knows how I look forward to your approval.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 10:35 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 8:02 AM
Theorist: Yea after the Liberals rewrite history. Just look at all the PC crap that is taking place all over the country....renaming sports teams, taking down Confederate statues, having to filter comments as not to offend anyone, and the list goes on and on. Anyone trying to rewrite Pres. Pinky's 8 years in office to say that they were better off shouldn't be allow to purchase a gun or drive a car.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:19 AM
I would say that with a record number of people on the social welfare rolls reaping taxpayer funded freebies witbout having to earn them, theorist is right, under obama lots of people are better off than 2008.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:16 AM
"So no , Americans don't have it any better off today ..."
Purely opinion on your part. I'd suggest that there are many Americans that are better off, as I am one.
Furthermore, in spite of your opinion on Afghanistan, I know that there are thousands of military families that are better off this holiday season, because fewer members are in Southwest Asia or the Middle East. Sadly that may not be something that the SO participants care much about, but I do.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:22 AM
"I'm not sure how Southwest Asia fits in..."
Southwest Asia, you know, the area of the world that includes Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan.
Why would you believe that military families are not "better off" with their soldiers, marines or airmen at home instead if at risk in Southwest Asia.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 4:22 PM
My peace of mind would be much better off if we had a leader in the White House.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 4:39 PM
As always, you're welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is, and has little to do with reality.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:01 PM
The world must have changed a lot since I was in school and the places common mentions were in the Middle East.
Common, Were you stationed in Southeast Asia?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:05 PM
Common, Were you stationed in Southeast Asia?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:05 PM
Old John,
You name it and Common was there.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:14 PM
Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:19 AM
You must have been a bully in school....with that low self esteem and all....
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 2:19 PM
Theorist: You should know because you were one of my grade school teachers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:26 PM
"...in Southeast Asia?"
Yes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 5:32 PM
"...President promised he would take care of it."
There are as many interpretations of "Presidential promises" as there are politicians.
As you may recall, prior to President Obama taking office an agreement was signed to insure that US troops would leave Iraq (specifically because the Iraqis refused to sign a status of forces agreement) so the US withdrew from Iraq.
Since then the republicans have complained that we never should have left. We then returned limited numbers of forces for training and as FAC's, because of ISIS.
In Afghanistan troop numbers went down drastically and the only reason for not continuing the draw down, is to continue, per military and DOD advice, to support the local government and prevent Taliban advances. This was also supported by Congress.
Prior to assuming office, the President sent various objectives and goals. As time passed and conditions changed, those objectives were appropriately modified. Why is that a problem?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 6:32 PM
Translation: It's Bush's fault.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 6:38 PM
Of course not. President Bush however, does deserve the credit for initiating and signing the agreement to implement the US withdrawal.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 6:43 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 7:02 PM
No.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 7:12 PM
"...knee deep in the Middle East in 2008 , America is knee deep in the Middle East in 2015 --"
In 2008 there were about 250,000 US forces in Southwest Asia.
In 2015 there are less that about 50,000.
I'd say that's no longer "knee deep." Maybe "ankle deep" but certainly not "knee deep."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 8:33 PM
I think Obama's effect is to clear the region for the caliphate to reemerge in it's historical place. Assad is the only one in the way.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:18 PM
"...as promised by the President."
My earlier point was that political "promises" are highly nebulous.
Take for example a favorite republican "promise" such as, "on day one of the President Cruz administration, I will repeal Obamacare." That is an out and out lie. There is no way that a newly elected President can "repeal" a law on "day one."
It's plainly political speech, which in the real world is more than just a bit meaningless.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:24 PM
You verily want to start comparing campaign speak Democrat vs Republican? I think you may lose that battle although I have neither the time or desire to see it through.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:45 PM
"...campaign speak Democrat vs Republican..."
Give me a break...
a beautiful wall...
carpet bombing...
the Mexicans will pay...
the desert will glow...
and so on...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:49 PM
"Americans are no better off."
It would appear that you are referring to Americans in general who are still better off.
I have referred to the US military, whose numbers in Southwest Asia have been cut to 1/5th of the number in 2008. They are definitely better off.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 10:00 PM
It's plainly political speech, which in the real world is more than just a bit meaningless.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 9:24 PM
Yet you get your panties in a wad whe e er Trump says something.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:29 PM
Sadly that may not be something that the SO participants care much about, but I do. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:22 AM
Should you be accused of dancing in the street after the San Bernardino shootings? I think you deserve that based on that posting. Absolutely no difference.
So SO participants don't care about Afghanistan vets, eh?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:46 PM
I have referred to the US military, whose numbers in Southwest Asia have been cut to 1/5th of the number in 2008. They are definitely better off.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 10:00 PM
Common: Most map makers refer to West Asia as the Middle East....thought you might want to know. See the following link:
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:17 AM
"In many ways, we are much worse off than 7 years ago."
Who is we? If you are "much worse off" what specifically did you do differently to make you "worse off?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 1:20 PM
"...Most map makers refer to West Asia..."
Others don't...
"Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia [JTF-SWA] was composed of units from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia [France withdrew in the late 1990s]. In addition to flying operations, the task force provided maritime interdiction in the northern Red Sea and Persian Gulf regions. The JTF-SWA headquarters consists of a command section and five directorates: J1, Personnel; J2, Intelligence; J3, Operations; J4, Logistics; and J6, Communications, as well as public affairs and legal staffs."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Common: Apparently you didn't read my comment closely....I said most map makers of which the World Atlas would certainly be the leader. Now if I would have said military task forces lingo then your comment would be acceptable.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 7:01 PM
I know that's not much, but what the hell else can you do in Scopus?-- Posted by G. H. on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 2:27 PM
G.H.: After the Battle of Scopus, there is not much left.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 7:32 PM
It appears that until 1959 maps relied on different translations of distance.
Columbus and most of the learned world knew the world was round but no one knew how big around. Columbus relied on Some crude English maps depicting an exiled Viking and used the Roman standard to predict his voyage around the world to spread the Gospel and map out a trade route other than the Muslim blocked conventional land paths. By his calculations he was in Japan at the edge of China when he reached land. So why did he call the natives Indians?
I never understood how it was decided a dividing line between Europe and Asia.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 7:59 PM
Rick, Indians were not an unseen people, Columbus would have knew what they looked like. He also knew China and Japan came first. Columbus was not the one that dubbed Americans as Indians.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 8:14 PM
OJ & Rick: The American Cowboys coined the term Indians.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 8:20 PM
Theorist, I've been studying out of curiosity
I forgot to qualify that statement with it appears or IMO.
I was going to say yours is pretty close to what I think. But Oh really? instead.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 8:39 PM
Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 8:14 PM
OJ: Don't confuse "Common" about Asia.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:16 PM
OJ: Was Columbus the one that named St. Louis?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:18 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:18 PM
Yeah, I think he named it after the Queen of Spain!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:21 PM
Theo, Several things. How the first Thanksgiving is portrayed in the modern setting of politically correct public schools of mindless diversity got me started. The Pilgrims were not thanking the natives but rather giving thanks to God for their bounty after abandoning their communist system of no individual incentive. Yes they were giving thanks to God for the natives friendship and help. Then I read somewhere how Columbus declared the end of the world very soon since the Bible said it wouldn't be until the Gospel was offered to the entire world.
He was convinced people had traveled around the world way before his time.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:26 PM
Semo, Common was surely stationed where the lines of Europe and Asia were decided.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:29 PM
"... a safeguard put in place for your protection...how can anyone argue with this?"
I don't need it. I have the second amendment. Also that conceal carry permit that all of my family has now is a nice kicker. Even grankids has a laser gun game to help get them trained.
But of coarse there are the sheep.........
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:35 PM
And of course background checks and the bloatedc big government's administration of them are working at 100%.......... right?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:54 PM
The only reason I started discussing Columbus was because I was getting tire of hearing about her dam background checks.
You all go ahead and follow Theorist trying her case for any and every reason the government should control all gun ownership.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:56 PM
You all go ahead and follow Theorist trying her case for any and every reason the government should control all gun ownership.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:56 PM
It does get a little old and repetitive doesn't it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:57 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 9:31 PM
Theorist: Can't you take a joke....you certainly are in a mood, it's time to be of good spirit.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 10:16 PM
"Theorist: Can't you take a joke..."
Semo471,
Theorist is a joke..... just not that funny a joke.
'
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 10:31 PM
We need background checks on driver's licensing! Something MUST be done about crazy people driving cars!
These people should NOT be on the road.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 7:29 AM
I started the campaign for you Theorist, you can take it from here.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 7:31 AM
"Something MUST be done about crazy people driving cars!"
Absolutely correct. Both cars/drivers and weapons/owners should be treated equally and be required to follow the same licencing and registration procedures.
We could start by licencing all drivers and gun owners, and have both groups renew the licence every 5 years so we can check their background and weed out the crazy ones.
Then we could register all vehicles and firearms and give them a unique registration number. After that we could have the registration renewed every one or two years, and require both the vehicle and the firearm be brought in for a safety inspection biennially.
Perhaps this falls into the "be careful what you wish for" category.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:59 AM
- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:59 AM
Oooops, I think I flew that one over his head. He doesn't recognize sarcasm.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:04 AM
--Posted by Rick' on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 5:46 AM
Rick: There is more need for automobile control, take the driving duties from people and let the cars do the driving.
Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:59 AM
Common: Hope the LEOs see your comment and take your car and guns away in order to protect the public.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:13 AM
Oops, Mr. Big Wheel doesn't recognize when he's being duped and politely derided.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:15 AM
If only the Constitution said "The right to of the people to drive cars shall not be infringed".
Maybe that's the 11th Amendment hidden in the Bill of Rights?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:44 AM
Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:44 AM
Dug: Understand that someone did want to include "the right of the people to ride horses shall not be infringed" but the animal rights group had it removed.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 5:06 PM
It would really be impossible to track that I believe.
It is sold in boxes of certain amounts anyway. I believe they would just buy it slower then. These people are very patient. I doubt they go in and buy huge amounts at once anyway as that would call attention to them and they avoid that.
While the sinus medication laws slowed the manufacturing they just went to something else and still bought the legal amount also.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 5:42 PM
Anyone else see this? Now that's scary! What is up with our youth?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM
I think I have heard it all now. Rationing bullets.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 6:18 PM
Rick: Pres. Pinky tried to make a shortage on ammo when they issued those large year orders for all the departments in the Federal government. Things are just now getting back to normal in the retail stores on ammo. The gun control nuts will try anything to suit their agenda.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 6:19 PM
If we are going to ration anything lets start with the tax payers money that is sent to Washington. Get those Blood Sucking Freeloaders off the couch and get them to work....work that's a nasty 4 letter word to those freeloaders.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 7:16 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:43 PM
Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:43 PM
Iam: Looks like the intercity gangs and thugs of Kansas City and St. Louis makes up the most gun deaths in Missouri. The black market of guns makes no difference to me for the need of more new laws to be enacted. The LEOs must end the black market availability of illegal guns to the gangs and thugs of the intercities.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:19 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 8:43 PM
That 9mm looks similar to a 25 caliber Valor that would probably pose as much danger to the one who pulls the trigger as to what it is aimed at. Valors were imported from Germany via a Florida dealer and still sell cheap as Saturday night specials.
Anyway, I do love it when college professors analyze.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 11:33 PM
Posted by semo471 on Mon, Dec 21, 2015, at 9:19 PM
What bothers me most about that article and has since it happened is that someone not old enough to buy alcohol can purchase a handgun.
I have been around shotguns and rifles all of my life but for some reason I get nervous around handguns.
I don't know why but I have always been that way. I have never even fired a handgun.
Just think the age should have been left at 21 for handguns.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 5:05 AM
Posted by Rick' on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 6:03 AM
I have to agree, When my kids were teens JPD used to stop and talk with the kids in the park and bowling alley and other places where they would congregate. They also handed out cards(like baseball cards). For the most part they all were well liked by the kids and there was kind of a mutual respect.
I am not sure what it is like now but hopefully the same.
I always felt that CPD should have been doing the same thing but they didn't and I think that is how the dark side became so prevalent in that city.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 7:31 AM
Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 5:05 AM
Iam: According to Uncle Joe, the shotgun is the best for home security or 20 secret service agents. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 8:20 AM
Posted by semo471 on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 8:20 AM
A little rock salt can burn their *** good also. :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 8:34 AM
"Anyway, I do love it when college professors analyze."
Old John,
Perhaps the old saying still holds true......
Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach!
Trying to remember exactly how it was stated, but above the door in one of St Charles older schools, Benton, which was named after Thomas Hart Benton, there was a phrase over the door which mentioned common sense being important in education. Now I will have to drive by to get exactly what it says.
Point is, I think that aspect is long gone from the educational process.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 10:01 AM
I remember a policeman always standing near Woolworth and Montgomery Ward downtown Cape. I think he liked watching the meter maids. :)
He had a big club and a loud whistle.
I think Jackson has at least one fast food that offers discount to police in uniform. Goes back to the idea that people not familiar with the area and those that are will be more likely to eat where there is police.
Theorist, I also love it when such simple concepts go over your head. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 10:25 AM
Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 10:25 AM
OJ: That's the problem with the PC Liberal Democrats, they can't see the big picture because they are wearing rose colored glasses.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 11:59 AM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 1:09 PM
Theorist: IMO, you need to look in a mirror to see who professes to know it all. After you finish give the mirror to Common.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 1:24 PM
I would say ditto, but I truly think it is sad when you miss something, especially when you profess to know....
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 1:09 PM
You mistake my opinions as professing, I think, but since you have difficulty finishing a sentence it makes me wonder if you know what your own opinions are.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 1:37 PM
Theroist, Did you celebrate short girl's day yesterday? I take it applies to short minds as well as physical stature. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Theroist, Did you celebrate short girl's day yesterday? I take it applies to short minds as well as physical stature. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Hmmmmm, I missed that day. Don't think that is the problem though..... many short people seem to have an ego, or maybe I should say self image problem.
It "appears to me" that is not the problem here. She seems to think pretty highly of herself. Between her and Common, it is hard to find anyone else on here who know anything.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 2:43 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 6:15 PM
Theorist: If you put a filter on your BS comments, you wouldn't have anything left of the comment to post.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 6:40 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 6:58 PM
Theorist: Just telling it as I see it. No PC for me. If you want a PC comment don't read mine.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 7:20 PM
-- Posted by Rick' on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 4:44 AM
Rick could you forward that to the White House? Maybe Obama will find time to read it when he gets back from his taxpayer paid 3 week vacation.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 7:15 AM
I wouldn't depend on the Obamberals giving advice to the White House, they only go there to find out what they think.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 7:33 AM
My Christmas wishes for Pres. Pinky's golf vacation to Hawaii:
May his golf balls bounce in the wrong direction.
May his putts come up short.
May his drives hook to the right.
May his golf balls always find water or sand.
May his score be similar to the National Debt.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:10 AM
Your filter isn't working again this morning Semo471. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:14 AM
☺☺☺☺☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:38 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Posted by Rick' on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:36 AM
LMAO!!!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Wed, Dec 23, 2015, at 8:49 AM
Posted by Rick' on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 10:31 AM
Are you suggesting we ration them? :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 10:57 AM
We are in need of automobile control now more than ever.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 11:11 AM
Cars are created to transport.Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 11:12 AM
Theorist: Tell that to the family of the dead person and those that were injured.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 11:24 AM
No death is worse than another...true! But it is harder to get past if it was senseless and preventable.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 1:10 PM
And those deaths in Las Vegas were not "senseless and preventable"?
Theorist, why not just be honest with yourself, and the rest of us, and make a New Year's resolution to admit that you hate guns and want them removed from the general public?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 5:22 PM
Wheels asked you to be honest and I applaud your effort, but we all know you are only half way there.
-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Dec 25, 2015, at 5:58 AM
356
Merry Christmas!
Perhaps she did make it all the way. She may be Jewish and as a Jewish friend told me long ago, the Jewish have a saying.... Everybody is crazy in their own way.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Dec 25, 2015, at 7:26 AM
Wheels,
Merry Christmas to you and family.
Theorist is a phony and transparent as they come, I'd have a lot more respect for her if she quit the whole pretense.
-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Dec 25, 2015, at 1:06 PM
Well, you know the saying: Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which fills up first.
-- Posted by G. H. on Fri, Dec 25, 2015, at 8:12 PM
G.H.: Make sure you have a supply of hand sanitizer.☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 7:59 AM
Those three 'ifs' will leave military and police with all the guns eventually.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 9:33 PM
Not hardly, old one...I just can't figure out what has gun owners terrified. Unless, they don't think they are qualified. Which in and of itself is a concern.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 9:36 PM
Read up on all some of the countries who kept tightening the screws on gun ownership until they finally took them away from the citizens.... it might give you a clue why people are concerned. The word terrified is just some more leftist hype meant to make supporters of the 2nd amendment to look like they are some kind of screwballs in the eyes of others.
You can look at your postings over time and see an ever increasing narrow passage in your rhetoric for the right to own a gun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 10:23 PM
Theorist, No fear; the caution is who the qualifiers are.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 11:14 PM
Wheels, Reckon I should change my name to Old One?
There are a lot of old folks named John but Old One gives a special distinction as it may imply "the" old one of special importance, mayhap up there with the Sage. What do you think?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 11:28 PM
I think it would be an insult to your namesake... why I would rather be named after a dog than let Theorist hang a name around my neck. 😊 👀 👎
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 11:50 PM
Good point. Maybe I should offer Theorist a better name.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 11:56 PM
The strangest aspect of this is why anyone would believe this guy.
Should you expect him to tell the truth, i.e. ISIS is getting pushed back all over Iraq and Syria, we are losing murderers faster than we can replace them, our weapons and equipment are being destroyed daily, the civilians we are taxing are turning against us, our stolen funds are running out, and all of the world is against ISIS, even Muslim countries?
I would think not. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's only option is to lie in a futile attempt to recruit more deluded teenaged cannon-fodder.
His threats against Israel demonstrate clearly how desperate and frantic he's has been all along. ISIS has as much chance of destroying Israel as he does of flying to Mars.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:42 AM
"Why are you so focused on the 2nd amendment?"
Beaune once it is gone and the guns are all in the hands of an overbearing government you can forget the Constitution entirely.
A fair question would be...... why are you so focused on destroying it?
And please, a denial is not an answer.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:43 AM
"Beaune" should be 'Because'.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:42 AM
Common: You might want to research ISIS and that part of the Muslim religion to which it belongs. They are the warriors of their religion and the largest sect of the Islam faith. The ability of ISIS to go into different countries and blend in until they have been awaken from the sleeper cells to do what harm they can to the country that took them in....that's why they have to be truly vetted and not asked the question like they do now in customs - are you a terrorist....good grief.
Why are you so focused on the 2nd amendment?Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:28 AM
Theorist: Because that's the one Right that this Administration is trying to do away with little by little with the help of folks like you along with the PC views of the day. Why would you think that the Founding Fathers labeled it as the 2nd most important amendment if it wasn't indeed necessary.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:49 AM
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's only option is to lie in a futile attempt to recruit more deluded teenaged cannon-fodder. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:42 AM
I don't believe this guy because Hlllary said Donald Trump is doing all the recruiting and there is a "video" out there called "Benghazi II - the Sequel" that proves it.
Why would Donald Trump star in a video recruiting for ISIS? I don't know the answer but I believe it because Hillary said so.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:02 AM
If it offends you, I will stop.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM
Nothing can offend me unless I let it. Call me what you like, my posts regarding were in fun.
How 'bout The Oristat? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:04 AM
"A fair question would be...... why are you so focused on destroying it?"
As is the norm.... answer a Theorist question and pose one of your own, there is no response.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:37 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:37 AM
Wheels: Theorist is busy with her 3 jobs, wasn't she the one that said she is better off now then when Pres. Pinky first took over. Must have had 4 jobs back then.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:49 AM
Semo471
I take it more as one of those Leftist mindsets.... they know what is best for the majority of us. So why do we just not try to understand and go along with whatever the minority wants?
Theorist is obsessed with guns, she has stated she hates them. It appears to me, she will never be satisfied until the American citizens are stripped of the right to own guns.
The following posts are very revealing.....
To get the bad guys :)....military and police, for hunting if needed, for sport if monitored, for protection if you qualify....
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 8:47 PM
Not hardly, old one...I just can't figure out what has gun owners terrified.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 9:36 PM
Just think about it..... we would be allowed to use guns for sporting events if monitored. Think about that, if monitored, by who the Gestapo?
Mark my words Theorist and her Comrades want guns confiscated as the end game.
There are key words and phrases used to try and destroy the relavancy of any who oppose them.
"Unless, they don't think they are qualified."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 10:22 AM
I don't believe that anyone said that Trump is "starring in a video." The problem is that ISIS will use videos of him denigrating Islam to try to prove that the West is waging war on all Muslims. And Trump makes it easy for them with his absurd rants.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Your goddess Hillary said that ISIS was using a Trump video for recruiting. Please try and keep up.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:24 AM
And they recruit by convincing Muslims that war is being waged on them by the West. That shouldn't be hard to comprehend.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:34 AM
I'm not sure if something has happened to you or a loved one that has had an adverse life long affect of you
Posted by Rick' on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 6:04 PM
I asked her if something had happened in her life to make her so adamant abt gun control. No reply though. I was trying to understand her insistence that seems to be the removal of all guns.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:37 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:34 AM
They recruit by making it seem they are creating an awesome society for Muslims they tell all sorts of lies to get them hooked and it works until they find out it is NOTHING like they have been told. That is the reason for so many defections.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:45 AM
Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:45 AM
Iamhere: Similar to the Democratic platform.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 12:34 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:34 AM
Common: It's in their Koran, try to keep up.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Posted by Rick' on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 1:03 PM
Rick: The PC Liberal Democrats only have an open mind when they are trying to push their PC crap upon others.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 1:18 PM
Some believe that Hillary's secret weapon is Bill, IMO he won't be a match with the Donald....let the games begin.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 1:54 PM
Theorist, why do you think the Third Amendment is virtually obsolete? Do you think it is okay to quarter soldiers in private homes, or do you believe that, absent the amendment, it would never happen here? Do you think it improbable that, in the event of a natural disaster to which troops were dispatched, they might not attempt to use private homes as bases if the Constitution did not prohibit it? They do so in wartime, what makes you think they would not in peacetime.
