Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.

Or indeed, any country.

[Ducimus]

This really deserves its own thread.

A Colorado Sheriff Responds To President Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwgZzeq8oI)

President Obama visited Denver on April 3, 2013 to push his excessive gun legislation. Not one sheriff in the state of Colorado was included in the event. The sheriffs of Colorado representing 62 counties were kept out of the event because their legislative needs were not useful to the president. Obama's purposeful shunning of the state sheriffs could not silence them. Listen as Sheriff Shayne Heap from Elbert County Colorado responds to the president's comments.

[Father Goose]

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, Rep. Diana DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

OMG! :eek:
This woman is what needs to be banned.

[AVGWarhawk]

Rep. Diana DeGette
She is not the brightest crayon in the box.

[Ducimus]

Rep. Diana DeGette
She is not the brightest crayon in the box.

She should be removed from the crayon box. Hopefully next election she will be.

[August]

She should be removed from the crayon box. Hopefully next election she will be.

I'm thinking the odds of that are pretty good. Look what happened to the anti-gun side the last time they pushed through such infringing legislation. The lost control of Congress. Pro-2A people have been lulled to sleep for the past 4 years but no more. I think our weight will definitely be felt in the next election.

[Feuer Frei!]

Following link outlines the majority of the new Connecticut Gun Law Package, ie Bill.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm


If, or more than likely when this takes effect on July 1, 2013, it will make Connecticut one of the worst states in the nation.
There's a lot of gun-related companies there: Colt, Winchester, Marlin (which recently shut down after 141 years of operation in Connecticut), Mossberg, Sturm-Ruger, H&R, Stag Arms (http://www.stagarms.com/), A.H. Fox, US Fire Arms, Wildey, Shelton Ammunition, Okay Industries (http://www.okayind.com/defense-firearms-market-experience.htm), Ronan/NHMTG (http://nhmtgmags.com/), C-Products (https://cpdmags.com/), Mec-Gar (http://www.mec-gar.com/Contact-us), G.T.B, amongst others.

Where will they go? Gun-friendly states like Texas or Arizona?

[Armistead]

I'm sure criminals will agree to abide by all the new laws and regulations.

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm sure criminals will agree to abide by all the new laws and regulations.

Of course. Rules are made to be broken :yep:

[Madox58]

Where will they go? Gun-friendly states like Texas or Arizona?

Isn't Texas the state that has some nut pushing a bill to remove people that don't enforce federal laws?
:hmmm:

[August]

Where will they go? Gun-friendly states like Texas or Arizona?

Not Arizona. Janet Napolitano says the state will go blue within a decade.

[Feuer Frei!]

As far as i understand it, Texas doesn't require a permit registration to own a gun. A permit is required for handguns. Same with Arizona.

Further reading here:

http://wramsite.com/profiles/blogs/guns-and-ammo-ranks-arizona-number-1-gun-friendly-state

http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/rkba/114515-10-most-gun-friendly-states.html

[Madox58]

I wonder how many criminals obey the rules in those States.
:hmmm:

It could decide how many move out of Connecticut being as they wouldn't want to break any new laws.
:nope:

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, it's my understanding that criminals very rarely, if ever, follow rules.
That's why they are criminals.
It may make them move if laws get tougher, absolutely. Although if one breaks the rules, then generally any new tough rules are normally not a deterrent to commit new or more crimes.

[Madox58]

So let's find an island and move all the criminals to it!
What could go wrong with that plan?
:har:

[Cybermat47]

So let's find an island and move all the criminals to it!
What could go wrong with that plan?
:har:

You'd accidentally create an awesome country, judging from history.

[Feuer Frei!]

I heard North Korea is an island. They'd fit right in there.

(No offense to NK people meant)

[Madox58]

:hmmm:
The land mass was awesome before the introduction of an alien species.
There is no historic record of any thing until the English decided they needed another place to let loose on the World.
This one they decided to stock with criminals from 1788 onwards.
(They lost the first one around 1783)
:haha:

[Tribesman]

I think our weight will definitely be felt in the next election.
Thats what people say everytime after they have lost an election

[Cybermat47]

This one they decided to stock with criminals from 1788 onwards.

That sort of implies that they're still sending criminals here. And you don't mean that... right? :)

[Herr-Berbunch]

That sort of implies that they're still sending criminals here. And you don't mean that... right? :)

Be quiet in your cell. :03:

Edit: Actually I know that in the last ten years or so many Brit coppers have been drawn down under, at least to SA if not to the other states. Maybe they're accompanying criminals.

[Ducimus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PjVTKjpJ34

[August]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PjVTKjpJ34


I like that guy.

[Jimbuna]

The hours are long but the pay is good on those galleons :)

[Madox58]

That sort of implies that they're still sending criminals here. And you don't mean that... right? :)

Your right. You all breed them now.
:D
:hmmm:
Come to think of it? So do we.
:haha:
:03:

[Platapus]

I can just imagine a criminal's thought process

Ya know, I was goin to commit premeditated murder on strangers and even children in a particularly heinous manner.

But since being caught with a 15 round magazine is now a Class D Felony, I decided not to commit the crimes. That Class D Felony penalty is just something I am not willing to accept. First Degree Murder, sure, but not a Class D Felony. No way!


Yeah, I can see that happening.

[August]

I can just imagine a criminal's thought process

Ya know, I was goin to commit premeditated murder on strangers and even children in a particularly heinous manner.

But since being caught with a 15 round magazine is now a Class D Felony, I decided not to commit the crimes. That Class D Felony penalty is just something I am not willing to accept. First Degree Murder, sure, but not a Class D Felony. No way!


Yeah, I can see that happening.

Oh but that's a designated gun free zone. Surely that would dissuade the most dedicated mass murderer!

[Platapus]

Oh but that's a designated gun free zone. Surely that would dissuade the most dedicated mass murderer!

Hey, say what you will about mass murders, but they don't like doing anything naughty like violate a gun magazine ordinance or a gun free zone. That would be wrong.

Banning higher capacity magazines to combat gun related violence is like banning low profile tires to combat drunk driving deaths. :doh:

[Madox58]

I'm more afraid of drivers TEXTING while driveing then Guns!
:o

[Feuer Frei!]

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/04/the-only-gun-infographic-youll-ever-need/

If you hover your mouse over the graph on certain areas it will go into more detail.
Pretty cool really.

[AndyJWest]

As a Brit, that is the only infographic I'll ever need if I want to teach a class on the misuse of statistics...

[HundertzehnGustav]

or propaganda.
(commenting on the picture itself, its proportions and features, instead of the stats behind)

[vienna]

"There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

-- Benjamin Disraeli

<O>

[Hottentot]

But, but...guns...:06:

[vienna]

But, but...guns...:06:


There, there, now...eat your granola...

<O>

[AndyJWest]

Meanwhile, care of Wikipedia, the missing infographic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

...rather careless to discuss the ratio of US homicides carried out with rifles compared to blunt objects, without mentioning handguns...

[Feuer Frei!]

While we are on infographs, this one from 2012:

http://www.readyholster.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Rare_Guns.png

[Feuer Frei!]

As for those of you who have commented on it in negative ways, i suggest you read this (http://thecollegepolitico.com/) to get an idea of how the original infograph in post 1 was compiled.
Notably, the guy was concentrating on rifles, it was crystal clear to begin with.

[Oberon]

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/801/4edd0a501861331d6400000.jpg

[TarJak]

It is a very poor infographic in that it first off misses the point of what the gun control measures are about. They are NOT about reducing the gun (handgun, rifle or other firearm), homicide rate.

I know the gun lobby would like people to think that is what they are about, but they too have to remember that it is about reducing the likelihood of deaths from mass shootings.

Oh yeah also that its the thin edge of the wedge to remove all 2nd ammendment rights to all firearms from all muricans except govmint approved ones like cops and army.:roll:

[HundertzehnGustav]

the only infographic you need on guns , the only stats worth mentioning, is still the red texas map of gun owners.

at least that was honest and damned funny.:yeah:

[Ducimus]

Oh yeah also that its the thin edge of the wedge to remove all 2nd ammendment rights to all firearms from all muricans except govmint approved ones like cops and army.:roll:

If you don't believe our civil liberties and the bill of rights has been steadily infringed upon and are at dire risk, you'd be mistaken.

[TarJak]

If you don't believe our civil liberties and the bill of rights has been steadily infringed upon and are at dire risk, you'd be mistaken.
I'm searching for where I made such a statement. Nope can't find that anywhere.

[Tribesman]

As for those of you who have commented on it in negative ways, i suggest you read this (http://thecollegepolitico.com/) to get an idea of how the original infograph in post 1 was compiled.

Yes it includes Kleck and Gertz, which is a joke of a study if ever there was one.

[AndyJWest]

Note also that the data for the 'Gun Ownership' and 'Gun Murder Rate' doesn't actually come from the source claimed - see http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf and compare the table on page 2 with the 'Gun Ownership' table. Completely different data...

[Platapus]

Just a tiny nit to pick, but the 44 auto mag did not shoot the .44 mag cartridge, but a special .44amp cartridge. The two were not interchangeable.