To be sure, the presence of the amendment ands lack of litigation points to its success, not its obsolescence.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 3:16 PM
Also, why do you think the Eighth Amendment is not followed?
Also, why do you think those who support the Second Amendment only do so because the NRA has been successful in "fearmongering"? Cannot the opposite hold true, that despite falling crime rates and reductions in murder rates, your continued calls for gun control are the result of "fearmongering" by gun control supporters, currently led by the White House? You seem to be arguing that those who disagree with you on this issue are victims of "fearmongering" to which you, yourself, are immune. Is it not possible that you are the victim and they the rational ones?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 3:26 PM
Methinks Theorist doesn't know or understand the purpose.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 4:52 PM
"Mr. Clinton, the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting." Need I say more??? -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 5:46 PM
Nope. If you don't understand the statement to Clinton then you don't get it and probably never will. What problem do you have with that statement?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it ain't about "duck hunting".
Did you think it was?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 5:49 PM
"It is archaic, plain and simple."
In your view, perhaps. It was written in regard to circumstances common at the time. That we have seldom deployed troops in the U.S. (thanks to the militia, and Posse Comitatus), but it is not inconceivable that it could happen. Rights have no expiration date.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 6:27 PM
"1993: "What's the first step to a police state?" The photo of goose stepping Nazis in this foreshadowed NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's infamous description of federal agents as "jackbooted government thugs" two years later." Who does this sound like???"
Read up on the history of Ruby Ridge, which happened the prior year. The term was applied, aptly, I think, to the actions of the FBI in that instance.
"1995: Bill Clinton is "daffy." With the number of hunters on the decline, you'd think the NRA would embrace high-profile recreational shooters. Yet in this poster sold to its members, the NRA unintentionally distanced itself from its longtime stance that hunting was central to gun rights, declaring that "Mr. Clinton, the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."
Are you suggesting the Second Amendment is about duck hunting? It is not. Mr. Clinton's statements about preserving the rights of hunters while banning firearms only cosmetically different than their hunting arms was an effort to divide gun owners into two groups; hunters and those whose rights could be curtailed. The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting. That is hardly "fearmongering" to point that out.
"1997: "Gun rights are lost on our kids." Heston promised to lead a $100 million, "three-year crusade...to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place as America's First Freedom." For the kids, of course."
I would suggest that all efforts to preserve our citizens rights are done as much for future generations as for our own. Again, how is this "fearmongering"? Isn't "for the children" the gist of many of your arguments for gun control? Are you suggesting that only you care about children? Are you suggesting that the only way to protect future generations is to strip them of their rights?
"Need I say more???"
Yes. You should answer my question. It seems to me, from the weakness of your effort to support your claim, it is apparent it is you, in fact, who have succumbed to "fearmongering". What makes you think otherwise?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 6:40 PM
"No, no it does not. It also does not say anything about semi-automatic weapons, handguns or magazines..."
Nor does it say anything about you running your anti-gun campaign via a home computer.
At least act intelligent. It is amazing how well the original Constitution and Amendments fit today's lifestyle
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:24 PM
Now girls and boys, there is no use to argue about the 2nd Amendment because it is here to stay as long as there is a USA. Now some might try to weaken it or try to make up laws to circumvent it but it will be all in vain due to the majority of Americans that will protest and take it to the President and Congress against such plans.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:29 PM
No, no it does not. It also does not say anything about semi-automatic weapons, handguns or magazines.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:13 PM
Did the founders know about black powder weapons that could result in harm to children if not used properly?
A friend tells me of a Poplar Bluff girl hurting due to one of those.
Surely if the founders were thinking ahead they would have banned all weapons once the British were defeated for the sake of children's safety.
Accidental deaths could be used as an argument to ban or control anything and everything. It has been too.
Theorist has fallen hook line and sinker for that "Progressive-Forward" theme that hijacked the word "Liberal".
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:04 PM
Theorist, Quit being afraid. All you have to fear is fear itself.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:13 PM
"Rick...I KNOW I have told you this before, but you appear to forget, I am NOT afraid of guns, I AM afraid of crazy people with guns."
Ok Theorist, we get rid of all the crazies with guns, then why these three conditions?
"for hunting if needed, for sport if monitored, for protection if you qualify...."
Where in the 2nd Amendment do you find these conditions.?
Quite frankly I think you are lying when you say it is not your intention to remove guns from American Citizens.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:16 PM
Wheels, I've been worried you might try to shoot your way through some water today.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 8:23 PM
"Totally frank...I don't care what you "think", I have told you the truth, you have a hard time with that methinks..."
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:14 PM
Well "methinks" what thee wants to think. I base what I believe on what I see manifested by the party observed. You are radicalized when it comes to gun control.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:25 PM
Posted by G. H. on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 9:34 PM
G.H.: I posted that they were one and the same way back and she denied it. Believe she is also MeLange.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 10:06 PM
Me'Lange and Theorist were both posting when I came aboard a couple of days back. Doesn't mean they could not be one and the same. One ordered me off the site one day when I disagreed with her, naturally I thanked her and complied.... the other started in by telling me what my problem was when I barely got started posting. I re-evaluated my position and determined that I was correct the first time and she was wrong.
Reasoning came and went some time in between, could have been a sock puppet of either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 10:51 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 7:13 PM
And the 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about ball point pens, microphones, radio, television, movies, Internet, Smart Phones etc.
How many times have you dragged out that same old tired talking point and been corrected; never mind, too many to count.
-- Posted by 356 on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 5:08 AM
I kind of chuckle when advocates of the Global Warming hysteria accuse others of being duped by "fear mongering".
(Sorry, I put that on the wrong thread a moment ago.)
"I wonder who Shapley believes will be held accountable here?"
I wonder why you wonder what I believe. I fail to see how my belief has any bearing on this issue. It has already been determined that it was a tragic accident. My prayers go out to the family.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 8:22 AM
Theorist, You'll get old too, if you live long enough. I'm not sure about wiser though.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 9:51 AM
"I have been wrong," - We know!
" but I have been correct." - When?
"See! I told you so!" - Two things come to mind, one you are very young and that is the reason behind your fear of guns and 2nd you are old enough to be going senile to think you will outlive me. :-)
I am dry, I am on my journey to a warmer climate. When on the road I am terrorizing other motorists and any pedestrians who venture out in this weather.
Oh and leaving my carbon footprint in every mud puddle just like Obama leaves his on every cloud.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 10:01 AM
Theorist,
Accidents happen all the time with guns, meds, cars, knives and etc....
When you started talking abt "rationing bullets" I knew you had totally lost it. It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone so where in the h*** do you get the idea that rationing would stop anything?
I know you will accuse me of jumping on the bandwagon but that is not so.
I can't help it that I agree you seem to want all guns gone.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 10:26 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 10:01 AM
Wheels: Safe travels, does your RV float?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 10:26 AM
History will show, but most of you won't be here to give me the opportunity to say, "See! I told you so!"
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 9:33 AM
Let me enlighten you to something. Death has no regard for age or gender.
I can vouch for that myself.
22 years ago I was struck down in an instant by good old genetics. I had back to back "widow maker" heart attacks. The surgeons didn't even have time for my hubby to sign the ok for surgery the nurse ran out and got a verbal and the paperwork was signed after emergency bypass.
Thanks to the Dr. I had at the time ignoring me when I described my symptoms I had already had 4 "light" ones before that.
All because he said "young, white females don't have heart attacks " and blew me off said it was just stress and sent me to a psychiatrist.
It ended my ability to work. No Dr. would release me to work again.
This was very hard for me. It still is. Stupid people make remarks abt how it must be nice to not have to work anymore.
I worked hard and I loved my job I had just finished a 28 day stretch when that all happened.( I was filling in for the lazy ones who would call in when they got so much as a fa** crossways.)
I had earned enough points for my children to draw which stunned the Soc Sec worker bc of my age but I always worked, never drew unemployment one time.
So be careful when you think bc you are younger you are invincible bc you are not. None of us are.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:06 AM
Wheels: Safe travels, does your RV float?
-- Posted by semo471 on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 10:26 AM
Hmmmmmm. Not sure, I haven't tested it for that yet. It won't fly, or maybe I just haven't found a long enough runway yet.
Thanx!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:15 AM
I have been wrong, but I have been correct. History will show, but most of you won't be here to give me the opportunity to say, "See! I told you so!"-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 9:33 AM
Theorist: That's not very PC of you....aren't you afraid that you might be reported to the PC police - oh, that's right your are the PC police. Practice what you preach. BTW, don't think history will write your victory speech in the way that you are thinking.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:20 AM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Theorist: I read your comment correctly the way you first intended it to be and now you try to act like Pres. Pinky and do the crawdad.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:33 AM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant. But when you were saying that most won't be here when you get to say "I told you so" I guess we assumed you were fairly young and meant we would all have passed by then bc of our age.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:37 AM
Why carry a gun? I truly am interested in your response...and don't proclaim, "because I can", for that is a weak deflection. Honestly answer, why do you carry a gun?
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:12 AM
Don't know who this was directed at but I will be happy to tell you why.
First, I ignored the right to carry law and said who needs it? Then I found myself, behind my own commercial building where there was a retaining wall and a fence on top. Additionally a short fence between my property and the neighbors back fence, to keep people from cutting through and littering. A young man carry a bag in each hand approached this fence and decided to pull the fence down. He had not seen me and I said, do not tear that fence down. He looked around saw no one, must have thought it was God talking and decided to ignore him. I stated again, do not etc.. This time he saw me and said, I want to go through. I said use the street, the fence is there for a reason. He said I might just come down there and "F" you up. Now what should I say, oh please don't? Bluffing I said come on down. Not knowing what I had to protect myself he declined and went around. I had nothing, and that kid was capable of carrying out his threat.
I am no longer able to fight and too damned old to run. I was not in a position to protect myself and the realization hit me then.
My building is not in a bad area. I did it correctly and got my CCW license. My wife and I have walked through a parking garage where there was 10 or 15 young wannabes hanging out and I was not all that comfortable even with protection in my pocket.
I do not intend to stand idly by and see my wife and/or me beaten or worse without doing something about it. The last thing I ever want to do is to point a gun at another human being, but I have mentally prepared myself should that occasion occur where there is no other choice, and at that point, if it is to be thee or me, thee is not going to stand a chance if it is humanly possible for me to prevent it being one of my family or myself getting killed.
Any questions?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM
I applaud longevity, I am attacking ignorance and hardheadedness...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Theorist,
There is no one on here posting that is more "hardheaded" than you, with perhaps the exception of Common.
You are typical Leftist. You think your philosophy is the end all to human problems on this planet. I got news for you, Socialism eventually turns into Communism and fails miserably everywhere it is tried. Try reading a little history instead of listening to all of the pie in the sky crap the leftist professors taught you at your, or possibly our, expense.
It is being proven to you right and left with all of the increased killing and wickedness going on in the world. Idleness is the devil's workshop and idling these people with welfare is contributory to the problem. It is not helping them, if you want to truly help people remove the welfare and get them a job where they have little time and energy left to go out and create problems. It worked in the past.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:51 AM
"I hope you are not impulsive, and your scenario suggests you are not... "
My CCW Instructor stated that the best protection is to try and avoid trouble first and foremost, but when it is thrust upon you and there are no other choices do what you have to do, but never, ever pull a gun unless you are committed to using it.
Sure there could be the possibility, you have to display a gun and your opponent runs, no you do not shoot him in the back. If you are not in town, you might fire one into the ground to make sure he keeps moving and maybe picks up the pace. But don't waste your ammunition.
My instructor was a retired City of St. Louis Police Officer and fully believed in qualified people carrying protection.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:00 PM
"As long as you carry responsibly and safely, there isn't a problem."
As long as there isn't a problem, no one should ever know you have a gun.
I will no longer attend a ball game in St. Louis. It has proven to be open season around the ball park after the games because it is a known "gun free zone" for all but punks and criminals.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:05 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:05 PM
Wheels: Hope some of the anti-gun folks don't attend a game in St. Louis to find out only the thugs and crooks have the guns and they are defenseless against them. "History will show, but most of you won't be here to give me the opportunity to say, See! I told you so!"
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:13 PM
I don't know if they were anti-gun or not but some have already found only the thugs had guns and the cops were not around. But what the hell robbing the folks and then maiming or killing them is only being done to supplement the welfare we work to give them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:21 PM
Wheels: Have heard of break-ins of cars in parking areas around the ball park. Thieves know that guns are stored in cars since the ball park is gun free.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 12:41 PM
I did hear something to that effect but know nothing specific.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 2:01 PM
Well... Happy New Year Theorist your President has said he will abuse his executive power again and issue more gun control laws in 2016 since congress hasn't done anything he will "use" (more like misuse) his authority to do it himself.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Dec 31, 2015, at 7:05 PM
"The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day..."
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 10:00 AM
Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 10:00 AM
OJ: Wonder if the law includes taking away knives, hammers, automobiles, ropes, and other items that have been use to kill in the past.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 10:16 AM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 9:11 AM
That is only one thing he will address. I haven't heard him say what the rest will be.
It will supposedly happen before the Jan. 12 state of the union address.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 1:32 PM
Iamhere: The impeachment proceedings will start before the Poor State of the Union speech. Believe spying on Congress and making up laws are considered impeachable offensives.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 2:08 PM
Posted by semo471 on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 2:08 PM
Yes but Hillary is getting away with her crap while running for President.
I doubt anyone will prosecute either of them no one seems to care anymore.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 2:41 PM
While people learn about new rules for gun control, I wouldn't be surprised to hear there are new rules stopping deportation of criminal illegals.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 3:41 PM
By the way...if you live in this wonderful country, he is your President too!
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 9:11 AM
Theorist,
My President would follow the law of the land. This loser feels that if he cannot pass a law legally it is ok to ram it down our throats by hook or crook.
Can you spell out how he can legally do what he proposes?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 6:14 PM
2016 is an election year.
I would suggest that those voters opposed to Obama's illegal actions, contact their Senator's and Representatives and let them know we are watching and if they continue to sit on their hands while this President runs rough shod over our laws, they can be replaced. It is a good time to clean house.... people are mad as hell with what is going on. How else can you account for the likes of Trump's popularity.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 6:22 PM
Good point. We need to get rid of the republicans, especially in the Senate.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 6:33 PM
Common, You seem not to understand. The longtime republicans in the senate are a gaggle of rhetoric and always end up joining the democrats that seek only to be elected again at whatever cost to the country.
I say throw out all the career politicians and bring in some that have no idea of how politics work.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 6:55 PM
Posted by Rick' on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:17 AM
Nah, maybe a super soaker. You know bc he's all wet! ;)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:46 AM
This will not be a law, just another dictatorial proclamation from Der Fuhrer.
Only Congress has the authority to make law. I think America as a people should ignore Der Fuhrer's illegal dictates. Maybe tie his silly arse up in court for the next year and 18 days.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 6:54 AM
Rick,
A while back Obama had his staff to start putting together gun laws that he could order by Executive Action and make sure they couldn't be challenged in court. So apparently they must have done so.
I don't like this crap. It isn't right to take the voice away from the people or only listen to one group and not all groups to try and form some kind of compromise.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 6:54 AM
No one is doing anything to stop him or Hillary. I don't get it. What is everyone afraid of?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 7:02 AM
America's mood is such that Congress might want to start thinking about the voter and what they want.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 7:08 AM
Rick
I understand as you have stated, your situation is somewhat different because of your heritage that I do not completely understand.
But from where I sit, as a citizen I have a duty to my country and it's laws... not to a man. A President was never intended to have the powers of a dictator by whatever name you choose to call it.
When a President strays from the role he is legally entitled to play, I feel no obligation to call him my leader or duty to follow him. My loyalty is to my country not a man.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 7:28 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:06 AM
Theorist they used that 1 as an example but he also has others in mind. He isn't just doing one thing.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:30 AM
You crack the door open for government controls and they will take advantage till the door is wide open.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:49 AM
This is an alarmist cry with no substantiation whatsoever... -- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:57 AM
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Just a general listing of state laws. If you want federal ones let me know:
Some states and localities require that a person obtain a license or permit in order to purchase or possess firearms.
Some states and localities require that individual firearms be registered with the police or with another law enforcement agency.
All states allow some form of concealed carry, the carrying of a concealed firearm in public.
Many states allow some form of open carry, the carrying of an unconcealed firearm in public on one's person or in a vehicle.
Some states have state preemption for some or all gun laws, which means that only the state can legally regulate firearms. In other states, local governments can pass their own gun laws more restrictive than those of the state.
Some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as assault weapons, or on magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition.
NFA weapons are weapons that are heavily restricted at a federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. These include automatic firearms (such as machine guns), short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles. Some states and localities place additional restrictions on such weapons.
Some states have enacted castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws, which provide a legal basis for individuals to use deadly force in self-defense in certain situations, without a duty to flee or retreat if possible.
In some states, peaceable journey laws give additional leeway for the possession of firearms by travelers who are passing through to another destination.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:16 AM
Pres soetoro is the one being dramatic and sensational. After 25 ex orders about guns he wants more un enforceable 'laws'.
Presidential whim to appease the fools. Nothing more.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 11:12 AM
Those who [hate] and [denigrate President] Obama are wallowing in their own chaotic, insecure [delusions.]
Minor corrections for the sake of accuracy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 12:12 PM
Theorist has stated that she hates guns. If you hate something you will try to rid yourself and others of it.
By her own definition, I truly believe, in spite of what she says, that she wants all guns removed from the private citizens.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 4:54 PM
Theorist,
My President would follow the law of the land. This loser feels that if he cannot pass a law legally it is ok to ram it down our throats by hook or crook.
Can you spell out how he can legally do what he proposes?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 6:14 PM
Theorist,
While you have seen fit to criticize what I have posted today, you have not seen fit to answer the above question. Too hard?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:01 PM
Theorist is disqualified. Thinks Clinton has etiquette!
Common has disavowed reality and replaced it with his own. Kind of humorous the professional denigrator is complaining. Barking on the chain.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:47 PM
Barking on the chain. -- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:47 PM
True words. It's tiring.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:51 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:49 AM
This is an alarmist cry with no substantiation whatsoever...-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:57 AM
Theorist: Yes it's an alarmist cry to stand up to those who wish to violate the Constitution....you know the framework of the USA government that this Administration is hell bent on walking all over.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 6:06 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 7:47 PM
I will start at the bottom and work my way upn
1.) I have nothing to hide and I am not scared of anything. I am concerned that our rights are slowly being taken away from us a bit at a time. That is the way Progressiveness works. You cannot get the whole thing, chip away at it until you get what you want.
2.) You warble on and on and on about this, please be specific, what sales at gun shows and online are being done without background checks that are being done by licensed dealers.... or, are they being done by private individuals on a one on one transaction? And what is a small scale gun owner?
You obviously copied and pasted this from somewhere as you keep repeating it.
3.) Not all executive orders are authorized or legal by any stretch. They are NOT law regardless of how a court may handle them. Only Congress can make laws. And speaking of courts, I believe they have forbidden Obama from carrying out his amnesty program, initiated by him when Congress would not act upon it. What makes you think that Congress is mandated to act at the whim of a President?
If he carries this out, I hope they keep him in court until he is out of office and can do no more harm to our Constitution. Our 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet this little dictator thinks he is greater than the Constitution and it's amendments.
And you think that is fine because it gets you one step closer to what you want in the end. Disgusting what some people would do to attain an end regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 8:41 PM
Theorist,
Since you like to throw in garbage like what do you fear? Are you afraid you won't pass? Let me ask you a similar question or two.
What is it that gives you such a fear of guns? Why do you have this phobia about guns?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 8:46 PM
How do you suggest with a straight face, that doing a background check is taking away your right??
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:04 PM
How do you suggest with a straight face that it isn't taken away a right?
How about you answer with a straight face some of the questions I asked?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:09 PM
"why are you scared of a background check? What are you hiding?"
Theorist,
And this is your projected diversionary tactic that you keep repeating.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:11 PM
Another question.... How many lives do you project will be saved by your little dictator's illegal move?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:13 PM
Theorist,
You are insinuating that those who oppose your views have motives for not wanting the increased intrusion into people's rights have ulterior motives, they are afraid they won't pass. Pure BS and you know it but you keep on posting it because you are a dutiful little party worker.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:23 PM
So far as questions, here are two that you have not answered and they are asked because of your statement.
"2.) You warble on and on and on about this, please be specific, what sales at gun shows and online are being done without background checks that are being done by licensed dealers.... or, are they being done by private individuals on a one on one transaction? And what is a small scale gun owner?"
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:25 PM
Theorist
Perhaps there is something in here that will open your eyes to the truth, but it is doubtful.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:39 PM
Wheels, I think a small scale dealer could be a local gunsmith that sometimes sell a refurbished gun to someone he knows. He is very careful as he knows he could be in trouble if he sold to a unqualified buyer. When a customer has conceal carry, he may agree to sell to him without doing all the state and federal paperwork. Best I can tell, Obama's executive order shuts these guys down and does nothing to restrict Mexicans and Arabs from smuggling their weapons into the country.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:40 PM
Right now a private owner can technically sell to anyone he wants to. If he is smart he will know more about that buyer than he probably did about his wife when he married her, but it is for the protection of both parties.
Several years ago, I purchased a gun from a friend who had bought it for his wife and she did not want it. The firearm was purchased legally with a background check and all. We made a bill of sale in duplicate with serial number and description and both signed it. End of story the gun has killed no one, there is continuity in who has it and I had previously passed the background check. In spite of Theorist's ignorant insinuations that I have something to hide and am afraid I cannot pass the check.