The key difference was that one was a rimless cartridge and the other was not.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”
“First get the facts, you can distort them later”
― Mark Twain

[yubba]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/856/61/61.jpg
Have you checked your savings or your retirement, account lately, I bet the government has,,...and that could be a fact,,Jack..For the continueance of government,, that has a pretty good ring to it don't you think. Someone said that all rights were not absolute under the constitution,,and I then retorted,, then I guess,, your right to life isn't absolute is it,, he couldn't get back to me. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what good are these words if you can't protect your self.

[TLAM Strike]

This is the only info-graphic you need:
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1319/tumblrmh3l48q7x71rrov60.jpg


Someone said that all rights were not absolute under the constitution,,and I then retorted,, then I guess,, your right to life isn't absolute is it,, he couldn't get back to me. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what good are these words if you can't protect your self.
Point of interest: "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not in the Constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence.

[Oberon]

This is the only info-graphic you need:
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1319/tumblrmh3l48q7x71rrov60.jpg


Lance Corporal Charles Whitman of the USMC, who saved a fellow marine by single-handedly lifting a jeep. Honorably discharged from the USMC, he lived an ordinary life, he was close to his mother, who was undergoing a divorce from her abusive husband, and suffered from severe headaches, resorting to the use of aphetamines to try to dull the pain.
A perfectly normal person, who one day decided to murder his wife and mother, and then take to a tower and snipe his way through 46 people.
His autopsy found a tumour in his brain which may have been responsible for some of his behaviour, but otherwise it remains a mystery how a clever, talented Marine who loved his mother and wife, would suddenly choose to kill both of them and then attack innocent bystanders. Not even Whitman could understand it.

So...how do you stop that? Arrest everyone who used to be a Marine? Or arrest everyone with an IQ over 130? Everyone with a tumour? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Lance Corporal Charles Whitman of the USMC
What is it yubba says ? once a marine always a marine oooh-ahhh

Point of interest: "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not in the Constitution.
Don't ya just love it when "constitutionalist" fanatics show they don't know what they are fanatic about

[raymond6751]

The other day the news report was that over 3000 Americans had been killed by gun violence since the elementary school shooting just weeks before. You have to question all stats presented, by anybody.

Why not simply increase the penalties for using guns in crime? How about an automatic 20 year/no-parole addition to any sentence when a gun was involved in committing any crime?

Remove the ability to get parole for gun murders, life - hard labor.

You can't get the guns off the streets now. You can make folks really aware of the cost of using them.

[TLAM Strike]

Lance Corporal Charles Whitman of the USMC, who saved a fellow marine by single-handedly lifting a jeep. Honorably discharged from the USMC, he lived an ordinary life, he was close to his mother, who was undergoing a divorce from her abusive husband, and suffered from severe headaches, resorting to the use of aphetamines to try to dull the pain.
A perfectly normal person, who one day decided to murder his wife and mother, and then take to a tower and snipe his way through 46 people.
His autopsy found a tumour in his brain which may have been responsible for some of his behaviour, but otherwise it remains a mystery how a clever, talented Marine who loved his mother and wife, would suddenly choose to kill both of them and then attack innocent bystanders. Not even Whitman could understand it.

So...how do you stop that? Arrest everyone who used to be a Marine? Or arrest everyone with an IQ over 130? Everyone with a tumour? :hmmm:

He didn't just drop everything one day and shoot a bunch of people, you cut out an entire month between the time he visited psychiatrist Dr. Maurice Heatly and the murders.

From his July 31st suicide note referencing his March 29 visit to the University of Texas Health Center:
However, lately (I can't recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks. In March when my parents made a physical break I noticed a great deal of stress. I consulted a Dr. Cochrum at the University Health Center and asked him to recommend someone that I could consult with about some psychiatric disorders I felt I had. I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt come overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.A full month before he killed a Doctor knew what he was planning but couldn't or wouldn't do anything.

From Dr. Maurice Heatly notes:

He readily admits having overwhelming periods of hostility with a very minimum of provocation. Repeated inquiries attempting to analyze his exact experiences were not too successful with the exception of his vivid references to “thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people”.
Dr. Heatly told him to make an appointment for next week or to stop by to talk at any time. That never happened, not the following week or the next two weeks after.

There is also evidence that Whitman was abusing drugs like the amphetamine Dexedrine and over the counter pain killers in the months leading to the shooting.

While a tumor may have cause Whitman's murders there were warning signs in the month(s) leading up to it.