I do not have a receipt for the $5 22 rifle I purchased from a cousin when I was in the 7th grade though. We are definitely in trouble there, my cousin has Alzheimers and cannot remember who he is let alone me and that transaction. What to do, what to do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:57 PM
If Pres. Pinky wants to create an Executive Order to save lives, let him issue one to prevent abortions that would save millions of lives.
If Pres. Pinky wants to create an Executive Order to save lives, let him issue one to prevent terrorists from bringing their guns across our southern border.
If Pres. Pinky wants to create an Executive Order to save lives, let him issue one to prevent the thugs from stealing or buying guns on the black market.
If Pres. Pinky wants to create an Executive Order to save lives, let him issue one to prevent the selling and manufacturing of automobiles that are used in road rage and their use as a weapon such was the case recently in Las Vegas.
Go ahead Pres. Pinky issue an Executive Order putting limits on the 2nd amendment and wait for the next Republican President in January 2017 to repeal it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:21 AM
Following item from a Facebook comment:
"Gun Control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:39 AM
From Facebook
A photo of Obama with the words:
" If we pass more gun laws crime will go away"
Below it a photo of Spanky from Our Gang that says:
...And if stupid could fly you'd be a jet!
Love it!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 11:22 AM
Where and when did the President say those words?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 11:37 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 11:37 AM
Common: Are you saying that you know every word that Pres. Pinky has said these last 7 years....what dedication.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 11:56 AM
No.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:00 PM
But I was not posting a quote that was supposedly being attributed to him.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 11:37 AM
It's official you are an idiot! I "quoted" the message which is basically what Obuma wants you to think.
I will give you a quote from Ted Cruz's campaign.
"My first day in office all lawlessness will end".
That's another crock of sheep dip.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:03 PM
How is it that you know exactly what the President wants me to think?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:07 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM
What do you think all this Executive power bs is all about?
He says he is doing this to make the US safer. That is bs and you know it.
Until you deal with the inner city violence you can "make" all the orders you want and nothing will change.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:10 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:07 PM
Bc you tell us all the time. You know after they tell you what to think.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:12 PM
As Semo says "He must be checking with the White House to see what to think next".
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 12:25 PM
"Gun Control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars." -- Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:39 AM
I think that's one of the best ways to put this gun control crap. Good one semo! I'm gonna use that in the future.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:06 PM
Why do you think he is doing it, Iam? -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:20 PM
Why do you? Once again - for about the 20th time - it has been factually proven that NOTHING proposed would have stopped the mass shootings (guns were purchased legally, wait times wouldn't have mattered, straw men were used to purchase legally, people were never declared insane, guns were STOLEN, etc.). NOTHING proposed will change this. So we ask Theorist...
Why do YOU think he is doing it?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:24 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:21 PM
Semo - the "sober" thing went right over Theorists head. Or, as usual, she simply changes the subject and ignores any facts. Or refuses to answer questions.
Just keeps beating that drum of fear and paranoia.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:26 PM
"...reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
Actually "gun control" in more like placing a "breath-a-lyzer" - ingnition interlock to keep drunks from starting a vehicle.
Has absolutely nothing to do with sober people owning cars.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 3:51 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:21 PM
Theorist: Another one flew right over your head. Do you have a comprehension problem or are you just hard headed.
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 3:51 PM
Common: See above....you and Theorist are awarded the "Here's Your Sign" by Bill Engvall.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 6:56 PM
Theorist, How can the NRA be this all powerful entity? Could it be that our representatives in congress are that easily influenced to listen to them rather than the people that elected them?
Maybe it's time to elect some folks that listen to the voters. It would save the voters that fund the NRA a lot of money. Then you could petition your representatives to enact all these silly laws that make no sense.
I still think we should ban gun free zones and make stop and frisk legal in large cities.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 7:04 PM
Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 7:04 PM
OJ: Law abiding citizens respect the gun free zones; however, those wanting to do harm to others find these gun free zones "soft targets". Stop and Frisk, another effective tool of the LEOs that has suffered at the hands of the PC folks.
Memo to Pres. Pinky: Is there any proof that any of the mass shootings guns were purchased from gun shows. Should you not declare war of black market guns and their sellers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 7:29 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 1:21 PM
Theorist: You have a problem separating Rights from privileges....2nd Amendment - Rights, driving cars - privilege. Glad to have been able to help you.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 7:38 PM
I have given documented statistical studies that say you are wrong, Dug. Did you read those? -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 2:07 PM
Then tell us which of the mass shootings you always talk about would be prevented by any of this. Just pick a few and tell us - I'm telling you that your ideas won't stop this. Not even close.
===
From the San Diego Tribune Newspaper. There are MANY other sources that confirm this. Many.
"Ban commonly owned types of firearms based on aesthetics, ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, limit the amount of firearms Americans can own, ban normal capacity magazines, track ammunition possession and purchases, extend waiting periods, clamp down on gun shows, better background checks.
These measures would not have prevented what happened in Oregon or any of the other headline tragedies of recent years.
The mentally unstable murderer in Oregon used pistols -- not an "assault" weapon. The ammunition he used was not "armor piercing," nor were any of his victims wearing armor. He was not effective because of the quantity of guns he owned. Reports say he reloaded multiple times while systematically killing defenseless Christians. Betting our safety on a criminal's inability to reload his gun by limiting magazine size is a losing proposition.
Law enforcement officers quickly identified the murderer in Oregon, eliminating any need to track ammunition. His crime wasn't the result of a short waiting period and his guns weren't purchased at a gun show. He passed a background check.
After the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., gun rights groups called for many different policies to prevent future killers and protect potential victims. One was to incorporate mental health information into background checks." The Newtown shooter stole his gun from his mother and murdered her. Wouldn't have worked in that case either.
===
Simple question - just refute one of the mass shootings with Obama's new exec orders.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 8:26 PM
"If you don't realize how powerful the NRA is, you are missing something..."
Theorist,
I think you are about to find out how powerful the NRA can become if Little Adolph creates this anticipated Executive Order. I can foresee their tying Obama's royal hind end up in court before it is over with.
I at one time belonged to the NRA, some 35 years or so ago. I lost interest and dropped out. But if Obama creates this Executive Order and they file suit on him, I will rejoin as I think many others will do. No my joining will not make them all powerful, but hoards of others joining could.
Someone needs to put this train back on the track, I would like to help.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 8:54 PM
Theorist,
By the way you still have not answered these questions.
So far as questions, here are two that you have not answered and they are asked because of your statement.
"2.) You warble on and on and on about this, please be specific, what sales at gun shows and online are being done without background checks that are being done by licensed dealers.... or, are they being done by private individuals on a one on one transaction? And what is a small scale gun owner?"
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 9:25 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:07 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:07 PM
Wheels: Common and Theorist won't answer you until the Rainbow House webpage is updated. They send your questions to the webpage and then they get a reply for your question....similar to Dear Abby.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:29 PM
Wheels: Common and Theorist won't answer you until the Rainbow House webpage is updated. They send your questions to the webpage and then they get a reply for your question....similar to Dear Abby.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 9:29 PM
You're probably right. That's how the herd mentality works.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 10:07 PM
How many times must you be corrected for it to sink in! Online gun sales MUST go through an FFL WITH a regular background check. Firearms cannot be sent directly to an individual.
Gun laws at "gun shows" are no different than anywhere else, so "gun show loop-hole" is nothing more than a made up catch phrase to confuse those ignorant of the laws.
-- Posted by 356 on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:00 AM
"Simple question - just refute one of the mass shootings with Obama's new exec orders."
Past "mass shootings" are not the issue, future "mass shootings" are.
It's clear that doing nothing is not an answer.
The US population is about equal to that of Great Briton, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia. During a recent period, those countries combined had 112 gun deaths while we had 32,000.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:30 AM
Past "mass shootings" are not the issue, future "mass shootings" are -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:30 AM
Nothing proposed would prevent future mass shootings. You know that, so claiming we have to focus on the future with these additional laws is a waste of time and only affects sane, non-criminal good citizens constitutional rights.
===
Actually "gun control" in more like placing a "breath-a-lyzer" - ingnition interlock to keep drunks from starting a vehicle. Has absolutely nothing to do with sober people owning cars. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 3:51 PM
Once again, not true. Do you propose that EVERY care in the nation have a breath-a-lyzer installed just because a few people drive drunk? Did you know that a non-drinking passenger can breathe into the unit and then a drunk can drive?
Perfect example of additional costs and restrictions on driving that wouldn't stop the problem. Just like your gun proposals.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:21 AM
Posted by Rick' on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 6:26 AM
I was young when this took place. I have always said that your people have suffered more than their share of tragedy. The Wounded Knee Massacre was pretty horrific also.
Things like this have always bothered me. It is just wrong and there isn't any other way to describe it.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:27 AM
The VA Tech shooting , would likely have been prevented by universal background checks -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 5:34 AM
Completely fabricated. You simply can't make things up like this. Did you read the panel report on the shootings? Apparently not. Here are some facts from someone who did:
"The Virginian Tech Review Panel's assessment of the April 16, 2007 shooting in which 32 were killed and 17 and wounded found that a high capacity magazine ban would not have stopped Seung-Hui Cho from carrying out his criminal act."
"In a very detailed manner, the panel reports how many magazines Cho purchased, and when and from where he purchased them. They also report that some of those magazines held 15 rounds -- which is 5 rounds beyond the maximum capacity allowed by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). 10 rounds was the maximum number of rounds a new magazine could hold when the ban was in effect.
However, because the AWB expired in October 2004, Cho was able to purchase 15 round magazines with no problem in 2007.
The panel says that the ban wouldn't have stopped Cho anyway. They said forcing him to use 10 round magazines instead of those that hold 15 rounds "would have not made that much difference in the incident."
Why would it have not made any difference? Because he was shooting at unarmed people, thus he had all the time in the world to reload when necessary. "
===
You ask for apologies that you never give - even when you admit you made things up. You challenge others to read articles when you don't read articles yourself.
You are wrong about the Virginia Tech shooting. It was done in a gun-free zone and nothing proposed now would have stopped it or similar shootings in the future.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:28 AM
Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:21 AM
Point well made Dug. Common will not agree though, but you already know that.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:32 AM
u·ni·ver·sal
ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/
adjective
Therorist,
"Can you not read the articles yourself, man? No, I do not warble. It is working to close the loophole which allows people to sell guns online or at gun shows without doing a background check. Geez... private sellers generally defined as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood."
Universal Background Checks, Universal BackGround Checks, Universal Background Checks,Universal Background Checks, Universal BackGround Checks, Universal Background Checks,Universal Background Checks, Universal BackGround Checks, Universal Background Checks. Yes your repeated use of the term is warbling. And on top of that you are lying since, you have been told what the rules are towards online sales of guns. Want to go to jail, just ship one to a private individual and get caught. We already have a law against that, how thick is your head that you cannot understand that?
"adjective: universal
1.
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
Out of all the synonyms for "Universal", I like the one "Omnipresent". Just as our government and all of it's rules is becoming, in spite of what the founders envisioned. The founders of this country revolted over less that we are being subjected to.
Oh yes and "small scale gun owner" has now apparently become "private sellers". Methinks you know little about this whole debate with some of the stuff you post and copy and post from Leftist sources.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:43 AM
Dear me,
My copy and past of the definition got separated. Too early in the day for me. But I think anybody not looking to find fault will figure it out.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:48 AM
-- Posted by 356 on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:00 AM
Theorist knows the truth, so she is lying to make it plain and simple. Anything to promote the Leftist Agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:49 AM
During a recent period, those countries combined had 112 gun deaths while we had 32,000. Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:30 AM
Common: Believe you need to recheck your info. The Paris terrorist attack in Nov. 2015 killed 128 in one day....looks like your count might just be off. Like you have said, just trying to keep the facts straight. BTW, don't forget the 33,000 killed in automobile accidents in the USA and the over one million babies that were aborted in 2015.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:00 AM
356,
You may know the answer to this, without looking it up. What constitutes a "dealer" for the purpose of defining who is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License. I know with some items you are considered a dealer if you sell "X" number of those items in a years time and you are required to become licensed. I do not know if or how many firearms sold within a year would require that you be licensed. I had a friend, now long departed, who used to have a license even if he was not full time at it. He had to sell a certain number of guns per year to maintain his license as I remember it.
Thanks.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:05 AM
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:06 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:00 AM
Common would only lie about such a thing if it was to promote the Leftist Agenda, or if it sounded better than the truth.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:07 AM
"...only lie about such a thing if it was..."
As usual you're wrong. It was not a "lie." The article did not specify the period or whether it included terrorist attacks.
However, the truth is undeniable by normal people and hasn't changed ...
U.S. Has More Guns - And Gun Deaths - Than Any Other Country, Study Finds
September 19, 2013
By SYDNEY LUPKIN
SYDNEY LUPKINMORE FROM SYDNEY »
Health Reporter
via GOOD MORNING AMERICA
The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.
A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.
Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.
They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.
"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made...so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."
They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.
David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who specializes in injury research and is considered one of the top gun violence researchers in the country, said the there's "no question" that the relationship between guns and gun deaths is real.
"It shouldn't be really a surprise to people," Hemenway said.
There are some caveats to the data, such as countries' records of illegal guns, but it seems to be "reasonable" and on par with previous research, Hemenway said.
The National Rifle Association did not immediately respond to ABCNews.com request for comment.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:28 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:28 AM
We also have more small-airplane deaths in the US. Because it's easier and cheaper to own a private plane in the United States.
We also have more automobile deaths in the US. Because we have higher incomes and less fees/regulation/lower gas prices than other countries.
===
It's called freedom of choice and wealth. I guess you could ban private airplanes and raise the cost of owning an automobile to EU or 3rd world levels and you could lower deaths in those two cases as well - far more deaths than by guns.
Freedom sucks doesn't it Common? Oh yes - and don't forget that neither airplanes or automobiles are a constitutional right. But guns are.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:32 AM
In Vino e Morigero Veritas
In wine and humor there is truth. (Rough translation.)
N.R.A. Leader Warns of Rising Cost of Senators
BY ANDY BOROWITZ
*
HOUSTON (The Borowitz Report)--National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre used his opening speech at the N.R.A.'s national convention today to highlight several challenges facing the organization, including what he called "the rising cost of Senators."
"Over the past few years, we've seen the price of purchasing a Senator surge astronomically," he told the N.R.A. faithful. "Unless something is done to make Senators more affordable, the ability of a tiny lobbying group to overrule the wishes of ninety per cent of the American people will be in jeopardy."
The days are over, he said, when "you could buy a Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for little more than pocket change."
"Now it costs thousands to purchase a marginally effective Senator like Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)," he said.
Mr. LaPierre was followed at the podium by the former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the rock musician Ted Nugent, and several other people who would not pass background checks.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:50 AM
A personal note from History: At one time or the other in the last 300 years most of the European countries' governments were overthrown by their populace which caused most governments to minimized the weapons of the era available to the populace to ensure the government's survival.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:53 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:50 AM --
I assume you understand that is a parody piece, do you not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:56 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:50 AM
I believe it's a fake new story. Rut roh... Are you resorting to comedian satire now as a "news" source?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:57 AM
"U.S. Has More Guns - And Gun Deaths - Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
A dishonest headline.
"The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found."
Note the adjective 'developed' (a largely undefined term) missing from the headline.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:58 AM
-- Posted by Rick' on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:40 AM
Rick
With all of the crazy hysterics over gun control, it must happen even if it does no save one life and we have to violate the laws of the country to do it.
I think I will put an NRA sticker on one side of my bumper and a Confederate Flag on the other. Just what side should each go on, right or left, left or right, or maybe both right in the middle, but which one on top or side by side in the middle, now we are back to that right or left thing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM
Are you resorting to comedian satire now as a "news" source? -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:57 AM
Let me answer my own question. YES YOU ARE!
Apparently you'll believe anything you see on the internet. It's obvious in your posting of so-called "facts" and editorialized statements. Even comedic satire as a fact reference.
It's that Obama supporter thing.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:01 AM
I like how two Doctors can declare a study and one takes it as an undeniable truth.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:06 AM
"... do you not?"
I believe that's pretty clear from the first two lines and the source in the link. But then you never know what people will believe, and there is an element of truth to it.
My opinion is that this is why the NRA comes out with "they're coming to take away your guns unless you send us more money" letters after every mass shooting tragedy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:06 AM
My opinion is that this is why the NRA comes out with "they're coming to take away your guns unless you send us more money" letters after every mass shooting tragedy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:06 AM
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, which oft times are what you post.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:11 AM
Common gets letters from the NRA?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:15 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:06 AM
You bought that cut and paste of yours hook, line and sinker. Keep spinning.
It's what you do...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:16 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:50 AM
Common: Just like it cost millions of dollars of donations for companies and foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation to have the ear of either of the Clintons.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:16 AM
Common gets letters from the NRA? -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:15 AM
Nah. He probably heard that on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:16 AM
Would like to stay on here for all the Liberal entertainment but girlfriend is giving me that look which means time's up and let's go up to Cape.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:27 AM
-- Posted by Rick' on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 11:53 AM
Rick,
They are not Liberals in the true sense of the word. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party are what I think maybe more accurately would be called Radical Progressives. Common, Theorist, Lefty, Mischick and a few more on here fit that mold to a "T".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 12:05 PM
"Can you prove they do not?"
Apparently, you do not understand the concept of the burden of proof. We, who are not asking for any change, ought not to have to prove that such change is not needed. Rather, the burden of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who seek to alter the law, and the freedom of many, based upon the assumption that it does.
I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist. But that is all well and good, as long as I don't seek to impose legislation based upon their existence. Before I can do that, the burden would fall upon me to not only prove their existence, but then prove that the legislation will have some meaningful impact based upon that proof.
Mr. Obama wants to change the law. The burden thus falls upon him to show that his proposed change, which will effect the ability of many to legally transfer their firearms, will have some positive impact based upon proof that the lack of such law has had a significant effect upon public safety. Thus far, I have seen no proof that is the case. You, yourself, admit that you cannot prove it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 2:09 PM
I think I am a progressive thinker...moving forward and all...
Thank you!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 12:48 PM
Progressing on the path to hell is not helping the country. You have to know the difference between helping and hurting the country and therein lies the problem with the Leftists.
Properly explained to you and now you're welcome!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 2:23 PM
You may prefer to drive at 120 mph on the left side of the road but you can't because you will kill other people if you do...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 12:56 PM
You do not have a "right" to drive on the roadway to begin with. It is a privilege for which you are regulated.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 2:25 PM
You may prefer to drive at 120 mph on the left side of the road but you can't because you will kill other people if you do...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 12:56 PM
I might add another dumb argument which is not relative. You're grasping at straws.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 2:30 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 2:25 PM
Wheels: The PC Liberal Democrats sure do have trouble knowing the difference between Rights and Privileges. I'll type real slow so that they might for once comprehend....Rights are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and Privileges are controlled by the local, State, or Federal governments.......got it now.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 3:16 PM
I see where California has made it open season now on college campus's. Lawmakers fixed a "loophole" in a previous law that had allowed a person with concealed carry permit to do just just that. Not anymore. Open season.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 3:53 PM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 3:53 PM
Rock it does not matter what happens. When it does it will be the cause of a lack of Omnipresent Background Checks. Just ask Theorist.... she has tunnel vision, that is all she can think of that could possibly be causing all of the violence in this country.
Personally I think making punishment fit the crime and make it swift and unerring would solve a lot of problems. If someone did not die in the commission of mass murder by whatever means, we should make them wish they had died with their victims. The BS of punishing the population as a whole is strictly that.... BS.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM
You may prefer to drive at 120 mph on the left side of the road but you can't because you will kill other people if you do... -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 12:56 PM
You can't even find an example of how your new restrictions would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the past 20 years.
You were wrong about VA tech. Why would anyone believe what you're posting about this?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 5:48 PM
-- Posted by Rick' on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 5:48 PM
That would be hard to disagree with. Might give them one chance at appeal but it expires in short over and on with the business at hand.
I'm damned tired of worrying about the rights of criminals and misfits while the law abiding citizen are constantly having their rights chipped away.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 6:03 PM
Rick,
I have to admit I did not watch Little Adolph. Makes you want to throw up watching the lying POS.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 6:59 PM
Just a word to those gun control zealots: Any executive order that Pres. Pinky can put in place will be overruled by the courts. Have a nice night.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM
Sorry Theorist - you're wrong again on this VA Tech shooting. Where to start with this? It's hard to take you seriously when you're not aware of what happened. Laws were not followed or broken. See how effective all the laws you want are? Cho violated the law.
===
Cho bought his first gun on-line from Wisconsin. From CBS News:"Under federal law, only federally-licensed firearms dealers may ship handguns across state lines and then only to other licensed dealers."
Once again, federal laws were there to prevent this but were NOT followed.
===
He bought his second gun 30 days later.
From CBS: "IF THE CURRENT LAWS ON THE BOOKS HAD BEEN EFFECTIVELY ENFORCED AND HANDLED, this individual would not have been able to buy these guns," said Paul Hemke, president of the Brady Center.
===
So the fact that more laws would prevent anything is wrong Theorist. Even the Brady Center president - who you have quoted in the past - agrees with me and not you.
Now a simple question for you. Can a child in grade school or high school be declare to have severe anxiety disorder, then get cured, and then later in life be allowed to purchase a gun? Or should they be banned for life based on their condition in high school?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:47 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:54 PM
Somehow in your rage you forgot to answer my questions. Yet you ask others.
First, you're wrong about "universal background checks". He DID go through those checks in the NICS system. Are you completely unaware of this?
As your buddy at the Brady Center said - laws were there and would have HELPED prevent this. They weren't followed. What part of that don't you understand?
About those questions I asked you and you've not answered?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 7:58 PM
"Dug, once again you are wrong. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was declared mentally ill two years before he bought a gun and killed 32 people in another state. The universal background check would have stopped his purchase."
Theorist, please explain how your Omnipresent Background Check would have stopped the killer at Virginia Tech.