[yubba]

This is the only info-graphic you need:
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1319/tumblrmh3l48q7x71rrov60.jpg



Point of interest: "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not in the Constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence.
Give that guy a cookie, so who gave us those rights ????? While you ponder that here's something to look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1AMYHHAXhI

[yubba]

What is it yubba says ? once a marine always a marine oooh-ahhh


Don't ya just love it when "constitutionalist" fanatics show they don't know what they are fanatic about,, You forgot one,, how about Timmy Mc Vay
Gee, that's not even a drop in the bucket compared to what Stalin did, or do you remeber that guy named, Hitler,... I got my Honorable,, what's your claim to fame, you seem to have alot to say,, what have you done for your country or for anybody else as of late besides being a bully.

[AndyJWest]

Um, Yubba, seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o

[yubba]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/392877_455443101204593_410670486_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455443101204593&set=a.362561847159386.84375.361783440570560&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)I guess us wacked out Marines got some catching up to do,, you should be so proud. And Timmy didn't use a gun and as far as I know bombs are illegal...And me I have no need to harm anyone, but I will protect my self, I have that God given right.

[Oberon]

He didn't just drop everything one day and shoot a bunch of people, you cut out an entire month between the time he visited psychiatrist Dr. Maurice Heatly and the murders.

From his July 31st suicide note referencing his March 29 visit to the University of Texas Health Center:
A full month before he killed a Doctor knew what he was planning but couldn't or wouldn't do anything.

From Dr. Maurice Heatly notes:

Dr. Heatly told him to make an appointment for next week or to stop by to talk at any time. That never happened, not the following week or the next two weeks after.

There is also evidence that Whitman was abusing drugs like the amphetamine Dexedrine and over the counter pain killers in the months leading to the shooting.

While a tumor may have cause Whitman's murders there were warning signs in the month(s) leading up to it.

So, who makes the call? A person confesses to having irrational thoughts possibly involving grievous bodily harm and/or murder, you can rope several thousand, if not hundreds of thousands of people into that box. Also the abuse of over the counter painkillers is something undertaken by many, many people, one or the other, or even both combined is not necessarily the signs of someone about to commit mass murder.
With the Doctor's quote that you mentioned there, was that quote taken before or after the mass-murder? Because you will notice that post-event many people will come out of the woodwork to state that the person who undertook the massacre was 'a bit odd', from either playing violent games, being a gun enthusiast, or listening to heavy metal music. It is quite possible that the Doctor only latched onto that sentence after the event when he came to realise the significance of it, at the time it was probably just noted and ignored.

Likewise, if one were to look strictly at the online blogs of Eric Harris and his 'rage against society' one would not have any major alarm bells ringing initially that would not also be put down to a young man going through a difficult stage of his life. In fact, on website statements alone one could probably select several members of this community out for concern that they may become a mass murderer. Obviously, as time went on, there were increasing warning signs from Harris and Klebold, however there is simply not the money or the manpower to read every online blog, to watch every troubled teen or young man, and only those who actually go to seek help are those who make it into the system, which at the moment from what I can tell in the writings post-Sandy Hook, is somewhat lacking in America because of a cutback which took place a while ago.

The fact is, unless you unleash the sort of 'big-brother' style monitoring system on America which pro-gun supporters seem determined to fight against, then you will not stop these sort of things happening because people will fall through the system, then they will get angry with the system, and then they will shoot at the system, taking out anyone who gets in the way, and usually they are young school-age people who see the school as 'part of the system' and thus target it.

So, what do you do? That's the Catch-22.

[Oberon]

I guess us wacked out Marines got some catching up to do,, you should be so proud. And Timmy didn't use a gun and as far as I know bombs are illegal...And me I have no need to harm anyone, but I will protect my self, I have that God given right.

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jesusfacepalm-300x300.jpg

Repeatedly posting something does not make it true, Yubba.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth

[yubba]

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jesusfacepalm-300x300.jpg

Repeatedly posting something does not make it true, Yubba.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/392877_455443101204593_410670486_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455443101204593&set=a.362561847159386.84375.361783440570560&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)
Then these guys didn't kill anybody, wow I'm so relieved, and I guess those freedom fighters didn't bring down the twin towers either,, at least that's what the liberal media are calling them and that's what they are teaching our kids in school... The media is now calling Islamic terrorist, freedom fighters, and illegal immigrants undocumented democrats. So what are you guys on the other side of the pond calling what happened in Cyprus ????? I call it theft, so not talking about it doesn't mean it never happened. Can you say Islamic Terrorist ?????

[Tribesman]

Repeatedly posting something does not make it true, Yubba.

Oberon, didn't you think the white supremacist shooting Indians was a bit of a giveaway about the credibility of yubbas chain e-mail claim(or was it direct from Alex Jones this time?)

[Oberon]

Oberon, didn't you think the white supremacist shooting Indians was a bit of a giveaway about the credibility of yubbas chain e-mail claim(or was it direct from Alex Jones this time?)

I know, I know, but sometimes I have to stop laughing at him and try and point out the fallacy in his right-wing chain mail copy-pastes, it never gets me anywhere but it passes the time.

[Jimbuna]

Time can be 'of the essence'.

[Oberon]

Alright, let's break this one down, bit by bit.

Then these guys didn't kill anybody, wow I'm so relieved,

Sure, they killed people, but your nice little bit of propaganda makes a false claim about their political preferences.


and I guess those freedom fighters didn't bring down the twin towers either,,
Maktab al-Khidamat, look it up. You had no problem calling them 'Freedom fighters' when they fought against the Soviets, strange that.

at least that's what the liberal media are calling them and that's what they are teaching our kids in school...

I was unaware that the United States of America had only one school that its entire population went to. Texas really is the center of the US then.

The media is now calling Islamic terrorist, freedom fighters,

Care to share a link about a US based MEDIA outlet calling a 'terrorist' a 'freedom fighter'?

and illegal immigrants undocumented democrats.

The only person in the US media who is calling them that are Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh, Associated Press has stated that it will no longer use the term 'illegal immigrant', it was Jay Leno that suggested that they be called 'Undocumented democrats', are you calling Jay Leno the only media outlet of America?

So what are you guys on the other side of the pond calling what happened in Cyprus ?????

Not relevant to a thread on gun infographics.

I call it theft, so not talking about it doesn't mean it never happened. Can you say Islamic Terrorist ?????

Not as well as you it would seem.

[Oberon]

Time can be 'of the essence'.

Thinking of calling time already Jim? I don't blame you, let me know when you ring last orders and mine'll be an Old Speckled Hen. :salute:

[CaptainMattJ.]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Sinful infographic. weak argument.

[Oberon]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Sinful infographic. weak argument.

I like that website. :up:

[TLAM Strike]

With the Doctor's quote that you mentioned there, was that quote taken before or after the mass-murder? Because you will notice that post-event many people will come out of the woodwork to state that the person who undertook the massacre was 'a bit odd', from either playing violent games, being a gun enthusiast, or listening to heavy metal music. It is quite possible that the Doctor only latched onto that sentence after the event when he came to realise the significance of it, at the time it was probably just noted and ignored. That quote was from the notes Dr. Heatly made of that session before the murders, typewritten and dated March 29, 1966.

You can read them in their entirety here:
http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/heatley.pdf

There is a real difference between listening to heavy metal or playing Doom and what Whitman said. He admitted to hitting his wife, thinking about killing people and would exhibit mood swings mid sentence. Mass-murderer or not that is at least a man who needs help. All he got was "make an appointment", that is a failure right there.

Likewise, if one were to look strictly at the online blogs of Eric Harris and his 'rage against society' one would not have any major alarm bells ringing initially that would not also be put down to a young man going through a difficult stage of his life. In fact, on website statements alone one could probably select several members of this community out for concern that they may become a mass murderer. Obviously, as time went on, there were increasing warning signs from Harris and Klebold, however there is simply not the money or the manpower to read every online blog, to watch every troubled teen or young man, and only those who actually go to seek help are those who make it into the system, which at the moment from what I can tell in the writings post-Sandy Hook, is somewhat lacking in America because of a cutback which took place a while ago.

The fact is, unless you unleash the sort of 'big-brother' style monitoring system on America which pro-gun supporters seem determined to fight against, then you will not stop these sort of things happening because people will fall through the system, then they will get angry with the system, and then they will shoot at the system, taking out anyone who gets in the way, and usually they are young school-age people who see the school as 'part of the system' and thus target it.

So, what do you do? That's the Catch-22.Well the VA has recently put a huge emphasis on mental health. Every time you call them you get reminded that if you are feeling like you might hurt yourself or someone else to talk to them. They bombard you with pamphlets, gun locks and refrigerator magnets:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8897/va1b.jpg

You are right about cutbacks. The VA tends to have a budget to do this since Vets have some clout with the politicians. Students (which Whitman was one after all) don't have that kind of clout, they don't have much of a lobby. Students at all levels are not getting any health education not just mental. Students provide an interesting case for the government, you can force them to do stuff (really ask any kid if he wants to go to school), but there is very little in requirements to learn about their mental health. When I went though school we learned the whole score of black history about three times, about how to put a rubber on our junk five or six times (once was in a into to business vocational class... seriously), but never that if we are thinking about hurting someone to go talk to a professional.