Your Omnipresent Big Government failed to catch him twice in background checks. And don't try telling us he went to a legal source in both cases and bought the guns and was not subjected to background checks. They Government merely failed in their service to protect the public.
Please explain how a new background rule will catch people like this when the current checks did not. His online purchase of the small caliber handgun was handled by shipping it to a registered dealer and don't try to make us believe that a licensed dealer did not do the background check.
Bottom line your statement that a Universal Background Check would have stopped the sales is a lie.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:03 PM
"However millions of guns are sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows and through Internet sites (yes 356) without a required background check."
Theorist,
Can you document the millions? No Leftist websites with an agenda please, only real data.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:13 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:13 PM
Theorist
The killer who you stated would have been stopped in your precious background check purchased the guns legally and underwent background checks. The system failed and you lied
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:24 PM
"If private sales accounted for only 10 percent of overall sales -- the amount is certainly much higher --"
"If"?????
Your proof is based on supposition, so you have no proof.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:32 PM
I did not lie, I do not lie.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:27 PM
You stated a positive that you cannot guarantee.... you lied, own it.
And this is not the first time either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:37 PM
"And you are Liberal ? Seriously ?????"
On no Rick, she has stated that she is an Independent. Another lie in my opinion. I think she will have a real chore to try and sell the Independent Moniker anytime in the near future.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:41 PM
Theorist,
What law is going to stop all of the illegal gun sales? NONE
What background check is going to stop all the murders everyday in the cities? NONE
Background Checks and more laws for guns do nothing to solve the problems that we have.
It is going to have to be cleaning up the neighborhoods and clearing out the thugs and gangs.
Stiffer penalties and people speaking up to take back their cities.
The laws are already there they need heavier enforcement and to stop the revolving door at the prison. Lock their butts away for more than a month or 2.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:00 PM
I am sure that the Obama administration is already working on the statistics that will "prove" Obama's edicts to be a resounding success story. The entry for his memoirs is no doubt being prepared as we post.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:05 PM
Theorist has gone mad.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:18 PM
Theorist has gone mad.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:18 PM
It was a short trip!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:21 PM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:05 PM
I understand what you are saying but it isn't really going to make a huge difference like you believe.
It may save some but not to the extent as what you are being led to believe. The main thing it will cause is more issues for those who choose to buy their guns legally. It isn't going to really stop the flow of illegal guns.
Government overreach is a problem. Obama has taken things upon himself way to much to circumvent Congress just to get his way.
That is an abuse of power and I for one don't like it. Maybe it doesn't bother you but it bothers the heck out of me.
I am starting to feel like I live in Russia or somewhere that the Government runs the peoples lives and tells them what to think and do and how it is going to be or else.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:26 PM
Done! (And...I never claimed to be a liberal, never!)I am independent, I am progressive, I am compassionate and empathetic. And right now, I am mad!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:02 PM
"I am mad!"
I'll buy that..... Stark, Raving Mad!
And you should be denied the permission to purchase a handgun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:27 PM
Theorist is acting just like Little Adolf. If he doesn't get his way he throws a tantrum.
And that is the equivalent of what Theorist is doing right now. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:29 PM
If private sales accounted for only 10 percent of overall sales -- the amount is certainly much higher -- and there were about 20 million gun sales through licensed dealers in 2012, then private sales would be about 2 million. This reaches the technical threshold of "millions."
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 8:25 PM
Theorist: Your link sucks. The word "if" appears more than any actual info. IMO, why not use 1% which would be a more realist percentage which would then have private sales of only about 200,000 a far cry from millions. Never mind any Executive Order for gun control not passed by Congress will be made void by the courts.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:31 PM
Semo471
Theorist better simmer down a bit before she goes to her three jobs tomorrow. She may burn all the hamburgers at McDonald's in the morning.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:34 PM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:26 PM
Iamhere: I can see all the thugs now standing in line in some dark black market warehouse/car/truck where ever waiting for their background check to be approved/disapproved. Pres. Pinky is just trying to do some electioneering for the Democrats talking points.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:39 PM
I believe this is the first time I have seen Rick get totally P'd off. It was getting pretty heated for sure!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:39 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:34 PM
Wheels: Wish Theorist and Pres. Pinky would spend their energy on doing away with abortion which would save more lives than getting a few mom and dad private gun sellers to do back ground checks.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:43 PM
Posted by semo471 on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:43 PM
Wonder how many small gun sellers will be forced out of business?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:46 PM
The small private gun sellers is a much over hyped argument to get what the Left wants, eventual confiscation of guns. There is a goal they are working towards and they are using phony arguments to get there. Lying is ok if it advances the agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:58 PM
Wonder how many small gun sellers will be forced out of business?-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:46 PM
Iamhere: None, the courts will void the Executive Orders due to the by passing of Congress - it's that Constitution thing that Pres. Pinky has troubles with ....if might take a few months but it will happen.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 9:59 PM
I'm off for the night. Ya'll behave! :)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:03 PM
If I was to consider a big theory of a planned way to fundamentally change a country, I might look back to history. Seems the standard way to do it is take away peoples heritage and recall of what made them a great nation. The Chinese and Cambodian tyrants purged the countries of learned people and anyone that may know history.
The progressive 'Forwards' [as in Marx] liberals seem to have been obsessed with such ideology for a hundred years here in America now.
All this division of race, diversity, gun control and federal rules of education is just an extension and continuation through more modern day tactics.
Once people forget or are re-educated about our founding and the meanings of our constitution, they are ripe for an open mind, one of a new master.
It's just a more modern way of controlling a population.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 10:06 PM
Making this issue so clear that even the NRA will understand.
1. The Constitution stipulates the right to have guns.
2. Almost every American gun owner keeps and bears his guns legally.
3. Crazy people use guns to kill people.
4. Existing laws require gun buyers to obtain background checks to ensure the buyer is not crazy.
5. The definition of "gun seller" is a gray area in the law that can allow crazy people circumvent background checks and to legally buy guns.
6. Clarifying the regulatory portion of the law will limit access to guns for those crazy people.
7. This is not "new law" and can serve to keep more Americans safe.
8. Expanded background checks are supported by over 85% of Americans.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:52 AM
Z"4. Existing laws require gun buyers to obtain background checks to ensure the buyer is not crazy."
Not true. The background checks offer no means of determining that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:04 AM
"I have given you studies that prove gun-crime rates fall in expanded background check areas.... "
Chicago? Washington D.C.? Which areas?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:06 AM
Making this issue so clear that even the NRA will understand.
1. The Constitution stipulates the right to have guns.
2. Almost every American gun owner keeps and bears his guns legally.
3. Crazy people use guns to kill people. (Not all crazy people kill and not all killers are crazy)
4. Existing laws require gun buyers to obtain background checks to ensure the buyer is not crazy. (As per Shapely, look it up)
5. The definition of "gun seller" is a gray area in the law that can allow crazy people circumvent background checks and to legally buy guns.
(As per ATF rules one of the prohibited persons from owning a firearm: who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, so it is illegal for them to own one or anyone to transfer to them, o no matter how it's done it is never "legal".)
6. Clarifying the regulatory portion of the law will limit access to guns for those crazy people.(Prove it)
7. This is not "new law" and can serve to keep more Americans safe. (Change in law)
8. Expanded background checks are supported by over 85% of Americans. (Irrelevant, many things were once "supported" that have been found to be unconstitutional or support eroded)
-- Posted by 356 on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:42 AM
Someone must have peed in Rick's Post Toasties. :)
I am almost afraid to post anything. (not really just kidding)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:47 AM
Thanks for 79 straight months of growth in the overall economy...
(Tempe, Arizona) -- Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in December for the second consecutive month, while the overall economy grew for the 79th consecutive month, say the nation's supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business®.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:58 AM
Posted by Rick' on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM
:)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:08 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:58 AM
Ho hum (yawn)
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:10 AM
I am rested and ready to work for it anew!-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 5:58 AM
Theorist: Pray tell what you are going to do anew. If it's your attempt on this forum to change the minds of folks on here you might as well go back to sleep.
Now then to "Common" and the other bleeding hearts: None of Pres. Pinky's proposed Executive Orders will keep the crazies, thugs, felons, and those wanted for criminal charges from stealing or buying a gun from the black market. The President is just blowing smoke and trying to blame the Republicans in order to get some votes for Hillary the email queen.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:24 AM
"5. The definition of "gun seller" is a gray area in the law that can allow crazy people circumvent background checks and to legally buy guns."
No really:
18 USCS § 921(11) firearms dealer: "(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:34 AM
"6. Clarifying the regulatory portion of the law will limit access to guns for those crazy people."
Mere speculation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:35 AM
"7. This is not "new law" and can serve to keep more Americans safe."
It's not law at all, since laws are passed by the legislature. Whether or not it keeps Americans save is, again, mere speculation. It has not been shown that a significant number of firearms are purchased by "crazy people" using the "gun show loophole".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:37 AM
I have yet to see anything on here or anywhere else that proves this new set of abuse of authority orders will change anything.
Ask and ask for some kind of proof but none is ever provided.
Obama is just trying to make it look like he is doing something wonderful to protect the US but it is just more of the same ole same ole.
Someone (Congress) needs to step up and shut this abuse of Executive Action down.
He now wants 500 million more from Congress to do all this. They just gave him Trillions. Man how much more can we stand?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:39 AM
Here, for clarification, so even the Left can understand:
18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions:
"(a) As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "person" and the term "whoever" include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4) The term "destructive device" means--
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas--
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
(5) The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification or otherwise) if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
(7) The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
(8) The term "short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
(9) The term "importer" means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing firearms or ammunition into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed importer" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(10) The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed manufacturer" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(11) The term "dealer" means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term "licensed dealer" means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(12) The term "pawnbroker" means any person whose business or occupation includes the taking or receiving, by way of pledge or pawn, of any firearm as security for the payment or repayment of money.
(13) The term "collector" means any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics, as the Attorney General shall by regulation define, and the term "licensed collector" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(14) The term "indictment" includes an indictment or information in any court under which a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may be prosecuted.
(15) The term "fugitive from justice" means any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.
(16) The term "antique firearm" means--
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica--
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "antique firearm" shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.
(17)
(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means--
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
(18) The term "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United States [1]
(19) The term "published ordinance" means a published law of any political subdivision of a State which the Attorney General determines to be relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and which is contained on a list compiled by the Attorney General, which list shall be published in the Federal Register, revised annually, and furnished to each licensee under this chapter.
(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include--
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
(21) The term "engaged in the business" means--
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured;
(B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
(E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and
(F) as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.
(22) The term "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:
Provided
, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "terrorism" means activity, directed against United States persons, which--
(A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States;
(B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
(C) is intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
(23) The term "machinegun" has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)).
(24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
(25) The term "school zone" means--
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
(26) The term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
(27) The term "motor vehicle" has the meaning given such term in section 13102 of title 49, United States Code.
(28) The term "semiautomatic rifle" means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
(29) The term "handgun" means--
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.
[(30) , (31) Repealed. Pub. L. 103--322, title XI, § 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000.]
(32) The term "intimate partner" means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person.
(33)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C),[2] the term "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal [3] law; and
(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
(B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless--
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
(34) The term "secure gun storage or safety device" means--
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.
(35) The term "body armor" means any product sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his permanent duty station is located."
__________
All of that was debated by lawmaker and passed into law using the standard legal process. The President does not have the authority to change one line of it unilaterally.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:49 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:52 AM
So did you send this to the NRA also? That is the heading so maybe they need you to help them understand.
You seem to have a "fascination" with the NRA. Maybe you are really a secret member? And all of this is just a smokescreen to throw ppl off?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:50 AM
I'm a cereal killer
-- Posted by Rick' on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM
Rick,
That sound coming out of your Tepee.... is that you snoring? ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:59 AM
Theorist states that she isn't Mad as in angry anymore.
But when it comes to guns she is "Mad".... stark, raving "Mad". My diagnosis.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:05 AM
The federal government is also finalizing a rule to require background checks for those who try to buy sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and similar weapons through a trust, corporation or other legal entity.
And here is where a lot of those guns on the street can be legally bought.
Why would a corp. need a sawed of shotgun or machine gun?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:05 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:39 AM
Iamhere: With $19 trillion in debt the USA can't afford more waste of tax payers money. Since China's economy has taken a hit what would happen if China demanded their $1.2 trillion back that is owed to them by the USA.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:12 AM
Knew someone once that had a sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip. That thing looked wicked.
Had to fire it with one hand on the grip and the other on top of the barrels to keep from blowing your face off. Yikes!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:17 AM
If anyone needs a sawed off shotgun, you buy a shotgun and a hacksaw and with little effort you have a sawed off shotgun.
Ban hacksaws!! Another problem solved.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:19 AM
Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:12 AM
what would happen if China demanded their $1.2 trillion back that is owed to them by the USA.
Uh.. Can you say screwed?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:25 AM
"Why would a corp. need a sawed of shotgun or machine gun?"
Not sure, since I have no idea what kind of corporation we are talking about. Does the law allow corporations to buy that which individuals cannot buy? I rather think not. However, I would suspect that many gun dealers/collectors associations are incorporated, and may purchase their firearms through the corporation for tax reasons.
Now, a few questions for you:
1) Is the Right to Bear Arms predicated on immediate need? Are we only allowed to keep and bear arms when and the need is deemed valid by the government, or by others? If so, does this apply to other enumerated rights, such as the freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of religion? If so, can we truly call them 'rights'?
2) Why does the government need sawed-off shotguns and machine guns? Does not the militia (private citizens who may be called up for service to the State or the United States) have similar need?
3) Is there an indication that corporations are buying up quantities of sawed-off shotguns and/or machine guns? If so, have these sawed-off shotguns and/or machine guns being used in crime?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:37 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:05 AM
OK guys the crickets are getting loud in here.
I am not saying anything bad I am just curious.
HEEEELLLLLOOOOO?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:37 AM
China wants their money.... not a problem, print a $1.2 billion dollar bill and let Little Adolf deliver it personally. Maybe they will hold him for ransom.
Then he can become pen pals with those folks he left prisoner in Iran.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:39 AM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:37 AM
Shapley I don't have the answers I was just asking why for my own curiosity.
To say that these types of weapons can be bought without a background check is what kind of bothered me.
I also found that MO is 1 of only a few states where a class 3 dealer can sell silencers also.
Most don't even allow them.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:44 AM
Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:37 AM
Iamhere: When I clicked on your link it only bought up political news and nothing about saw off shot guns.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:49 AM
One of the problems with the United States vs. Miller decision is that the prohibition on sawed-off shotguns was not argued in court: Miller and his lawyers did not show up. A competent lawyer would have been able to show that the U.S. government ordered a quantity of sawed-off shotguns to distribute to troops stationed in the trenches during the Great War. It would be difficult, methinks, to argue that a weapon ordered by the government for close-combat fighting would not be of use to the militia, had anyone bothered to fight it.
The decision stated: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
This leads us back to the question. It is undeniable that, in close combat in tight quarters, a long gun is impractical due to the necessity to swing the barrel, and a pistol or other single-projectile hangun is less effective due to the need to aim more precisely. This is why riot control has often relied on shotguns for their effectiveness. Given that quelling riots (uprisings) is a part of the militia's duties, it would seem logical that shotgun, sawed off for maximum scatter effect, would be most efficacious.
Fully automatic firearms are most effective for suppressing fire. That is, fully automatic bursts are fired toward an enemy in order to drive them to seek cover and thus reduce the probability they will fire their weapons. Of course, they are also effective for riot control in that, like scatter guns, they maximize the number of projectiles fired in the direction of an advancing enemy. While a scatter gun is effective against a mob armed with pitchforks, scythes, clubs, shillelaghs, knives, and swords; a machine gun might be preferable against a mob carrying firearms.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:52 AM
"To say that these types of weapons can be bought without a background check is what kind of bothered me."
They can't. Not even by a corporation. Not even if a private seller owns one, since a license is required to own one. They have been tightly regulated since the 1930s, and require not just a license but a specific class of license to possess.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:54 AM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:54 AM
Shapley: But if a person wanted one and have the money then a black market dealer is waiting for that person.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:00 AM
"Shapley: But if a person wanted one and have the money then a black market dealer is waiting for that person."
Perhaps. But so is the FBI and the ATF. What is your point?
Where do you find these black-market dealers? It's not as if they are listed in the yellow pages under "black-market firearms dealers". To find one you would have to go around asking questions of they type that arouse suspicions.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:05 AM
Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:49 AM
Semo it is under the first part that covers Background Checks. The last paragraph in that section.
That is what I copied onto my post.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:09 AM
Shapley: Believe you know what I was referring about. Anyone can buy anything that is illegal from folks who hid in the dark shadows.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:12 AM
"Many gun owners have been hearing a lot about the benefits of "gun trusts," which are specifically designed to hold ownership of firearms. Usually, these trusts are used for firearms that are subject to strict federal and state regulations, but they may include other kinds of weapons as well. Gun trusts can make it easier to handle firearms after the owner's death--and may prevent surviving family members from inadvertently violating the law.
"Types of Weapons Held in Trust
"Commonly, gun trusts are used for weapons that are regulated by two federal laws: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and a revision of that law, Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. These weapons are often called NFA or Title II firearms. NFA weapons include machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns (including sawed-off shotguns), grenades, and others.
"NFA weapons must have a serial number and be registered with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, commonly called the ATF or BATF. (If such a weapon isn't already registered, you cannot register it; it is illegal to own.) They can be possessed and used only by the registered owner. To transfer a registered firearm, the owner must get ATF approval and pay a $200 tax ($5 for some items).
"Other federal laws also affect NFA weapons. For example, since 1986 it has been illegal to manufacture machine guns, and only those manufactured before that date may be legally purchased. (Firearm Owners Protection Act.) State laws may further restrict NFA firearms as well. For example, California outlaws silencers, machine guns, and automatic weapons or short-barreled shotguns, and other especially destructive or dangerous weapons.
"Benefits of a Gun Trust
"A gun trust can avoid some of the federal transfer requirements and accomplish other goals as well:
"Allow more than one person to possess and use the weapons held in trust. If you name more than one person as trustee, each trustee will have the right to possess or use the trust firearms.
"Keep the gun in the trust even after the current owner's death, avoiding the usual transfer requirements. If you create a trust and transfer firearms to it, you can arrange for the trust to stay in existence even after your death. The trustees and beneficiaries of the trust would have whatever rights you grant them in the terms of the trust. Because the firearm stays in the trust at your death, the transfer procedure is avoided. That means your inheritors don't have to pay $200 transfer tax, file an ATF transfer form, receive permission from the local chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), and get fingerprinted and photographed.
"Help the executor. The executor of your estate--the person who is responsible for gathering your assets, paying your debts, and distributing what's left--may not be familiar with the rules about ownership and possession of NFA and other weapons. An executor could violate criminal laws by transferring a weapon without going through the proper procedure, taking or sending it to a state where it is prohibited, or giving it to a person who is legally prohibited from owning it. (The Gun Control Act makes it unlawful for certain persons to possess firearms. The law prohibits anyone who was ever convicted of a felony or of misdemeanor domestic violence, is prohibited by a restraining order from harassing an intimate partner, uses a controlled substance unlawfully, or is an illegal alien, to name just some of the restrictions.) When firearms are in a trust, the executor is not involved; the trustee is in charge. You can name a trustee who is well-versed in state and federal gun laws.
"Avoid probate. Because the firearms are held by a trust, they do not need to go through probate at your death.
"Avoid possible future restrictions on gun transfers. Although no such legislation has been proposed, some gun advocates fear that someday it will be illegal to leave certain firearms to inheritors or transfer them during life. They hope that holding the guns in trust will let them get around any limitations if they are enacted.
"Making a Gun Trust
"A gun trust is quite different from the common revocable living trust, which is used, like a will, to leave your assets at death. A simple living trust allows survivors to transfer trust assets without going through probate court, which saves time and money after your death. It generally terminates shortly after your death, when the trust assets have been distributed to the people who inherit them. Many people make simple living trusts on their own, with the help of a good plain-English book or online service.
"A gun trust, on the other hand, may have multiple trustees, be intended to last for more than one generation, and must take into account state and federal weapons laws. If you want to leave guns in trust, consult a lawyer who has lots of experience with the state and federal laws that govern who can legally use and possess weapons and how they must be transferred."
__________
It is worth noting that only one federally-registered NFA firearm has been reported to have been used in crime, and that was by a police officer who, presumably, would not be affected by the changes to the law. The proposed change appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:16 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:39 AM
Wheels anyone else would have made that a priority to be met before anything else.
I haven't heard anything as to why the release of the prisoners wasn't talked about and demanded before going forward with anything else.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:20 AM
"Shapley: Believe you know what I was referring about. Anyone can buy anything that is illegal from folks who hid in the dark shadows."
I believe you know what I am talking about, as well. When you go poking about in those dark shadows, you expose yourself to all sorts of dangers, including crossing the attention of those who are charged with the task of keeping an eye on who goes into and comes out of the dark shadows.
It ain't as easy as they make it look on television, except for those who live their lives in those shadows, anyhow.
It's not as if there are a large quantity of fully-automatic firearms floating around out there. Before black-market sellers can sell them, they have to obtain them. This is done by smuggling them from other countries (illegal), converting semi-automatics to full automatic (illegal), stealing them (illegal, and difficult, since you have to know where they are to steal them), or manufacturing them (illegal).
Since the obtaining of them is already illegal, changing the law to make it more illegal probably won't help much.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:21 AM
"Shapley: But if a person wanted one and have the money then a black market dealer is waiting for that person."
It is also worth noting that other thugs are waiting for that person, and they do not intend to give him anything for his money other than a knot on his head or a knife in his back. Again, you'd best know your way around those dark shadows before you go into them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:24 AM
Shapley: I'm not condoning buying illegal arms in no way....I'm just saying someone like a felon or a criminal on the run might want to - what do they have to lose from the dark shadows.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:27 AM
Obama on the tube on cnn mouthing his new measures.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:36 AM
"Shapley: I'm not condoning buying illegal arms in no way....I'm just saying someone like a felon or a criminal on the run might want to - what do they have to lose from the dark shadows."
Which is why I have always advocated keeping felons and criminals locked up until it is ascertained they are no longer a threat. Sentences for violent crimes ought to be stiff enough to do that, and probation and parole ought to be reserved for non-violent criminals and those who have shown themselves to no longer be a threat.
We have entirely too many violent convicted offenders walking the streets.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:36 AM
OOPS! I missed what he laid out. Oh well.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:41 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:36 AM
Shapley: Very true, if a person can't do the time then don't do the crime.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:57 AM
Meanwhile Obama is to release another 17 from Camp Justice without saying were they will go. This as he makes us safer with more gun rules.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 1:14 PM
- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 1:14 PM
Old John,
That phony ******* is only interested in one thing, claiming he has a legacy.
Wonder what they had to put in his eye this morning to squeeze a tear out of him? Does he get extra points for that?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 1:30 PM
"Montel Williams Says He's 'Totally Fine With a Massive Use of Deadly Force in Oregon to Take Out Ammon Bundy'
"Montel Williams :
"I'm calling on Govt to end terrorist siege perpetrated by a bunch of hillbilly American Taliban"
And this is the state of America today. The "hillbilly American Taliban" have, at this point, been guilty only of breaking and entering a closed, remote government building and trespassing. But, the Left are fine with using deadly force to take them out. Meanwhile, we are expected to use compassion and understanding when cities are burned, citizens beaten, and stores looted. And, of course, we cannot stop funding abortion mills just because they are selling the organs of the babies they slaughter.
The handbasket has neared the end of its tether. Global warming is not caused by CO2, but rather by our proximity to the fires of the Nether Regions, IMHO.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 2:24 PM
Some One Needs to tell Montel Williams that the true American Taliban are the Hands Up Don't Shoot Law Breakers.
But no let's give them a free pass because they are not White.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 3:03 PM
Actually Obama did mention Chicago gun violence. He had rehearsed his lines well.
Regarding the folks in Oregon, the immediate uproar is over the two that served their time and then the sentences were changed to longer terms after they were released. A deeper resentment is federal government keeping citizens off what was sold to us as a public land.
If the government declares an area a national park and then forbids the public from using it, some folks aren't going to like it.
Or that's the way I understand it although I've only learned from what's been said by TV and radio.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 4:29 PM
I missed the speech. Started to watch but when I saw his assembled choir I went out and bought a nice little .357 tackle box revolver instead(from an unlicensed,eff you obama,friend) Ten boxes of shells with cash,too,before I have to 'splain anything. Also called my broker and got in heavy with a few gun manufacturers. Stocks shot up as the chosen one spoke. Totally wished I had seen the Jesus Wept moment though.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 4:47 PM
Posted by Rick' on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 2:54 PM
No need to apologize Rick. I understand. Go for it!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 4:53 PM
Rock: You might want to click on my you tube link in the speakout section.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 5:17 PM
"...been guilty only of breaking and entering a closed, remote government building and trespassing."
"...only guilty..."
What if it had been Americans of Mexican descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Agriculture facility because of mistreatment of legal immigrant farm workers.
Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out.
----- ---- --- -- -
What if it had been Americans of Middle Eastern descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Defense facility because of incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out.
----- ---- --- -- -
What if it had been Americans of African descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Justice facility because of the number of unarmed Black young men shot by police
Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out.
----- ---- --- -- -
And what if all three groups called themselves an American militia and claimed to be defending the Constitution.
Would the libertarians rush to their defense?
----- ---- --- -- -
Clearly there is no reason for "...a Massive Use of Deadly Force in Oregon to Take Out Ammon Bundy."
Just leave them alone and they'll leave. Besides the Bundys have to get back to file for more government assistance.
----- ---- --- -- -
5 Taxpayer Handouts the Bundys Receive While Railing Against Government "Tyranny"
Amanda Girard | January 5, 2016
"Nearly every part of the Bundy family's business is funded by government welfare programs.
The armed militiamen currently occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon have attempted to portray an image of themselves as rugged, independent Americans rejecting government interference in their businesses. But nearly every part of their existence as ranchers is made possible by government welfare programs -- even the building they're depending on for shelter from the cold was built by federal tax dollars as part of the New Deal program."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM
Why don't you just STFU Common, you hind end kissing of Obama is getting quite stale on here.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:31 PM
Wow, more adult contributions from the SO high priest of BS.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:37 PM
I have no idea.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:01 PM
"Bundy denied he was being hypocritical about the loan because it "was an effort in assisting the people in using their rights.""
Rick,
If Bundy is a US Citizen he has every right to borrow money from the SBA if he qualifies. Same as any resident of the ghettos has the right to his/her welfare.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:03 PM
"...only guilty..."
I actually said "...guilty only..."
"What if it had been Americans of Mexican descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Agriculture facility because of mistreatment of legal immigrant farm workers."
If it was closed and unoccupied at the time, as the one in Oregon was?
"Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out."
Probably not. Trespassing is generally not a capital offense. The right recognizes that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:13 PM
Why did the President cry today ?
-- Posted by Rick' on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:54 PM
Because he is still the same phony ******* who ran for President in 2007/2008. Nothing else could realistically explain it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:14 PM
"What if it had been Americans of Middle Eastern descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Defense facility because of incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
"Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out."
Probably, assuming it was not empty and unmanned, or contained military weaponry or technology. Otherwise, probably not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:16 PM
"What if it had been Americans of African descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Justice facility because of the number of unarmed Black young men shot by police
"Wouldn't the right be fine with using deadly force to take them out."
All these hypotheticals, and all with the obligatory racial component. Black radicals have taken over government buildings before, and "the Right" has not been okay with deadly force to remove them. What makes you think they suddenly would be?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:20 PM
From what I hear, Bundy was not invited to this party.
This started with the two that were incarcerated for starting a fire on government land. Some say it was a back fire designed to protect their own property. Anyway they went to jail, served the time and a judge decided the sentence was in error and should have been longer and they should return to jail. They have said they would comply but government wants to add new charges of trespassing now that they went into the closed buildings for media attention.
Again this is all from bits and pieces I've heard on the news.
I have to ask concerning common's response: Are you some kind of nut? No need to answer, I know the answer.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:59 PM
See the AP comments on Pres. Pinky's Executive Orders on new gun control:
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:07 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 7:59 PM
Old John,
Maybe you can join me as some kind of High Priest. Possibly we may be able to start our own religion.... before we decide on that, if we do, you can Preach, all I want to do is take up the collection.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:10 PM
even the building they're depending on for shelter from the cold was built by federal tax dollars as part of the New Deal program."-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM
Common: Let's see built by federal tax dollars....guess the ranchers were just trying to use their tax money built building for a question/answer session with the media. BTW, the black lives matters folks blocked freeways/malls/and public buildings - were was your outrage for this just as illegal doings.
Common, you have so much wisdom (or something) in your head that you probably have to wear earplugs in order to keep it all from flowing out.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:20 PM
Hmmmm...look who is mad now! Stark raving Wheels.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:16 PM
Theorist,
I am not mad, I have a head cold and a head ache and am tired of reading crap like Common and yes You, post. Your self righteous indignation is duly noted. Your fool's errand is very tiring.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:27 PM
Wheels, Can I change my name to Charlie or Joe the Baptist priest? I wonder if we could get Theorist to light the candles and be our publicity manager.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:31 PM
Theorist,
That bit about being schooled. That is hilarious. How could a couple of people on a fool's errand school the rest of us.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:32 PM
- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:31 PM
Sounds good to me..... but what do we call her, nun or sister, actually sister works, they call Nuns that and Baptists use that term. See how well this is coming together. Instead of being non-denominational, we can make this one multi-denominational. I got a really good friend that is Jewish, think I could enlist him to be our business manager.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:42 PM
Wheels, If we could recruit both Theorist and common, we could pretend a whole new meaning for speaking in tongues.
Before anyone decides they want to be offended...It's a joke!
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:47 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:31 PM
Wheels: Why would "Common" want to join this organization?
-- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:50 PM
Because it is as relevant as anything else he says or does.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 8:58 PM
Wheels, Do we need a parliamentarian? I think semo could handle the job.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:27 PM
Suits me, I think he could be our BS Artist, I mean Parliamentarian (How did you learn how to spell that). No wait a minute BS Artist is synonymous with Publicity Manager.... that would be Theorist's job.
Plain old Parliamentarian will have to do for Semo.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:34 PM
356, Can you be sergeant of arms?
Rick, Can you be outreach coordinator?
We need someone to get us on TV too.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:41 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:34 PM
Wheels & OJ: Sorry I'm not a Parliamentarian, I'm a Conservative Republican.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:43 PM
Old John
Is Conservative Republican a religion? Is Semo going to work out?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 9:53 PM
Wheels, Not sure about anything except this thread has been driven by Theorist and some others about an agenda to redefine the second amendment.
Our funnies serve to state our boredom with such repetition of the SOS.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:07 PM
Here's a song that they played at the beer summit hosted by "Common" and attended by Pres. Pinky:
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:19 PM
Wheels, Not sure about anything except this thread has been driven by Theorist and some others about an agenda to redefine the second amendment.
Our funnies serve to state our boredom with such repetition of the SOS.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:07 PM
Old John,
I think we and others should dedicate ourselves to the proposition that they fail in trying to destroy one more right. We only have one more year and 14 days plus a few hours to put up with this hopeless loser that has been elected twice by misguided fools. Hopefully we get someone in there with a little commonsense.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:20 PM
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:27 PM
Semo471
It is my goal to outlive this *******'s reign of terror.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:36 PM
Semo, First time I've saw that video, thanks, I enjoyed it.
Wheels, I think we can stand it. Not sure about some of our allies.
As a republic we are the government and I fear someday we will be held accountable as a nation that allowed those that represent us to get us where we are.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:06 PM
- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:06 PM
Old John,
I think you might call Washington DC a case study where the Monkeys are running the Zoo.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 11:16 PM
one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records...
Just wanted to add that this does not say the guns were actually purchased, just that one in 30 people looking to buy.
-- Posted by motrans on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 7:41 AM
-- Posted by Rick' on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 6:34 AM
Rick: Wonder if Pres. Pinky sheds any tears for the millions of babies that have been aborted since he became President....doubt it.
Most of us know the ways and means of buying guns over the internet as you stated except for those who are mentally blind and deaf and get all their answers from the Dear Abby advice line from the Rainbow House webpage.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 8:17 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM --
I should point out that Native Americans occupied Alcatraz back in the 1960s and 1970s. While I was but a young man then, I do not recall a vast outcry of people to kill them all and let God sort them out. The occupation went on for over a year and a half, as best I recall. Even though they were Red Men, "The Right" does not appear to have been aligned against them, and in fact their cause received sympathy from many on "the Right", who viewed their cause as having just underpinnings. Their demands for the return of lands, which the government agreed to do by treaty, was recognized by many as valid.
Thus, I would call your claim of racism somewhat flawed. However, the racialists of "the Left" appear ready to charge in and kill the Oregon ranchers. Oops! Sorry, they appear ready to let the government charge in and kill the Oregon ranchers. The pacifistic Left has had a sudden rush of Testosterone, it seems. We now know what it takes to get their dander up: white men with guns.
The Native Americans even took over a missile site (abandoned) about the same time, and over similar issues. That was ended forcefully, but not with significant levels of bloodshed, as best I recall. So, it seems, we do regard the taking of military facilities a bit more seriously than we do abandoned prisons and, hopefully, vacant bird sanctuary offices.
To be sure, if it weren't for the endangered birds, it strikes me that the Left would be willing to just drop a nuclear bomb on the structure and be done with it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 8:17 AM
"Thus, I would call your claim of racism somewhat flawed."
There was none. I pointed out that diverse groups are treated differently by American Society. There are a variety of causes and reasons for this disparate treatment, but they center on geographic, economic and racial.
Clearly I don't agree with what Montel Williams implied, but I would suspect that his possibly "knee-jerk" reaction may have had roots in the response to civil disobedience in US south years ago.
Presumably it was an innocent but distressing stab at humor, but I also don't really believe any "leftist" is considering the "nuclear option," birds or no birds. Unfortunately, some on here will believe it. And stretch it to conclude that President Obama is planning to unleash the North Koreans with their imaginary "H-bomb" on the east central Oregon plateau. (Note to SO: the previous sentence is a complete fabrication, totally untrue, sarcasm, has no basis in fact, etc.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:04 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 8:17 AM
Thanks for "schooling" the teacher SH.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:07 AM
"(Note to SO: the previous sentence is a complete fabrication, totally untrue, sarcasm, has no basis in fact, etc.)"
As is the case in most of your posts. Thanks for being honest for a change.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:12 AM
Still haven't caught on to that reading skill, have you?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:22 AM
Oh I read quite well Mr. Sage. As a matter of fact I got quite a few stars for it from the Nuns who taught me in Grade School.
You know, back in the days when you could receive some kind of award without having to present one to the whole class lest the "Politically Correct" crowd show up to protest.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:29 AM
I see today's political cartoon portrays one as having a "fetish" if they want or own a gun.
I suppose that is what Daniel Boone and a host of other frontiersmen had in the past history of our country.... a "fetish".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:36 AM
"Should anyone else have publicly made the Montel statement they would have been chastised and banned from public FCC . Ask Don Imus . Ask Paula Dean."
People of Montel's shade of color are a protected species.
What if someone like "Hannity" had called for that to happen in Ferguson. He is about as radical "Right" as someone like "Montel Williams" is radical "Left".
Comes under the heading of different strokes/rules for different folks.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:52 AM
Wow, more adult contributions from the SO high priest of BS.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 6:37 PM
This from the guy that post a comedians fake story Monday and thought it was a true story. Absolutely hilarious! Doesn't get any worse BS than that. You've set a new definition for "low info" voter.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:26 AM
Sacred Clown - Yep
Phony Courage - Yep
Big Mistake - Yep
I think that pretty much covers the occupant of the White Domed House.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:26 AM
"There was none. I pointed out that diverse groups are treated differently by American Society. There are a variety of causes and reasons for this disparate treatment, but they center on geographic, economic and racial."
You specified the race of each one of your hypotheticals.
You also ignore an important distinction, the Oregon ranchers occupied an empty and remote outpost. No one was threatened by their occupation, because there was no one to threaten. In each of your hypotheticals, you made no mention of isolation or of occupation of the facilities prior to the action, so we are left to guess at your meaning.
The hypotheticals, and your explanation, also ignore an important component: the historical action of the group. If the historically non-violent ranchers gather with arms to protest, it is a fair assumption they will continue their non-violence during the protest. The fact they are armed suggests caution, naturally, but there is little reason to react violently to non-violent protest.
If another group has a history of violence during their demonstrations, if their occupation of the facility is destructive or violent, or if it is accompanied by looting and burning, then the response is likely to be different, regardless of the racial or economic status of those involved.
Based on the reports I've seen, they ranchers in Oregon have merely occupied the building. They have not looted nor burned it, thrown furniture out the windows, held hostages, nor otherwise destroyed significant property. Hardly the thing that qualifies a violent response to rectify.
Compare that to the looting and burning that took place in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere. While peaceful protests took place there, they were accompanied by violent acts either from participants or from opportunists who took advantage of the situation to create mayhem.
_________
" We now know what it takes to get their dander up: white men with guns."..." it strikes me that the Left would be willing to just drop a nuclear bomb on the structure and be done with it."
"The all knowing Shapley appears he believes he KNOWS what everyone else thinks.."
Obviously not. "Getting ones dander up" does not imply thought, but rather reaction. We can tell when a person "has their dander up" without knowing what they are thinking. You are wrong, again.
Apparently, also, you do not understand what "it strikes me" means. The meaning is similar to "it seems to me", suggesting that my observation is such. Again, it does not require me to "KNOW" what anyone is thinking.
You don't have to know what I was thinking to understand that, you only have to read what is written with an understanding of the language.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:29 AM
but I would suspect that his possibly "knee-jerk" reaction may have had roots in the response to civil disobedience in US south years ago.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 9:04 AM
Common: Don't forget about the injustice of the Native Peoples, Japanese, Irish, Polish, and Germans inhabitants from the then "Americans" at various times of the American history.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:38 AM
A huge difference in Commons spin can usually be found in his arguments. He made another big one in this sentence:
"What if it had been Americans of Mexican descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Agriculture facility because of mistreatment of legal immigrant farm workers."
He makes no distinction between private farmers alleged abuse (migrant workers) and abuse by the federal government (Bundys).
Or maybe his source is Carrot-Top or Jon Stewart this time?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:49 AM
A huge difference in Commons spin can usually be found in his arguments. He made another big one in this sentence:
"What if it had been Americans of Mexican descent, who armed themselves with legally owned AR-15's and took over a Department of Agriculture facility because of mistreatment of legal immigrant farm workers."
He makes no distinction between private farmers alleged abuse (migrant workers) and abuse by the federal government (Bundys).
Or maybe his source is Carrot-Top or Jon Stewart this time?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:49 AM
"The all knowing Shapley appears he believes he KNOWS what everyone else thinks.."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:29 AM
Now, now SH.... don't go too hard on poor Theorist. She has gone "Mad". Even has said as much herself. "It strikes me"..... Stark, raving Mad is a better description.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:52 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 10:52 AM --
I know, for example, what it takes to get Theorist's dander up, and to get her YELLING. I do not claim to know, however, what she is thinking as she YELLS like that, or if she is thinking at all.
It strikes me, in fact, that I probably don't want to know what she is thinking (if she is thinking), even if I cared to try.
Perhaps the violence implied by the use of the phrase "it strikes me" was simply too strong. ;)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:32 AM
Tell me omniscient one, who are you referring to as "we", and who are you referring to when you say "their"....think carefully here...for you are going to have to boogie to justify what you said. -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:32 AM
===
He shouldn't have to boogie too long or too far. took me less than a minute to find abuse of "we" by "you" on this very thread - oh omniscient one.
Does it say we shouldn't? that we can't? -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:41 AM
We need a truly universal system of background checks for gun buyers, one that will include purchases made online and at gun shows! We need to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and suspected terrorists. We need Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it. -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:43 AM
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:38 AM
"Tell me omniscient one, who are you referring to as "we", and who are you referring to when you say "their"....think carefully here...for you are going to have to boogie to justify what you said."
"We" refers to those of us who now know, obviously. I assume that does not include you.
I don't have to justify it. It should be obvious to those who think.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:52 AM
"We need Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it."
A curious one, there. Is it more presumptious to claim to know what "we" think or to presume to know what "we" need?
"We", the people, have not seen fit to pass such a bill, because "we" the people have elected representatives who disagree on the need for such a bill. That would seem to divide us into two categories: those who believe "we" the people don't need it and the nannies who believe they know better what "we" need.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:55 AM
"You also didn't try to justify who "their" is...I think that was probably wise."
There was no need to, that was already justified in the original context:
"The pacifistic Left has had a sudden rush of Testosterone, it seems. We now know what it takes to get their dander up: white men with guns."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 11:58 AM
So, unless you consider "everyone else" to be a part of the "pacifistic Left", your comment that I claim to "KNOW" what "everyone else" is thinking is way off the mark.
Will you be willing to admit that error, or is that something you only demand of others?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:01 PM
"We need a truly universal system of background checks for gun buyers, one that will include purchases made online and at gun shows!"
Can't you think of anything original Theorist? You have been told repeatedly we already have background checks at gun shows and on line. The law is being followed yet you insinuate repeatedly, that it is not. We all know that background checks are not required of private sales. The law specifically exempts them. You want "every" sale to be covered by a background check, we already know that. Good luck on getting it to take place. If required by law checks are not being performed then arrest and prosecute the lawbreakers and leave the rest of us alone. Please come up with something original instead of the same old false chants.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:01 PM
"Can't you come up with anything original, Wheels? I am glad you have calmed down though...I thought you were about to have a medical emergency..."
Calmed down, when was I anything but calm on this thread?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:07 PM
We, they, their, you, who...........reminds me of English 4 in high school. Oh, don't forget about Bill Clinton's the meaning of "is". What difference at this point does it make?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:12 PM
"We need a truly universal system of background checks for gun buyers, one that will include purchases made online and at gun shows! We need to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and suspected terrorists. We need Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who warrant psychiatric help are getting it.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 11:43 AM
You used, "We need" three time in that paragraph. I think maybe you should change your name to Weneda.
While you may need something to make you happy does not necessarily include many of the rest of us. I for sure do not "need" all of those things you enumerated.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:13 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 12:46 PM
Theorist: Does even the Left know what they are thinking?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 1:20 PM
"We" know what "the Left" is thinking by paying close attention to what "you all" do and little attention to what "you all" say. This is quite "Common-esque".
"I' believe that "they" (the left) believe strongly in
-more gun control
-massive welfare expansion
-social justice through government payouts (reparations for slavery, forced "equality", etc.)
-government takeover of health care
-massive expansion of government and control of its citizens
===
I don't understand why you leftist post on SO supporting such and then deny it later. I posted what I believe a conservative values by copying one that said it pretty well for ME. IMO. I don't cower or run from any of those tenets.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 1:58 PM
"however, you think you know what 'the left' is thinking, which of course, you do not."
No. I didn't say that. I said "we" (the nature of whom I have already explained) know what it takes to get "their" dander up. I explained that, as well.
I also used the adjective "pacifistic" to limit "the Left" only to that specific demographic.
But, you'll have to show me where I presumed to know what they were thinking. While you're at it, you can explain to me how it is that you know what "we" need.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 2:15 PM
Theorist,
Something to think about as you crusade to limit people's rights to own and carry a gun. You might think or how many lives may have been saved by this one man's decision to carry a gun to protect his young family. Kudos to him!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM
This one in St. Louis is even better. 2 thugs grab a daughter by the hair and drag her into the house to assault and rob the family. The mother saw it happen outside and dad grabbed his gun and we have 1 thug dead and the other wounded and headed to jail.