[Oberon]

That quote was from the notes Dr. Heatly made of that session before the murders, typewritten and dated March 29, 1966.

You can read them in their entirety here:
http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/heatley.pdf

There is a real difference between listening to heavy metal or playing Doom and what Whitman said. He admitted to hitting his wife, thinking about killing people and would exhibit mood swings mid sentence. Mass-murderer or not that is at least a man who needs help. All he got was "make an appointment", that is a failure right there.

Well the VA has recently put a huge emphasis on mental health. Every time you call them you get reminded that if you are feeling like you might hurt yourself or someone else to talk to them. They bombard you with pamphlets, gun locks and refrigerator magnets:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8897/va1b.jpg

You are right about cutbacks. The VA tends to have a budget to do this since Vets have some clout with the politicians. Students (which Whitman was one after all) don't have that kind of clout, they don't have much of a lobby. Students at all levels are not getting any health education not just mental. Students provide an interesting case for the government, you can force them to do stuff (really ask any kid if he wants to go to school), but there is very little in requirements to learn about their mental health. When I went though school we learned the whole score of black history about three times, about how to put a rubber on our junk five or six times (once was in a into to business vocational class... seriously), but never that if we are thinking about hurting someone to go talk to a professional.

Good points, and I'm glad to see the VA is doing something about it, but there definitely needs to be some sort of similar service for students, however the trouble is when things like this are implemented they do tend to go over the top, so it'd probably end up with every student getting a psyche evaluation before morning assembly. However, something does need to be done about it, in a sensible manner, instead of this crazed knee-jerk responses that seem to be in vogue on both sides at the moment.

In regards to Whitman, that's a good point, and well put and I concede that the system certainly did fail him, although I honestly think that there are other Whitmans out there who slip through the system because the warning flags don't trigger correctly, however in terms of Veterans, I'm glad to see that there is a stronger focus on it which probably explains why we haven't had a modern Whitman for a while, despite the occasional shoot-outs at bases which are harder to stop because it's inner service and as a part of the service looking towards a counsellor would be looked down upon by both fellow servicemen and many higher ups because of the ethos that you've got to 'man up and put up' that has remained within the service over the years, which to some extent is true but then you've got those who can't do that but are still good soldiers and it all falls apart a little.
Students, on the other hand, yes, they are much less monitored, and I can see that your sexual health classes are not that dissimilar to ours, and yet it does sod all to stop teenage pregnancies :haha: but if a similar sort of energy could be put into helping troubled people in a time which is extremely difficult for people who do not fit into a specific frame in school and suffer because of it.
Reminds me of the song done by P.O.D called 'Youth of the Nation', listening to it makes you think and fear for the youth of today and tomorrow.

[yubba]

Undocumented democrats was an error on my part,, the media is not calling them that I know,, I playgerized Rush and I'm deeply sorry can you forgive me I'm so polilically incorrect,,,So what are they calling them now,,???? And after all of this,, all you got is one Marine that did a mass shooting back in 1966.,,wow you rock . So are they still calling the Ft Hood Shooting a work place inceident,,?????:har::har:

[yubba]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/chicago-shootings-25-woun_n_2991974.html maybe you can get your heads wrapped around this,,,I go fly now..

[Oberon]

Undocumented democrats was an error on my part,,
Indeed so, and so easily diagnosed as such. Perhaps next time it would pay to take a few moments to research what you write before you hit 'Submit Reply' or 'Post thread'?

the media is not calling them that I know,, I playgerized Rush and I'm deeply sorry can you forgive me I'm so polilically incorrect,,,
Politically and grammatically. Are you trying to use morse code with commas? :hmmm:


So what are they calling them now,,????
Immigrants who have entered illegally. It's referring to the action of entering and being in a nation illegally rather than calling the person illegal. Tomato, Tomateo.

And after all of this,, all you got is one Marine that did a mass shooting back in 1966.,,wow you rock
:hmmm: And?

So are they still calling the Ft Hood Shooting a work place inceident,,?????:har::har:
What should it be? An act of terror? Does that make Sandy Hook an act of terrorism? :hmmm:

[Madox58]

I go fly now
Probably with those wings from being Bat-crap-crazy?
(Ya, I'll take a warning for that one :D)

[Sailor Steve]

Probably with those wings from being Bat-crap-crazy?
(Ya, I'll take a warning for that one :D)
Um...don't do whatever it was you think you did. Consider yourself warned. I think.