===
Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion
The 17-year-old girl was outside her home in St Louis, Missouri at 11pm when the two men grabbed her and put a gun to her head
The girl's father, 34, saw the men approaching the front door with his daughter and grabbed his own gun to fire shots at them
The girl's mother, 34, also fired shots with her gun
Terrell Johnson, 31, pronounced dead at the scene while second suspect Cortez McClinton, 33, suffered gunshot wounds to the chest and thighs
McClinton released from jail in January 2013 after a murder case against him collapsed due to lack of witnesses
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 2:51 PM
Dug,
A happy ending in both cases, in yours one thug dead and no innocent people die. In my story the positive is innocent people were not killed. Only two things with both of our stories combined. One, the 2nd thug in your story survived and will be out with a gun in short order. The thug in my story was only arrested and probably will be up to mischief again within the next 6 months.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 3:39 PM
True Wheels. All we ever here is about lives lost, lives lost, lives lost. I'll bet the thug killed with a gun by that dad is included in the lefts hysteria of how many people are killed with guns.
I wonder how many thugs are in their numbers? I might google that. :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 3:42 PM
Statistic show that criminals are less likely to commit more crime after they've been shot. The likelihood of recidivism decreases with the severity of the shooting. The reports indicate there is a zero probability of recidivism if the shooting is fatal.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 4:33 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 4:33 PM
How do you know what dead criminals think? How dare you.
:-) :-) :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 4:47 PM
"The reports indicate there is a zero probability of recidivism if the shooting is fatal."
SH
Better prepare your defense of that statement. If Theorist sees it she is sure to challenge it as being a fact.
It is possible that she disagrees with your statements more than she does mine.
I must be erring somewhere if I have said anything she agrees with.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 5:08 PM
".... but the continued discussion expands our minds."
Some on here might have expanded butts by now. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:28 AM
"but the continued discussion expands our minds."
A mind can be expanded only if it is open.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:02 AM
"And stretch it to conclude that President Obama is planning to unleash the North Koreans with their imaginary "H-bomb" on the east central Oregon plateau."
The Chinese are apparently convinced the bomb isn't imaginary. They have taken the unusual step of issuing a condemnation of it.
Unless, of course, the Chinese are in on the ruse.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:34 AM
"I hope you were able to find the key!"
Ha....... ha........ ha!
Theorist
In my lifetime, I have worked for and spoken with people from the very poorest to some very wealthy people. I have dined with people in a grocery store with their white rubber boots taking their lunch break from their job of cleaning fish to Senators.
I have always tried to listen and learn something because I felt each and every one had something to say that I might find useful. Some of it was, some of it was not.
Since I have retired 16 years ago, I have done everything from help a poor man pull nails out of boards he was salvaging from a house to be torn down to repairing friends computers.
I think you will find me open to about anything legal in mind and body, but I choose what it is I will believe and do very carefully.
A closed mind I do not have, regardless of what you think.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 10:07 AM
To some on here even if a "key" was found and used it to open the mind, there wouldn't be anyone home.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 12:49 PM
Theorist: Don't forget to watch CNN tonight, you might pick up some talking points straight from Pres. Pinky thus voiding the need to get on the Dear Abby Rainbow House webpage. I'll be watching a gun and hunting show on the Out Door channel.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 12:54 PM
Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 12:54 PM
Oh yeah the Prez is hosting The Town ***** (OOPS that was Bill) I mean The Town Hall.
Beating that set of new Executive abuses into the ground.
I am sure there is something else more important to watch. Yes there is. A new First 48 is on.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 1:58 PM
Hope The Prez doesn't do the onion thing in his interview, it might work for his devoted followers but not to those of us who can see thru see snake oil sales pitch.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 7:15 PM
Funny how the media went on and on about crybaby Boehner but find it an admirable trait in their leader.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:14 PM
Funny how the media went on and on about crybaby Boehner but find it an admirable trait in their leader.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:14 PM
Empathy, passion, true concern....
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:37 PM
Pure unadulterated BS in both cases Theorist.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:43 PM
Empathy, passion, true concern....
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 8:37 PM
Actually, Miss highly educated fellow poster, it has been a long time consensus in the learned world that emotional control as in holding back tears is diminished by the effects of continued dependency of alcohol and drug usage. I will be the first to admit I find myself teary in some movie scenes.
That said, some actors are very good at crying on demand and since the president is nearly a god in a few folks minds, it shouldn't be hard for even you to understand.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:02 PM
OJ: It's that compassion for his fellow mankind when talking about gun control....Pres. Pinky what about all the babies aborted and those sold for body parts - does that bring a tear to your eyes.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:23 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:20 PM
Theorist: Why don't you talk to Mic2, he's lonely you're lonely a perfect match.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:27 PM
Not angry or alcohol Theorist, just the facts.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:35 PM
Is it just me or does Pres. Pinky's statement - "you can keep your guns" sound similar to "you can keep your doctor".
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:38 PM
Is it just me or does Pres. Pinky's statement - "you can keep your guns" sound similar to "you can keep your doctor".
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 9:38 PM
Common will explain that statement to you Semo471. He will tell you how it was true when he said it
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 10:19 PM
Wheels: Common and Theorist must still be on cloud 9 and haven't come back down to earth after their Cry-In-Chief was on TV last night.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jan 8, 2016, at 11:20 AM
Semo471
Obama was knee deep in it last night and Common has not yet completed his job of boot polishing this morning.
Don't know about Theorist, perhaps one of her three jobs is flipping hamburgers at McDonalds and it's her morning to work?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 8, 2016, at 11:28 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Jan 8, 2016, at 12:09 PM
I believe Ronnie Pieros will also answer to his maker for his crime. I just hope that the next woman he tries to assault is armed and arranges a meeting with his maker for him.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 8, 2016, at 12:27 PM
For the record.... to help the NRA fight Obama's Executive Order, which I do not feel is legitimate, as his covering some folks for licensing that have been specifically exempted by Congress, I find to be law making not rule making, I have once again become a member and paid 5 years dues. As far as special requests for future funding, that remains to be seen how I would handle it.
I am absolutely against one man rule for America, I do not care what the justification might be used to justify it. I do not want to live under a dictatorship.
This country needs to get back on track.
1.) Congress needs to make the laws with the agreement of the Executive Branch.
2.) The Executive Branch needs to enforce all laws as written. If it needs to be changed, do it legally.
3.) The Judicial Branch needs to interpret if of not a law is Constitutional.... period. No legislating from the bench.
This country is off track and that is the reason and the only reason a man like Trump has garnered the support he has. People are angry.
They are tired of the country being run for the benefit of the relative handful in Washington at the expensive of the public as a whole.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jan 9, 2016, at 9:00 PM
A word of caution. Opening up a Constitutional Convention could see all kinds of craziness brought up. I believe the President's powers are already limited and Congress is at fault for allowing any President to overreach.
And now you will hear how precedent has already been set for this. Precedent be damned the Constitution is the document we should live by and if Congress has given the President powers not set out in the Constitution, maybe that should be challenged.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 11:40 AM
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 10:28 AM
Iamhere: Don't think a convention is needed, just have Congress and the States attempt to make changes to the Constitution per the methods in the Constitution.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:11 PM
Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:11 PM
Actually this allowed in the Constitution which is why he brought it up.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:17 PM
Actually this allowed in the Constitution which is why he brought it up. -- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:17 PM
Thats what I was thinking. There's a reason this option is spelled out in the Constitution - to allow the states to deal with the potential of an overreaching power in a centralized government.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:20 PM
Can we image a Constitutional Convention that could actually get anything done....all one has to do is to look at the inaction of Congress. We don't have the people now that would have the ways and means of our Founding Fathers that would put all thoughts aside except that of the good of the people and the Republic.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:27 PM
It takes 2/3 of states to hold the convention and 3/4 of states to add an amendment to the Constitution.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:29 PM
Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:27 PM
It has only a small chance of happening but if it could be worked out..... Who knows?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:33 PM
Wheels I can't get your link to work. What is it that you posted?
It says "Sorry the page you are looking for can't be found".
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:40 PM
It has only a small chance of happening but if it could be worked out..... Who knows?-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:33 PM
Iamhere: Very true but I would like to have additional changes made to the Constitution one amendment at a time.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:41 PM
Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:41 PM
I think he laid out abt 9 but not as a package. I believe they would have to be admitted 1 at a time and as I said it would take 3/4 of the states to add one.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:48 PM
It says "Sorry the page you are looking for can't be found".
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 12:40 PM
That is because I cut and pasted it from your original post as a reference only. Sorry by the that.
We have been that on here before and why it won't work but I have forgotten why. To make sure it a link works it is better to bring it up and then copy the command line directly from the page.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:10 PM
Iam, Wheel's link I think is yours copied to clarify what he was responding to.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:17 PM
The last 3 dots are black not blue when copied the 2nd time.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:19 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:10 PM
Good Lord how many typos can you have in one post. I will try again.......
That is because I cut and pasted it from your original post as a reference only. Sorry about that.
We have been there before and why it won't work but I have forgotten why. To make sure if a link works it is better to bring it up and then copy the command line directly from the page.
Note: I think Old John nailed it. He must have aa better memory than me.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:37 PM
Sorry all did not realize that. I thought that maybe there was an updated article.
Watching Fox news Sunday right now and Denis McDonough just said Obama is going to ask Congress to close Gitmo and he said if they won't then Obama will.
This is going to be a long year.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 1:41 PM
Since he seems to have tunnel vision on closing Gitmo there must be a good reason. Perhaps if he closes Gitmo the head Imam will give him the highly sought after title of head goat buster.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 2:06 PM
Wheels: There is big money in goats.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 3:17 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 3:50 PM
Wheels: Guess it got lonely on the hillside while watching the herd.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 4:37 PM
Thanks Wheels and Semo, Now excuse me while I bleach my eyeballs!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 5:12 PM
We aim to please.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 5:43 PM
Iamhere: This is what happens when the PC Liberal Democrats take the day off to stock up talking points from the Dear Abby Rainbow House webpage.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 6:23 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 7:52 PM
Theorist: If a study was formed the 23% increase in gun homicides probably would be in the Ferguson area and in the inter city of St. Louis where the thugs rule the streets. The 16-percent increase in suicides (as of 2007 forward) could be the election of Pres. Pinky which caused some to lose all hope. The previous statements were from unscientific studies.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 8:16 PM
Two studies. What's a study? Is it a bunch of libs pouring over what sounds good to the cause?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 8:24 PM
Theorist,
Your claims would have more validity if you furnished some facts on who made these studies.
Since we are into Myths and Facts, you might find the following interesting..............
This week, President Barack Obama announced executive actions related to guns. Here are 10 common myths about firearms.
Myth No. 1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a background check due to the "gun show loophole."
Facts:
When the president and others refer to the "gun show loophole," they imply that there are no background checks being done at gun shows. As a result, much of the public has been misinformed and are led to believe that individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows are not subject to a background check.
In reality, there is no "gun show loophole." If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.
The only firearms that are being purchased at gun shows without a background check are those being bought and sold between individuals, peer-to-peer, as opposed to buying a firearm from a gun dealer. These private sales are not at all different from selling a personal hunting rifle to the owner's niece or nephew down the road. It is a private sale, and no background paperwork is required. The gun is private property, and the sale is made like a sale of the family's good silver. The one difference is that the locus of a gun show is being used to make the private sale.
Under current law, an individual is permitted to occasionally sell part, or all, of his personal firearms collection. These private sellers, however, cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. "Engaged in the business" means they can't repeatedly sell firearms with the principal objective of earning funds to support themselves. Some of the individuals who wish to sell a portion, or all, of their personal firearms collection do so at the show and might display their wares on a table. These "private table sales," however, are private, peer-to-peer sales and, therefore, do not require a background check. The president cannot change criminal statutes governing requirements for which sellers must conduct background checks. His new actions don't do so and don't claim to do so.
In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if the seller "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that the buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc.).
Myth No. 2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.
Fact:
Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing; purchases made by prohibited individuals, including non-residents; and the attempted sale of any illegal firearms.
Myth No. 3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the Internet are not subject to background checks.
Facts:
An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly from a firearms retailer over the Internet and have that firearm shipped to him directly. An individual can pay for the firearm over the Internet at websites and online sporting goods retailers. The firearm, however, must be picked up from a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store. In many cases, this is the brick-and-mortar store associated with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the retail store, the Internet purchaser must then fill out the requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the NICS background check process. Thus, an Internet purchase of a firearm from a firearms retailer requires a background check.
Individuals from the same state are able to advertise and purchase firearms from one another and use the Internet to facilitate the transaction. It is unlawful, under current law, to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is out of state. Any Internet sale, even between individuals, that crosses state lines would have to utilize a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store, and the purchaser would be required to fill out the requisite state and federal paperwork and would undergo a background check.
Myth No. 4: The president's Jan. 5 executive action on gun control represents landmark change regarding gun control.
Facts:
With few exceptions, Obama's executive action on firearms is nothing more than rhetoric regarding the status quo. Many senators have long argued for better and more robust enforcement of existing laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns.
It is the current law of the land that anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms license. The president's action does not change current law, but merely restates existing court rulings on the meaning of "engaged in the business."
Myth No. 5: The Obama administration has made firearms enforcement a priority.
Facts:
The Obama administration has used its limited criminal enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, and civil rights cases. The latter two categories represent important work, but the Department of Justice lost track of one of its core missions of enforcing criminal law: prosecuting violent criminals, including gun criminals.
The Obama administration is only now making firearms enforcement a priority. Clearly, enforcing the gun laws is a new initiative, or one of the president's actions would not have been informing all of the 93 U.S. attorneys about it.
Proof of this lack of enforcement is revealed in the decline of weapons-related prosecutions during the Obama administration. As data obtained from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal, firearms prosecutions are down approximately 25 percent under the Obama administration versus the last year of the Bush administration.
Myth No. 6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.
Facts:
People with certain levels of mental illness are not permitted to own guns. Many of the recent mass killings were committed by mentally ill individuals. One of the keys to preventing further mass shootings and violence committed with firearms is addressing the issue of mental health.
Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns can work only if states provide mental health records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced legislation that would provide incentives for states to submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS database.
Myth No. 7: Obama's executive action on gun control will thwart criminals' ability to obtain firearms.
Facts:
The president's executive action regarding firearms is focused primarily on individuals who attempt to purchase firearms through the background check process.
Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, including home invasion robbery; trading narcotics for firearms; burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses; and straw purchasing.
My legislation, Senate Amendment 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents.
Myth No. 8: There is a general consensus in America that greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in the United States.
Facts:
Despite the president's statement to the contrary, polls have shown that the majority of Americans do not believe that stricter gun control would reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States.
The American public does not believe that making it harder for law-abiding Americans to obtain guns makes America safer. In fact, polls have shown that a majority of Americans thinks the United States would be safer if there were more individuals licensed and trained to carry concealed weapons. A majority opposes re-imposition of the "assault weapons" ban.
Myth No. 9: The terrorist "no-fly" list is a proper mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms. --Obama, Jan. 5
Fact:
The no-fly list is actually multiple lists, which are generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. This puts the right to bear arms in our most closely guarded rights, similar to the rights to free speech and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment right without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Myth No. 10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell semi-automatic weapons. --Obama, Jan. 5
Fact:
There is nothing unlawful about a semi-automatic firearm. A semi-automatic firearm simply means that a round is discharged with each pull of the trigger. These include most shotguns used for waterfowl hunting and rifles commonly used for target shooting.
Written by Sen. Chuck Grassley for the Daily Signal
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 8:43 PM
My Grandpa's house had a study. As a very youngster I studied why my dog got along with my cats an no other cats.
My point is that you have went searching for anything to bolster your hype and continue to ignore logic.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 8:44 PM
Wheels: Thought this was worth repeating:
"Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns can work only if states provide mental health records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced legislation that would provide incentives for states to submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS database."
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 9:07 PM
Protect peoples medical records or give all to federal government?
Seems to me the government has created another cluster study.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 9:19 PM
Well it appears Theorist is not going to release the name of the organizations who did the studies, so we can scratch that information as immaterial and unwarranted.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 9:30 PM
Someone posted once that the main purpose of college professors was to do studies and research, [never mind the teaching part]. The never mind was my interjection, lest I be accused of lying.
Maybe Theorist based the legitimacy of her study on that?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 9:39 PM
"Someone posted once that the main purpose of college professors was to do studies and research, [never mind the teaching part]."
Old John,
You left out "indoctrination" part..... where they suck the young and impressionable into their Socialistic Ways.
Fortunately, knowing what they were about to be subjected to, my advice to my children when they went off to school was precisely this, go and get an education, that is your purpose and don't forget to retain your common sense. It worked admirably, not a Leftist among them.
I will bet you $100, my oldest daughter will still remember her assignment to go to wherever necessary at St. Louis University to get the $25 donation to MOPIRG that you made if you did not read the small print requiring you to uncheck the box that you wanted to make a donation to them.
I told her that unless the University wanted to give her an education free of charge I wanted the $25 back or there would be no more checks written for St. Louis University. I got the refund.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 9:59 PM
Common and Theorist must be having trouble getting on line at the Dear Abby Rainbow House webpage because they have been quite all day.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 10:15 PM
I'm easily influenced. Some one mentions 3 beer chili and I'm off to set out the makings of a bit different but similar recipe.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 10:29 PM
This soldier on leave feeling a lot of guilt decides he needs to go to Confession.
He goes into the confessional and starts out....
Father I have sinned, last night I beat the crap out of a flag burner and an Obama supporter.
The Priest says, my son, I am here to forgive your sins, not discuss your Community Service.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 11:00 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 5:54 AM
Theorist: Yes I do but failed to spell quiet correctly; however, the rest of the comment was correct.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 8:32 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 5:54 AM
Theorist: How old is that study....Daniel Webster died in 1852.
Here again the study is skewed by the thug's uprising in the inter-cities of St. Louis and Kansas City after Pres. Pinky's election.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:08 AM
"While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose 17 percent relative to the rest of the U.S. in the five years after 2007, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the previous five years. The question is why the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the United States at a slower rate after the change in the law than it did prior to it. Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM
"Johns Hopkins' gun violence study flawed, twisted"
"There is a lot of arbitrary cherry-picking of the data," said John R. Lott Jr., president of Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization that studies the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety. "Other research that looked at all the states, not just one, comes to a different conclusion."
"While it is true that murder rates increased by 16 percent in Missouri during the controlled time-period of the study, there is evidence to suggest that murder rates actually slowed down after the regulation was rescinded, he said. "Most likely, getting rid of the law slowed the growth rate in murders."
It's a detailed, highly researched unbiased "study" Theorist therefore you must believe this.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:39 AM
One of the problems with that study is that ignores the fact that there were more homicides in Missouri in 2005, when the background check law was in place, than there has been in most years since the law was repealed.
What I find curious about this report, however, is that we had more "Murder Arrests" than "Murder offenses" every year from 2001 to 2007, but that changed after 2007, with the exception of 2009, when Murder Arrests again exceeded Murder Offenses.
It is also worth noting that, with the exception of rape, which has risen markedly, violent crimes rose between 2001 and 2007, and have fallen sharply in the years since.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:49 AM
We cannot have studies presented on here that do not help the gun control nuts cause.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:48 AM
"This guy knows his stuff."
What makes you think that? He knows how to use statistics to support his position. Note his title.
Mr. Kopel makes a valid point, which you have not refuted: the trend was in place before the repeal, and yet he attempts to credit the repeal with the continuation of that trend, which he does by ignoring that it was a trend in the first place. As Mr. Kopel notes, the trend increased at a slower rate after the repeal, which can just as easily justify a claim that the repeal helped slow the rate of increase.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 11:59 AM
"it was the wrong move, and that is clear (to me at least)."
And I disagree. It was seen as intrusive and, based on the data, ineffective.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 12:00 PM
Again, the raw numbers speak for themselves: with the exception of rape, which has risen markedly, violent crimes rose between 2001 and 2007, and have fallen sharply in the years since.
Or do you need a scholarly study to put that into some kind of context before you can accept it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 12:03 PM
"These recommendations represent the consensus of the experts presenting at the Johns Hopkins Gun Policy Summit. However, it may not be the case that every expert endorsed every specific recommendation."
This guy is all hung up with the fact that his panel are "Experts". Yet his opponents receive no such credibility. Hmmmmmmm! Do you think he might have an agenda...... and be just a tad bit biased.
Theorist, I am sure you believe every word of it.... it fits your agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 12:27 PM
We all are pretty set in our views and somehow I don't think that any study or findings will change our thinking.
We all actually want the same thing we just don't agree on how to reach that goal.
When it comes to Mental Health records there is a problem of who decides who can or cannot have guns.
Not everyone with depression is suicidal or homicidal. It would end up being decided by a Dr.'s opinion and then what if someone who is cleared suddenly goes on a spree? All heck will break loose then the blame will start flying along with lawsuits.
There is also a persons right to privacy to consider.
A lot of ppl don't seek mental health care so there is another issue.
IMO more background checks will do nothing to stop the issues that we have.
The laws in place need to be enforced more strictly.
Theorist feels strongly on this subject and you have to respect that but it doesn't mean that you have to agree.
I really don't see a right or wrong on this just different opinions on how to reach the same goal.
Just saying.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:02 PM
Sorry didn't mean to stop the conversation.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:19 PM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 11:59 AM
Theorist: You seem to have disappeared and I was trying to goat you into replying....looks liked it worked even though a little late. BTW, part of my comment was directed to Common who is MIA.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:53 PM
"How can you make an exception for rape..."
I didn't make an exception, I merely noted that it was running counter to the trend. No word in the report, however, that suggests that "forcible rape" is responsible for the increase, nor firearms. More likely, it is due to increased awareness of "date rape" and could thus be due, not to more rapes but due to more reporting of them.
"I am looking at the numbers, Shapley."
And so you see they support what Mr. Kopel says. The trend was already in place before the repeal of the law, and thus hardly seems to be a result of it.
"Roughly the same population, same percent of gun ownership...what is the difference?"
Unknown, but the fact they have the same percentage of firearms ownership shoots down your "more guns = more gun crime" claims.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:53 PM
Unknown, but the fact they have the same percentage of firearms ownership shoots down your "more guns = more gun crime" claims.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:53 PM
Bingo
-- Posted by motrans on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 2:52 PM
Unknown, but the fact they have the same percentage of firearms ownership shoots down your "more guns = more gun crime" claims.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 1:53 PM
I realize this will get me branded as racist but.... could the answer be, less gangbangers living in ghettos shooting one another?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 5:37 PM
-- Posted by G. H. on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 5:40 PM
G.H: I saw 2 vans full of table cloth wearing men heading up highway 34 this afternoon....maybe Common is getting ready for another attack on Scopus.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 6:11 PM
So if gun ownership is the same in Missouri and Minnesota, how does it factor into the murder rate?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 6:40 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 7:57 PM
Theorist how many people are killed in MO with NFA weapons?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 8:12 PM
Check the racial makeup of Missouri and Minnesota and the fact that gun deaths are disproportionately higher in Black Neighborhoods may answer your some of your questions.... 12% in Missouri 6 % in Minnesota.
I think it all boils down to guns do not kill people, people kill people.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 8:29 PM
Theorist,
I would add, Maryland has roughly the same population as Missouri, just over 1/2 as many guns and almost the same number of deaths by guns as Missouri per 100,000 people. Want to make a guess what is more than double in Maryland?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 8:45 PM
Want to make a guess what is more than double in Maryland?-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 8:45 PM
Wheels: Liberals?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:08 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:08 PM
Semo471
If a friend of mine, now deceased is any indication, I would say that is a safe assumption.
I pulled the chart from Theorist's thread down into a spreadsheet and also a chart from the US Census with percentage of different races. It is from 2012, two years later but I think safe to say not that much of a population shift in 2 years by race. I will combine the two. Being able to sort all of the information by various criteria I think will show some interesting information. And I suspect it will be that not all of Missouri's guns show a greater inclination to kill on their own than sister state's guns do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:27 PM
Theorist,
If you haven't retired for the day, I would suggest you check the statistics in the District of Columbia with the lowest level of gun ownership and the highest % of black occupants and 3 times as many gun deaths per 100,000 as Missouri.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:51 PM
I think population density (too many people living too close) could be DC's problem... -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 9:56 PM
They had a total eclipse this year and I think that is DC's problem. Also the influence of the Washington monument - they are the only city to have one. That must be it.
Makes as much sense as what you're trying to slice to win a point. Give it up - the stats and research say you're wrong.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 PM
Be nice y'all, You have Theorist going in circles. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:10 PM
"I think population density (too many people living too close) could be DC's problem..."
Yeah. That's what makes Monaco the Hell-hole it has become. (Rolling my eyes)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:27 PM
Theorist, I can still add 2+2 and it adds up to no need for more do-gooder laws of back ground checks. There are plenty of laws already. If something should be outlawed, it would be Gun Free Zones and the mentality of liberal-progressives that more restrictions on lawful gun owners will solve the results of low life tolerance in our country.
The left wing politically correct crowd has been running things for quite a while now and we are seeing the results.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:33 PM
Dang Theorist, I thought you had gone to bed. I was answering some e-mails.
I will look at Mississippi.
Using your comparison, population is much less dense in Mississippi is it not. There is another factor, there is less tolerance to law breaking in places like Mississippi and some of your Southern states. I am sure that will get a response that there is racial problems. I can tell you this much, the poor areas of Mobile Alabama that I drove through are not as trashed as driving through St. Louis. With that little personal observation, I made the assumption they enforced some of their ordinances in Mobile that St. Louis obviously does not.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:36 PM
Old John, anything you can add? No, I didn't think so....dead is dead, and there are more dead here.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:14 PM
And there are three times as many dead, dead in DC as there are in Missouri. Attribute it to what you want.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM
Wheels: Let it be on your conscience if Theorist doesn't get any sleep tonight and is fired from one of her jobs for being late for work or dozing off during the working hours....you are a mean man Mr. Wheels.☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:52 PM
Below is the 10 Areas with rates as follows,
#1 Number of guns
#2 Number of murders
#3 Number of murders by guns
#4 State
#5 Percent of Black Population.
Note: Formatting on Thread Stinks.
40.3% 5.3 3.8 Georgia 31%
24.5% 5.0 3.9 Florida 16%
55.3% 5.6 4.0 Mississippi 37%
25.5% 5.3 4.2 Delaware 20%
38.4% 5.6 4.2 Michigan 14%
42.3% 6.1 4.5 South Carolina 27%
21.3% 7.3 5.1 Maryland 29%
41.7% 7.0 5.4 Missouri 12%
44.1% 9.6 7.7 Louisiana 31%
3.6% 21.8 16.5 District of Col 47%
I think Missouri shows states with large cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, New Orleans and DC definitely have something to do with the murder rates, number of guns prove little to nothing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 10:59 PM
"you are a mean man Mr. Wheels.☺☺"
If stating facts make me that I will wear it as a badge of honor.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 11:02 PM
That should have said the 10 top areas of gun deaths I guess. I understood what I was trying to say.... some may not.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 11:04 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:48 AM
Not being sarcastic. I would just like some proof on how more background checks will stop all the inner city thugs from getting guns and killing people.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:55 AM
"....guns do not kill people, people kill people."
The corrected version, "people with guns kill people."
Another fallacy in the statistical comparison above is the "number of guns" percentage. It's not defined but it may mean the percent of the population that are known to own one or more guns. By totaling and averaging the "by state" list, about 37%, nationally are gun owners, and at one apiece, that's only 120 million guns. Clearly, many, but not all, own more than one gun, but that's still a lot of "missing" guns.
If the "thug" goes to a gun show to buy a "loophole" weapon, he does not advertise it on the way out so he can be counted in the "gun owner" percentage. The point is that there are probably millions of guns in the "ghetto" being wielded by "gangbangers" that they may use to "shoot one another."
Trying to connect a gun owner percentage to rate of crime is another oversimplification.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:13 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:13 AM
Thugs don't go to gun shows or a reputable gun dealer or even Wal-Mart to get a gun. They also don't have background checks so NONE of this stuff is going to solve the problem.
To me this thread just goes around and around the same things and has just outlived the subject.
The subject basically being "Will more background checks do anything to solve the issue of so many deaths by guns by thugs and stop the flow of illegal guns?"
The answer is a big fat no!
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:56 AM
The corrected version, "people with guns kill people."-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:13 AM
Common: The corrected version, "people with knives kill people." The corrected version, "people with hammers kill people" and so forth.
The number of guns is skewed due to the inter-cities lack of reporting. Any volunteers to go there to get an accurate count?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:59 AM
Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:59 AM
Maybe Common and Theorist could take a trip and get us the count.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:05 AM
"The number of guns is skewed due to the inter-cities lack of reporting."
Glad you agree.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:23 AM
"Another fallacy in the statistical comparison above is the "number of guns" percentage. It's not defined but it may mean the percent of the population that are known to own one or more guns."
Mr Common,
Since you jump in as usual with both feet and without garnering all of the facts, I will try to help you. I don't know if you cannot read and understand, or you are in too big of a hurry to be the expert in the situation. But here is the answer to your quandary. Read it careful. It comes from the chart in the link furnished by Theorist.
Note:
2. "Gun Owners as a Percentage of Each State's Population, 2007". US Liberal Politics.
Notice it does not mention number of guns. Those little numbers in headings sometimes indicate things.
You're welcome.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:25 AM
"Trying to connect a gun owner percentage to rate of crime is another oversimplification."
Not really. While we (thankfully) don't have firearms registration, we do have records of sales. While cross-state sales are not tabulated, for the most part, they can easily be estimated. Firearms dealers and background checks can tabulate this sort of thing. While records of individual sales are not permitted to be recorded by the federal government, statistical data can be, and thus a reasonable record of interstate sales can be had. The gun show operators, by and large, have an idea of how many firearms are traded at the shows, as they use that as advertising for future shows, and as a measure of the success or failure of the event. Since the majority of firearms vendors at gun shows are licensed dealers, they keep records and perform background checks of all purchasers, as they would in a gun shop or elsewhere.
I know certain anti-gun politicians claim the majority of vendors at gun shows are not licensed firearms dealers, but that number is derived by counting non-firearms vendors, such as those selling food products, books, leather goods, and primitive weaponry (knives, swords, etc.).
Thus, with a fair record of firearms sales, compared to the population, it is possible to obtain a fair comparison of the number of firearms within a state relative to the population of that state. After all, all firearms sales, excepting those manufactured before the 1960s, are legally transferred at least once, unless you believe manufacturers are running a black-market operation out their back doors.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM
"Will more background checks do anything to solve the issue of so many deaths by guns by thugs and stop the flow of illegal guns?"
Maybe the question needs to be rephrased.
The President is suggesting more background checks. The opposition wants no increase.
So the question then becomes, which will make us safer, having more background checks, or fewer background checks?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM
Lower unemployment figures?-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:46 AM
Theorist: True, the unemployment rate is down but the welfare and other free give away stuff is up (2.7% or est. 8,100,000 from years 2009 to 2015) by those blood sucking freeloaders who find it easier to just sit on the couch watch their big screen TVs while talking on their free cell phones while eating potato chips purchased from their free food stamps then to go out and work for a living. All the BSF (blood sucking freeloaders) have to do is to vote Democratic to keep the good times rolling. BTW, the above numbers are furnished by the government....if you can believe them and only shows the increase not the grand total of freeloaders.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:29 AM
"So the question then becomes, which will make us safer, having more background checks, or fewer background checks?"
But the "opposition" does not propose fewer, they propose the same number. They are not lobbying for a reduction in the number of background checks. Ergo, your two options are not the only ones.
That aside, the answer hinges on the effectiveness of the background checks. It has already been shown that most of the mass shooters, whose actions have stirred the current debate, have used firearms legally acquired after background checks, either purchased by themselves or by second parties. Straw purchases have been illegal since the 1960s, and making them "more illegal" does not seem to be the focus of the President's actions. Thus, I am led to believe that the proposal for "more background checks" would appear to have little or no impact on making us safer.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:33 AM
So the question then becomes, which will make us safer, having more background checks, or fewer background checks?-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM
Common: The question is not the above but which will make us safer, having more background checks of the law abiding citizens or the clamping down by the LEOs of the thugs who steal legal or illegal guns or buy them on the black market?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:34 AM
The President is suggesting more background checks. The opposition wants no increase.
So the question then becomes, which will make us safer, having more background checks, or fewer background checks?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM
One needs to watch the the Sage(Brush) of Bollinger County's posts.
They way too many times have a tendency to twist truths into lies. And I do not think it is non intended either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:54 AM
"Okay, too many people living in close proximity with guns!!"
Washington D.C. has strict gun control, so that would not seem possible. The rate of firearms ownership is low there. At least, that is, legal firearms ownership. That would seem, again, to suggest that reducing the rate of lawful firearms ownership is counterproductive to the intent of keeping the people safe.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 8:55 AM
I think the number of guns has more to do with it! :)
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:48 AM
District of Columbia certainly flies against that logic.
I think the states with large numbers of inner city (ghetto) living Blacks has more to do with it than anything. This is not racial, it has been discussed by Black & White Leaders over and over. Given the high rate of gun deaths and abortions it amounts to what looks like self inflicted genocide.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 9:03 AM
"From 2002 to 2011, the homicide rate for blacks was 6.3 times higher than the rate for whites. Over this 10-year period, the homicide rate among whites decreased by 17%, from 3.3 homicides per 100,000 in 2002 to 2.8 in 2011. Similarly, the homicide rate among blacks declined by 19%, from 21.2 per 100,000 in 2002 to 17.3 in 2011. The homicide rate for persons of other races--persons identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander--experienced the greatest decline (down 33%), from 2.7 homicides per 100,000 persons in 2002 to 1.8 in 2011."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 9:12 AM
Numbers can be very confusing.
The chart that SH furnished a link to shows that in 2011 we had....
14,610 homicides in the United States.
7,380 were Blacks, yet they make up 12% of the Population.
Another chart I saw shows 67.1% (9,803) of the homicides were committed with a gun.
It has been loosely thrown around on here that 30,000 people die annually with a gun.
Are we to believe that 2 out of 3 deaths by gun are accidental or self inflicted and not murders?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 9:38 AM
"Are we to believe that 2 out of 3 deaths by gun are accidental or self inflicted and not murders?"
Yes, essentially. Keep in mind that "homicides" do not always include "justifiable homicides", depending on who is providing the statistics, though.
But, the majority of firearms deaths are suicide.
Note that firearm homicide deaths are much higher among blacks, whereas firearm suicide deaths are much higher among whites. What this means, I do not know, but it is significant when discussing firearms deaths and race. The firearms suicide rate is also highest among the elderly, those 65 and older comprising the largest group.
in 2010, the first year which came up in my search, there 19392 firearms suicides in the United States.
This causes confusion in discussions, because many will talk about homicides but, when citing the statistics, include the suicides among them. This is done, in some cases, to inflate the statistics. It has more impact to say "Eighty-four people die from firearms every day" when talking about "gun violence" than to say "forty people die from gun violence every day", even though the eight-four figure includes forty-four who chose to end their own lives.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:03 AM
In 2010, there were 606 deaths from accidental shootings. Those comprise slightly less than 2% of all firearms deaths that year. Suicides accounted for slightly more than 62% of firearms-related deaths that year. Homicides, including justifiable homicides, accounting for the remaining 36%.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:08 AM
According to the statistics I find, just over 50% of all suicides are committed with firearms.
I can say that, of the people I have known who have committed suicide, the majority have used other means.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:11 AM
SH
I did not realize there were that many suicides by firearms. Not questioning the numbers.
But I guess a question would be, just exactly what do the gun control nuts intend on doing to stop people from offing themselves when they are so inclined.
Again I have known some victims of suicide, but really never realized there were that many.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:16 AM
Although I cannot find it online, I recall reading a study some years ago that stated that veterans and (perhaps surprisingly) law enforcement officials are the most likely to commit suicide using firearms. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that, though it does make some sense: hey are familiar with firearms, they generally have one or more firearm in the home, and they have frequently been exposed to traumatic incidents in their lives which may drive them to depression, particularly later in life as they feel their usefulness to society is diminished and they are abandoned to loneliness and failing health.
They will, however, also likely have acquired those firearms lawfully, after passing a background check, and thus their numbers are not likely to be affected by the new regulations proposed. Again, unless you advocate taking lawfully-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens (which the majority of gun-control advocates claim they do not), gun control measures will not alter those circumstances.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:21 AM
'According to the statistics I find, just over 50% of all suicides are committed with firearms."
That would mean we have around 38,000 suicides a year in the United States.
It would seem to me that the Gun Control crowd could better serve humanity if they dedicated their efforts toward mental health than to keep hassling gun owners and prospective gun owners.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:24 AM
"But I guess a question would be, just exactly what do the gun control nuts intend on doing to stop people from offing themselves when they are so inclined."
Many claim that the "waiting period" will help, though I have yet to see evidence that a significant number of suicide victims purchase the firearm within days of committing suicide. Also, my own observation has been that most of them plan their suicide for some time, indicating that waiting periods will not have much, if any, effect.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:25 AM
"Yes, most firearm deaths are suicides....which background checks and waiting periods will help prevent."
I do not believe that!
Do you have statistics showing that people wanting to commit suicide, run down to a gun dealer make their purchase and then go home and commit suicide.
I know of a 16 year old who committed suicide because of an argument with his girlfriend. He used an old 22 rifle belonging to his Father. The Mother worked for me. It was a traumatic time for all. But it was not the fault of the gun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:30 AM
My own view, which many regard as cold-hearted, is that a free society must include the freedom to end one's own life. The nannies among us disagree.
That is not to say I advocate suicide, but I do advocate freedom. Some of the consequences of freedom are unpleasant to ponder, but they are ultimately better than the alternative, at least in my humble opinion.
As you can see from Theorists's 10:24 AM post, she is among the nannies who want to save people from themselves. Perhaps it is my upbringing, which taught me that suicide can be used as an honourable means of saving face, but I think 'saving people from themselves' is anti-freedom.
From reading "Julius Caesar" to many other significant literary works, the "noble death" at one's own hand is often regarded as a respectable means of saving face, or of preventing oneself to become a burden upon friends or society. Indeed, it puzzles me that those who advocate for the lawfulness of abortion as a means of avoiding the burden of bringing a child into the world, without the consent of the child, would oppose the same from one desiring to do so by their own hand.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:33 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:25 AM
I totally agree.
But it will do nothing to hype the gun control crowd up. If there are no facts.... some with a cause will invent them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:35 AM
" though I have yet to see evidence that a significant number of suicide victims purchase the firearm within days of committing suicide."
I suppose I should have said "...commit suicide within days of purchasing a firearm", though technically they have the same meaning.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:40 AM
The aborted child does not have the power to stay the hand of his executioner. The suicide victim does.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:41 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:33 AM
Somewhere in the world, I remember being told by a guide that a building we were looking at was upon completion found to have a major fault of some kind. Do not remember the details, but the architect committed suicide over his failure.
Today I think they are like what an old contractor told me many years ago when he was about 90 years old. He said in my day people would point out a home and proudly proclaim, "I built that". Today he said most contractors, if you point out a house will deny they were ever in the neighborhood when the house was built.
I know I haven't known a lot of contractors from any trade that are in any danger of suicide over their failures.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:50 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:24 AM
Theorist: If a person is at the end of their rope (no pun intended) and decides to take their life; they will be looking in the short term for taking action with whatever is available to do themselves in. Recently a cousin's granddaughter tried to take her life....failed by gun shot and now in a wheelchair. Cousin said that they saw the signs but didn't take any action....what we all must strive to do is not inaction but action to get those the help that they need in order to coup with daily life.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:51 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:50 AM
Wheels: My carpenter grandfather was like the guy you quoted and would point out all the houses and barns in this area that "he built". The buildings serve to this day as monuments to his skills.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 10:56 AM
I was in Ireland last Autumn, and walked along the Cliffs of Moher. Near the visitor's center there are barricades and rails to keep the visitors safe but a short walk in either direction leads to the "Burren Walk", a pathway along the cliff's edge which permits access right to the shear edges of the cliffs. Warning signs advise that one passes into that region at one's own risk, and to exercise great caution.
Next to the warning signs are signs with the suicide hotline number. Further along the walk, I saw more signs with the suicide hotline number.
I could not find any numbers regarding the incidence of suicide on the cliffs, but I assume they are, or were, frequent enough to justify the signs.
Of course, most areas with any kind of hills have a "Lovers' Leap" designated somewhere, including one at Hannibal, Missouri and at Starved Rock, in Illinois.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:20 AM
"Suicide is usually an impulsive act. Waiting periods and background checks help the mentally ill by keeping them away from the firearm a little bit longer or permanently."
Statistics please, or is this just an opinion?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:21 AM
"...That is the coldest and most hard hearted thing you have written on here. You are telling sons and daughters, men and women, you made a mistake, or you failed now do the honorable thing and kill yourself????? I know you to be Catholic (on here)....what do you think your faith says about that?"
You are always so judgmental. I knew, of course, that you would regard it as "cold-hearted" because you view yourself as the world's nanny.
My Catholic faith says that suicide is a sin, which is why I do not plan to ever commit suicide. But, I do not seek to impose my view of morality upon the World, and thus recognize that not everyone regards it as sinful but, rather, may regard it as a means of washing away the sins of their commission.
"You are telling sons and daughters, men and women, you made a mistake, or you failed now do the honorable thing and kill yourself?"
As always, you show yourself incapable of comprehending the written word, and thus challenge me on that which was not written. I clearly stated I do not advocate suicide, but recognize that others may seek it as a means of saving face. That ought to be clear to anyone with a most basic level of reading comprehension. Yet, what you ask if I would advocate for those who failed to "do the honorable thing and kill yourself". No, I would not, and I said so before you asked, thank you.
Unlike yourself, I do not pretend to know what is best for them. If _they_ see it as an honourable means to saving face, who am I, or you, to tell them otherwise?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:28 AM
I would think a suicide victim wouldn't want to wait around for red tape and back ground checks , they'd use the first gun they could find .
-- Posted by Rick' on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:06 AM
Exactly! This takes the impulsivity out of the act!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:17 AM
Theorist,
Your response here is pure conjecture.
On one hand you bemoan the sheer number of guns in America and on the other you are insinuating that if you want to commit suicide you have the need to immediately go out and purchase a gun.
You would like to inconvenience everybody in America wanting to exercise their right to purchase a gun with long waiting periods and you are offering nothing except 'you think' longer waiting periods will suddenly change something.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:28 AM
Florida and California have the highest number of suicides, Alaska has the highest suicide rate.
Believe it or not, the District of Columbia has the lowest rate of suicides.
The indications are that states with large numbers of retirees and/or high costs of living tend to have more suicides. That is consistent with the statistics on suicide: older white men are the most likely to commit suicide.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:37 AM
"School's Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent--as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns--rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower."
Theorist,
How do you account for there being 20.2 suicides per 100,000 population in the Unites States where privately owned guns are widespread, while in the UK where they are not permitted the rate is 18.2 per 100,000?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:40 AM
"... my upbringing, which taught me that suicide can be used as an honourable means of saving face..."
And where does that say I advocate for anyone to do so? Do you not comprehend the difference between allowing someone to hold a view and imposing my view upon them?
Have you not read "Julius Caesar"? Do you not think Brutus' death was committed to save face?
Othello, of course, famously committed suicide.
Javert, in Les Miserables, committed suicide after coming to the realization that his view: that there could be no right or wrong outside the law, was inconsistent with reality.
Are you saying these great characters of literary works were wrong to do so? Should they have, instead, lived a life of shame?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:46 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:37 AM
The rate in Alaska does not surprise me.
When in Scandinavia a number of years ago they attributed increased suicides during the short days and long nights during certain periods of the year because the darkness contributed to depression and suicide.