[Madox58]

Um...don't do whatever it was you think you did. Consider yourself warned. I think.
To late.
I think.
I'm still confused if I'm warned or not?
:huh:
I think.
:haha:

[yubba]

Probably with those wings from being Bat-crap-crazy?
(Ya, I'll take a warning for that one :D) no silly goose il-2 I think I'm an attic
No offence taken,, because you are right and don't you ever forget it. I'm alot calmer than I use to be, but I can still hit a beer can at 50 paces with my 1911 so who's side did you want to be on ??????

[AndyJWest]

I think I'm an attic.

You think that you are a space beneath the pitched roof of a house? :o

[yubba]

What should it be? An act of terror? Does that make Sandy Hook an act of terrorism? :hmmm:
It was a very horrible incedent, and it shouldn't have been used to advance an agenda,, it was done in poor taste, and those people are still being exploited it is sickening. We had the greatest heath care system none to man, that shooter could have been helped, but no let's get goverment involved, well good luck with that.

[yubba]

You think that you are a space beneath the pitched roof of a house? :o
oops addict

[Madox58]

I'm on my own side Mate.
Been shot at more then once in my life also.
Judgeing from pictures?
You have around a five foot plus stride for left-right steps.
That places you 25 feet give or take away from target.
I'd also bet it's a stationary target where you have time to calmly take a shot with no threat of incoming fire, in a situation you control.

As a Marine? I'd expect you to realize what your odds are were you to come under fire from anyone beyound that range armed with nearly any rifle.

Add to the fact I don't fight that way.
(Which means I ain't the only one trained like that)
You'd never see me to start and I'd drop you and that 1911 at over 500 yards.
(And THAT is an EASY shot for me!)

That is not a threat from me by any means by the way.
It's just that when people tell me what they can do with a Hand Gun at close range?
Combat is rarely at close range or under those 'beer can' shooting conditions.

[Oberon]

It was a very horrible incedent, and it shouldn't have been used to advance an agenda,,
We can both agree on that. :yep:

it was done in poor taste, and those people are still being exploited it is sickening.
Unfortunately in this day and age, and perhaps even in earlier days and ages, people caught up in tragedies are prime targets for political exploitation, from both sides.

We had the greatest heath care system none to man, that shooter could have been helped, but no let's get goverment involved, well good luck with that.

I can't really comment on the US health care system because it confuses me somewhat, but that aside, I think we can both agree that the mental health care system for young men needs to be improved and drastically. Unfortunately without government assistance, that's not likely to happen because it is not a profit making exercise, and private enterprise is only interested in making money, be it from government grants or from charging patients for care. Either which way the patient comes last.
Admittedly, even when government does get involved, it usually tries to run the service to make money when it should be run to mend people, but that's the way the system works, exploitable resources and all that.

[yubba]

That would be 50 yards with 45 and a beer can ,, at the time i couldn't spell known,, that was known to man. and any G.I knows to shoot for center mass on a move-ing I've been shooting all my life, I've been shot at and have returned fire, I think once was enough, I made my my point clear, don't take pot shots at someone that might return fire. I bet that guy had a bitch of a time patching those 12 ga slug holes in the rear quarter panel of that 65 falcon, and that guy had an ar or a mini 14. save myself and the freind I was fishing with.

[Jimbuna]

Thinking of calling time already Jim? I don't blame you, let me know when you ring last orders and mine'll be an Old Speckled Hen. :salute:

Much prefer Brown Dog or Spitfire :cool:

[Ducimus]

So, has confiscation begun in new york? Seems to have made some local news, but I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere else.

Attorney: Use Anti-Anxiety Meds, Lose Pistol Permit (http://www.wben.com/pages/16002790.php?contentType=4&contentId=12770509)

Talk radio segment (http://www.wben.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=6319907)

Gun Confiscations Have Begun in New York (http://americanlivewire.com/gun-confiscations-have-begun-in-new-york/)

[August]

So, has confiscation begun in new york? Seems to have made some local news, but I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere else.

Attorney: Use Anti-Anxiety Meds, Lose Pistol Permit (http://www.wben.com/pages/16002790.php?contentType=4&contentId=12770509)

Talk radio segment (http://www.wben.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=6319907)

Gun Confiscations Have Begun in New York (http://americanlivewire.com/gun-confiscations-have-begun-in-new-york/)

But...but, the Democrats swore that nobody would try to take our guns? :o

[eddie]

Hardly reliable news sources for confiscating guns,lol To those news sources, I give them this-:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393_zps51b5b16a.jpg

[Tribesman]

So, has confiscation begun in new york? Seems to have made some local news, but I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere else.