Alaska has long periods of darkness.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:46 AM
I wish, but no. Guns are already in homes and hands that will allow this to continue. My hope, and studies suggest, that the background checks will help prevent the guns getting into suicidal hands, but waiting periods would diffuse the situation and take the impulsivity out of the picture.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:36 AM
Theorist,
A couple of things, are you suggesting that someday we should remove all guns from homes?
By actual statistical count.... how many suicides are committed by newly purchased guns?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:51 AM
"How do you account for there being 20.2 suicides per 100,000 population in the Unites States where privately owned guns are widespread, while in the UK where they are not permitted the rate is 18.2 per 100,000?"
Your link says the rate for the United States is 20.2 per 100,000, compared with Britain's 18.2, which is interesting. However, Japan, where firearms are uncommon, has a rate of 28.2, and Austria has a rate of 23.8.
Greenland, not exactly a firearms haven, has the highest rate in the world, at 116.9.
Even France (22.8) has a higher suicide rate than the United States.
Ergo, I do not see that firearms ownership is as much of a factor as Theorist would have you believe.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:56 AM
The Greenland issue also sheds light on factors affecting the United States. It seems that many Northern regions, particularly Alaska's highest ranking within the states, but also that of our lesser populated western states. Isolation would appear to be a major factor, and might have more to explain rural Wyoming's high suicide rate than does firearms ownership.
Of course, Japan's and Korea's high rates can be explained by a cultural tradition that recognizes the validity of suicide as means of saving face. Theorist, of course, would have me judge them by Catholic standards and, presumably, tell them their culture is all wrong.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:01 PM
"When in Scandinavia a number of years ago they attributed increased suicides during the short days and long nights during certain periods of the year because the darkness contributed to depression and suicide.
Alaska has long periods of darkness."
Odd, then, that the report on Greenland suggests differently:
"According to a report published in the Science Daily in 2009, the suicide rate in Greenland increases during the summer. Researchers have blamed insomnia caused by incessant daylight."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:04 PM
Also from your source, UK is at 6.2 and USA 12.? Which suggests a lower by half suicide rate in general.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:52 AM
You are looking at Chart 1 and I was looking at Chart 2 which is considerably different and maybe bears out your theory that many suicides go unreported. The World Health Organization is much lower in the two instances I mentioned than other Sources.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:16 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:04 PM
I know, guides can tell you a lot of things.
I did buy a 24K Gold bracelet from a kid on the street in Tangiers. Not because I though it was 24K gold but the kid looked like he needed the money. :-)
I think that suicide is taken as the way out for a variety of reasons. I look upon it as I once heard it described a "Permanent Solution to a Temporary Problem".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:21 PM
"If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide."
Theorist
That statement is ridiculous. It is like saying if you own and drive an automobile you are much more likely to die in an auto accident than your neighbor who does not own and automobile and uses nothing but public transportation come and go.
Obviously written with a slant.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:58 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 12:56 PM
Theorist: In reading all of your rants on this thread, I have to wonder if you re-read your comments before you post them. BTW, could the increase in suicides be the fact that we have a do nothing Crawdad-In-Chief in the Rainbow House which caused depression and despair for some folks....just saying.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 1:06 PM
"Aptly said...certainly sad and definitely not honorable."
Loss of face is not a temporary problem in many societies. Painful, debilitating illness is a often a temporary condition only in that death ends it. Dishonour is not a temporary problem.
If you do not find honour in suicide, that is your issue, but you are in no position to say that it is not so to those who seek it. You do a disservice to the memories of those who have sought to erase their pain and dishonour thereby. That, to me, is more cold-hearted and calloused than saying to those who choose it that it is there choice.
I thought you were "pro-choice"? What happened?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 1:58 PM
"I did buy a 24K Gold bracelet from a kid on the street in Tangiers. Not because I though it was 24K gold but the kid looked like he needed the money."
I did something similar, in Abidjan on the Côte d'Ivoire. It was a bone alligator, which the kid said was Ivory (I knew better). It actually wasn't a bad carving, though it probably would not have been wise of me to try to take it back to the states, as who knows what diseases dwelled within the rotting marrow of that then-defunct creature, whatever it may have been. Hopefully, it wasn't a human bone.
Nonetheless, I bought it to get rid of the pesky kid that peddling it. However, once he was gone, another took his place. It seems each of us was assigned a begging hanger-on by whoever is in charge of that, and getting rid of one created a job opening for another. I tried to shake the new kid, but he followed me wherever we went. We finally went into a bar, where he was not allowed, but he waited around outside for me to return. Indeed, each of my shipmates had a hanger-on and they, too, waited. Eventually, I gave him the bone alligator, and he took it as if it were a great treasure. I assume he sold it to some other sailor.
Another hanger-on came along to take his place, but we soon boarded the bus back to the pier, so I did not have to contend with him long.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 2:04 PM
SH
I thought many times if the children in this country had a little of the salesmanship exhibited by those street urchins we would have less people drawing welfare. And they can accurately count change in multiple currencies.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 2:30 PM
I can't help but notice you never answer the questions, you simply respond with your accusatory tone.
I have counseled before, and with good results, I believe. As I've said, I don't advocate suicide. Apparently you can't fathom how it can be that one can recognize the validity of something and yet counsel against it.
In general, one seeking counsel does not hold the view that suicide is honourable, and thus ought to be counseled not to pursue it. That really oughtn't be that difficult to comprehend. Those who view it as an honourable end will not seek counsel before proceeding, they will simply do what they see as necessary.
" I wonder if you would be so nonchalant if this was your family member or friend."
Assuming they were Catholic, I would dissuade them based on their faith. Assuming they were not, but had sought advice, I would advise them against it based on the problems they faced.
But, again, I ask do you not believe in Freedom? How can you say people cannot be free to end their lives and yet call themselves free? Methinks you avoid answering the questions because you don't like to think about the totalitarian attitude you espouse.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 3:37 PM
"Your laissez faire attitude is apathetic."
And your attitude is interventionist and paternalistic.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 3:40 PM
You seem to have a very closed mind on the subject. Have you not, in all your reading, read any of the essays defending the act of suicide? Have you rejected all of them as the work of calloused minds?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 3:56 PM
No matter how hopeless the situation there is always a chance things will be better, just ask Dave Roever. Thus along with my church teachings comes my attitude toward self demise.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 3:59 PM
"No matter how hopeless the situation there is always a chance things will be better, just ask Dave Roever."
I don't deny that. And my Church denounces it. But, you cannot legislate hope, and you cannot force free men to take that chance. I speak here with regard to the law, and to Freedom, not to my personal view of suicide.
Just because we think something is a bad idea, does not mean we ought to be empowered to prohibit it. That is why the discussion is here, on this thread about firearms control. It has been said that "gun control isn't about guns, it is about control". The argument against suicide is evidence of that, they want to control the people who may choose to end their own lives, forbidding them from taking the action they wish to take.
It may be a bad idea. It may be sinful. But it oughtn't to be illegal if we are to call ourselves free men.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 4:15 PM
Shapley, I agree that government should make no law or take no preemptive course against an individual choice of suicide, nor should government be involved in restricting ones choice of religion. However discouraging suicide IMO is a moral duty of Christian responsibility as is encouraging others to accept the salvation of Grace offered.
I understand your point. I'm not well read on great literature but do understand Shakespeare's writings were sometimes about what more man could understand if we recognized what is lacking in man alone with out Divine guidance.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 4:36 PM
"It has been said that "gun control isn't about guns, it is about control"
But it is about guns.
Using the gun violence by state table from above and multiplying the state population by the gun ownership percentage, you get about 100 million gun owners.
If, repeat IF, each had one gun, there would be about 200 million fewer guns in the country. And that would be a quantum leap toward less gun violence everywhere and especially in the "ghettos."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 4:45 PM
"If, repeat IF, each had one gun, there would be about 200 million fewer guns in the country. And that would be a quantum leap toward less gun violence everywhere and especially in the "ghettos."
So, you think we should limit the number of guns a man may own? Who decides who gets a shotgun, who gets a rifle, or who gets a sidearm? Does that mean a man who hunts ducks (shotgun) cannot hunt deer (rifle) nor defend himself (sidearm)? Again, who decides.
"there would be about 200 million fewer guns in the country."
The latest crime report is out, and it shows that, despite record levels of firearms ownership, homicides and violent crimes continue to decline from their 1993 high. Again, the "less guns equals less crimes" argument seems to be being knocked down by reality.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 4:50 PM
"However discouraging suicide IMO is a moral duty of Christian responsibility as is encouraging others to accept the salvation of Grace offered."
Yes. But, again, we are told that we do not legislate morality. In a free country, Christians are free to exercise their moral duty and responsibility to encourage the suicidal to seek redemption and turn away from suicidal thoughts, but the law ought not act against them. The free man is free to listen, or not, to the calls of the religious to forgo executing himself.
That is, after all, the nature of Freedom.
What is the ultimate end of such a law? That a suicidal man may be shot to prevent him committing suicide? He is, after all, armed and threatening to kill someone (himself), so the shooting would be legally defendable, but is it just? Is it more or less just than allowing the person to kill themselves? Is it right to put the onus for the killing off of the victim and onto the shoulders of an officer of the law?
I've noted before that I read that police officers are at high risk for suicide. I presume this is due to the mental and emotional conflicts such as that could bring about. Would we, then, be helping or hurting humanity by preventing a suicide by turning it into a justifiable homicide?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 4:57 PM
Common
Once you have all of the illegal guns rounded up will be soon enough to start thinking about trying to take even one of our legally owned firearms.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:21 PM
" Would we, then, be helping or hurting humanity by preventing a suicide by turning it into a justifiable homicide?"
If he's wearing a towel on his head with a bomb around his waist, yes.
If he's entered a gun free zone with intentions of taking people with him, yes.
Ah, but that's not the point.
I agree with Shapley in his point and don't see how gun control background checks would change anything even if that was the purpose of Theorist's agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:22 PM
"...despite record levels of firearms ownership, homicides and violent crimes continue to decline from their 1993 high."
That's record high by US standards.
There is no question that were 200 million guns "magically" removed, there would be less gun violence nationwide. And I know, this is not something that will happen today.
Tinkering around the edges of gun control won't make a much of a difference, but it is a matter of time (years, decades, whatever) until the country will decide to do something significant.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:36 PM
Make that a "decline" by US standards.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:45 PM
Make that a "decline" by US standards.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:45 PM
Can you detail these US Standards you speak of. How do they stack up to other standards whatever that means. Better or Worse?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 6:47 PM
The background checks help to ensure persons buying firearms qualify with stable minds, the waiting periods take the impulsiveness out of the act.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:11 PM
Theorist,
That is strictly opinion and not based on provable facts.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:34 PM
Theorist, I think there may be something to consider in suicides in that if the gun wasn't available and easily at hand, one may just finish the bottle and go to sleep in despair. But if determined, the lack of a gun will not make a difference in the overall outcome.
As far as impulsiveness in robbing a store or killing for revenge, those acts many times take premeditation. Thus I can't see background checks limiting those that already have guns.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:41 PM
I think common got something right.
Tinkering around the edges of gun control won't make a much of a difference, but it is a matter of time (years, decades, whatever) until the country will decide to do something significant.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 5:36 PM
Now maybe we should visit the wisdom of Tocqueville.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 7:46 PM
"Make that a "decline" by US standards."
That is a decline by any standard, except perhaps Bizarro Standards. Have you been taking the Bernie Sanders Mathematics Course?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 9:21 PM
"That is a decline by any standard..."
The decline of the US murder rate from around 10 per 100,000 to about 6 per 100,000 is great, but is still keeps it over 3 times the murder rate of the rest of the civilized world.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:11 PM
The decline of the US murder rate from around 10 per 100,000 to about 6 per 100,000 is great, but is still keeps it over 3 times the murder rate of the rest of the civilized world.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:11 PM
That is BS, you need to look it up.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:17 PM
Civilized world?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 11:37 PM
Common will tell you anything he thinks he can get away with.
According to what I have seen the US rates are higher than Common posts and some of the so called civilized world are higher than the US.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 12:12 AM
"The decline of the US murder rate from around 10 per 100,000 to about 6 per 100,000 is great, but is still keeps it over 3 times the murder rate of the rest of the civilized world."
A decline from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 is a decline by any standard, as I have said. Firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Ergo, the "more guns equals more gun crime" and its corollary, "less guns equals less gun crime" appear to be patently false.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 6:45 AM
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" Thomas Jefferson
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 6:50 AM
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 6:51 AM
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armedvman." - Cesare Beccaria -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 6:54 AM
"It's all Bush's fault..." -- Barackus Obamus
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 7:28 AM
"...less guns..."
That's the case in all those civilized countries that have one third the murder rate of the US.
What President Jefferson might have preferred is peaceful freedom.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:18 AM
"What President Jefferson might have preferred is peaceful freedom."
I trust that he was literate enough to write what he actually meant.
When I was at the Cliffs of Moher, there were more people on the dangerous side of the barricades, where they could walk along the edge of the cliffs, take selfies while perched precariously near the shear drop to the sea, or lounge on the sections of grass which showed signs of slipping seaward. This, after passing through a hole in the fence which warned of the risk, as they passed from the nice, civilized section with its security fences and railings.
Humans, it seems, have a penchant for dangerous freedom when given a choice between that and peaceful hindrance.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:32 AM
"...the shear drop..."
Of course, that should have been written "the sheer drop". To the best of my knowledge, they do not shear sheep there.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:50 AM
"An independent idea I think."
Were it an independent idea, methinks you would have quoted yourself, and Cicero himself. Sounds like a collective idea.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:51 AM
Charlie Brown: "Why Was I Put On This Earth?" Linus: "To Make Others Happy."
Charlie Brown: "Then Why Are Others Put Here?"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:53 AM
"I quoted Cicero himself, Shapley...you try so very hard to disagree."
I think my post was clear enough. Were it an "independent thought" you would have quoted your own self, independently. And Cicero would have quoted his own self, independently, rather than paraphrasing Plato.
"Independent: not connected with another or with each other; separate"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 9:04 AM
Folks as Theorist is so fond of saying - "Back on topic..."
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 9:08 AM
Cicero was rephrasing Plato I believe...it is the whole giving and sharing thing. An independent idea I think.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 8:41 AM
Theorist,
I have no problem with the independent idea of giving and sharing.
It is the idea of government giving and sharing that bothers me. And it is no longer an independent idea at that point. It is taking from one to give to another at the point of a gun if necessary to do forced giving and sharing.
Do you see where there is a difference between independent and forced?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 9:12 AM
"Apparently the vetting process worked here."
How do you figure that? He was here, he was not found out in the "vetting" process, he was found out only after settling here and attempting to follow through on his plot.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 7:40 AM
I wouldn't worry about vetting the Syrian refugees because I wouldn't let them in anyway. Pres. Pinky and other European leaders should have set up a safe zone in Syria for the Syrians trying to get out of harms way to stay.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 8:45 AM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 5:38 AM
You must not have been fully awake. I believe you misunderstood the report.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 9:34 AM
Regarding the Syrian refugees, I'm with Rick, they should have received background checks as severe as Obama would like to put on gun purchases in the US at very least.
But that is as off topic as yesterday's discussion which I still have not received an answer to my question. And I am serious, I really would like to know what the Left's position is on forced charity, how can it be justified as an "independent" idea? Theorist??
Theorist,
I have no problem with the independent idea of giving and sharing.
It is the idea of government giving and sharing that bothers me. And it is no longer an independent idea at that point. It is taking from one to give to another at the point of a gun if necessary to do forced giving and sharing.
Do you see where there is a difference between independent and forced?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 9:12 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 9:42 AM
If a person can not answer a question, why not just say - I don't have an answer. What is wrong with that.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 11:40 AM
"All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country."
All of this and they still failed on this guy.
Perhaps all of this is what is supposed to be done, but is not necessarily so.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 11:52 AM
"Do you see where there is a difference between independent and forced?"
Theorist
I do not ever remember asking you this question before.
So I assume you either do not want to answer it or you see no difference.
And you think forcing people to give to your causes is ok because it suits your agenda. That is not Freedom for those who do not agree with you as guaranteed by our Constitution.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 12:03 PM
Theorist,
This is where I have a problem with your Leftist Philosophy.
"Not all (maybe even not most) do this, and you and others cannot solve world hunger on your own."
If I were to say to you..... I do not care about world hunger? Then does that give you the right to force me to give to the world hunger cause because you believe in it?
Is that your idea of freedom? Where you have the right to pick and choose but I do not?
You have the right not to answer these questions if you chose, but I think it is very telling so far as your philosophy goes, if you feel you have rights that I do not.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 12:11 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 12:46 PM
That was a lot of double talk and words without saying anything.
Theorist, I am fine with you believing whatever you want, so long as you and your Leftist friends let me believe and act as I chose (so long as it is legal). But you are not content to do that. You think world hunger is an issue and you believe it should be addressed, but I should contribute to your cause at the point of a gun via a government. I believe I should contribute to it as I see fit in the amounts that I see fit.
You would like to believe as you please, but you do not want to give me the same right if it does not coincide with your beliefs. That is very obvious and has been from the git go with our conversations. I object to that kind of a world. I believe most on here would agree.
Now I am off to meet friends for lunch.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 1:05 PM
Put this in the "no one wants to take your guns" file:
"4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:01 PM
Gee that's nice.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:08 PM
Thank you SH, bears out what I and others have been saying the Leftist anti gun crowd's end goal is.
Enough is enough. This constant intrusion I to our rights has to be stopped. At this point, is there any other organized resistance to this atrocity besides the NRA?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:24 PM
Rick
I think 'bully' fits. Now you can catch hell along with me. 😕😕😴⏰
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:29 PM
- Posted by Rick' on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:25 PM
Rick,
I fear we are doomed to repeat this mistake. Who is going to be there to rescue the citizens of America as we and our allies did for Germany and France in WW ?II
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 4:46 PM
So the old Winchester holds 15 long rifle shots and I think 17 shorts. It must be an assault rifle.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 5:10 PM
Males one a hazard to mankind Old John. Better take it down to the "Big Ditch" and pitch it in.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 5:16 PM
Make that "Makes" not "Males.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 5:18 PM
Wheels, Can you imagine how many state and federal regulations I would be breaking if I did that?
And I might get shot if I carried it into a police station. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 5:41 PM
You're toast Old John.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 6:24 PM
Wheels, Japanese toast?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 7:31 PM
Hmmmm! I wouldn't go that far.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 7:49 PM
Me thinks Theorist has lost it again.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 9:45 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 8:59 PM
Theorist
When we have had these discussions in the past that we had to tax people and contribute to causes like world hunger. I didn't have to guess at anything, I did not decide that you did. You made a statement that world hunger was an issue that could not be done with donations. How about this from today....
"I understand (because you have told us all) that you give on your own, and that is admirable. Not all (maybe even not most) do this, and you and others cannot solve world hunger on your own. "
What did this mean.
"Yep! Nailed it!"
Nailed it..... you are delusional.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 10:13 PM
Me thinks Theorist has lost it again.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 9:45 PM
How did she lose it, I don't think she ever had it? Some days are just worse than others. You can read her like a book.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 10:16 PM
You can read her like a book.-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 10:16 PM
Wheels: The book (Theorist) would be filed in the fiction part of the library or book store.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 11:12 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 11:12 PM
To quote Theorist.... "Yep! Nailed it!"
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jan 14, 2016, at 11:49 PM
Rick
Our Elected Government Elected Officials are "Special"
If you were them and you treated the voters the way they do except at election time.... would you want that voter visiting you with a gun. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 12:23 AM
Rick,
I agree with you, was just saying what their logic might be.
I think you read the two links posted by SH at 4:01 pm today? Talk about scary and where these gun haters are headed in this country.
Your article on what happened in Germany and France should be required reading for all students when they reach about a Junior level in High School. Anybody that can read that and still want guns confiscated in this country is certifiably crazy or has a scary agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 12:51 AM
-- Posted by Rick' on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 1:02 AM
Not everyone complied with FDR's dictate either if those funny looking yellow coins that showed up at my Grandfather's estate auction some 40+ years ago were any indication.
I doubt if he was the only one who did not comply either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 1:14 AM
"Simply that you cannot solve the problems of the world by yourself."
Which I never, ever claimed I or anyone else could do..... and which incidentally is not the issue.
The issue is forced charity, which is not charity at all. It is wealth redistribution which also is not the business of government.
Cannot know what you are thinking, What's wrong with you? You have made your positions absolutely clear on here. One can see through you like a ladder, to borrow one of Rick's expressions. An open book. Transparent. Get the idea?
And this......
"I just trying to do what I believe is the correct thing to do...where is it written that I cannot do that?"
Nowhere is it written.
Where is it written that you have the right to force others to do what you think is right???
Therein is the issue! You have every right to do as you see fit. You have NO right to FORCE anyone else to do as you see fit!
If that realization escapes you.......
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 8:16 AM
Rick: Don't know where Theorist gets that "tired of life" from....from all of your comments that I have read you all full of life who only wants what is right. Theorist who accused you was probably just looking in the mirror.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 9:14 AM
Posted by semo471 on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 9:14 AM
I have to agree with you Semo. As far as Rick I feel he is more tired of the government BS not life.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 9:14 AM
Semo471
What you aren't getting here.... there has to be something wrong with anyone who doesn't see it Theorist's way.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM
-- Posted by Rick' on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 11:37 AM
Rick: Believe that Mr. Brinker needs mental health help....image a crazy helping a crazy needs a Metal Health professional who may or may not be a crazy.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM
"People with "mental health issues" shouldn't be allowed to possess a gun."
I have some potential candidates for the list of those who should not qualify to purchase because of a mental condition.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jan 15, 2016, at 6:17 PM
Ooops, scratch what I just said on my last post on the Test thread.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 27, 2016, at 10:46 AM
Menu
The Senate democrats are against the republican bill to strengthen background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I can only guess they are against it because the NRA is for it.
As it always has been, I see theorist only has a problem with gun crime when it involves a white shooter.
Replies (978)