So that "unknown" news contains the same non story you linked to 8 days ago.


But...but, the Democrats swore that nobody would try to take our guns? :o
Unless you can point to a politician who said they wouldn't take guns from people with mental health issues or whose kids were planning an armed violent crime that would be a strawman again.

In other news. This week two people have been shot dead in the States by 4 year olds.

[August]

Hardly reliable news sources for confiscating guns,lol To those news sources, I give them this-:D

Hold off on the condescending internet meme's. There just might be some truth to the story.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Did-Prescription-Meds-Cause-Amherst-Mans-Pistol-Permit-to-be-Revoked-202217321.html

[Madox58]

In other news. This week two people have been shot dead in the States by 4 year olds.
Uh Oh!! Time to ban 4 year olds!!

[Tribesman]

Hold off on the condescending internet meme's. There just might be some truth to the story.

Forget about "some" truth to the story, what about the truth of the story?
All you have so far is a lawyer saying his client thinks the medical issue might be the reason for the suspension of the permit.
Mental issues are covered under the legislation and even that twat La Pierre says that mental issues should be covered in restricting access to firearms

Uh Oh!! Time to ban 4 year olds!!
Since it isn't something you hear about happening much elsewhere perhaps the answer is to ban just American 4 year olds!!
......or get sensible on firearms.

[Ducimus]

Uh Oh!! Time to ban 4 year olds!!

Not before they ban knives. After all, having someone run around and stab 14 people simply will not do.

[Oberon]

Just ban people from the United States, that'll solve all problems. :yep:

[Ducimus]

Just ban people from the United States, that'll solve all problems. :yep:

You know, your right! Human nature is a dangerous thing. That's the root of all evil you know! Ill jump on this bandwagon!

Ban people! :O:

[August]

You know, your right! Human nature is a dangerous thing. That's the root of all evil you know! Ill jump on this bandwagon!

Ban people! :O:

We once banned the English but like every other ban it hasn't seemed to do much good. :yep:

[Ducimus]

We once banned the English but like every other ban it hasn't seemed to do much good. :yep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-r-5kB1Sz0

:O:

[Ducimus]

Joy.....

New York tells legal gun owner to hand over weapons (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2293945945001/new-york-tells-legal-gun-owner-to-hand-over-weapons/?playlist_id=921261890001)

If it's on CNN, or Foxnews, its probably legit.

[Tribesman]

If it's on CNN, or Foxnews, its probably legit.
So you are posting the same story again and again.
But it does contain a "shocking" new revelation, they sent the letter to the wrong person.

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-r-5kB1Sz0

:O:

:haha::haha::haha:

[Bubblehead1980]

Apparently the mother of a Newtown, CT shooting victim will deliver the President's Weekly radio address for him.This is inappropriate and disgusting as they are exploiting this woman's grief for political purposes as they know they do not have legal or moral ground to stand on in their efforts to destroy the second amendment! Instead, they push emotion based propaganda hoping it will garner support based on the irrational emotional feelings for this woman.Of course the media will not call Obama out for this, they never do. :/\\!!

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, the media must have turn it out. Where did you hear this? Anyway, it is not surprise this is exploited.

[mookiemookie]

Oh Bubblehead, we missed your insightful, substantial, well thought out, and open-minded political commentary.

:/\\:

[Ducimus]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

While not surprising given the current political environment of:
a.) Never let a good crisis go to waste
b.) Emotion > Logic and reasoning.

A Citation is always needed in these matters.

No reputable link, and your just talking out yer ass like Jim Carrey.

[Oberon]

Aaaah, Bubblehead, I wondered when you'd return. Yubba has missed you.

[Bubblehead1980]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

While not surprising given the current political environment of:
a.) Never let a good crisis go to waste
b.) Emotion > Logic and reasoning.

A Citation is always needed in these matters.

No reputable link, and your just talking out yer ass like Jim Carrey.

Heard it on CNN AND FOX and here you go, from one of the State Media Branches, NPR via The White House.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=177040392

[Bubblehead1980]

Aaaah, Bubblehead, I wondered when you'd return. Yubba has missed you.


lol I am busy and do not have time to argue(plus it's like arguing with down syndrome kids) as most here seem to lean left but I read the boards once a week or so and comment when I am able.

[Tchocky]

The worst part is that she was forced by the President to do the address. She had no choice in the matter.

[Ducimus]

The worst part is that she was forced by the President to do the address. She had no choice in the matter.

Really?

[eddie]

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

[Ducimus]

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr299/bayside4528/mds/tumblr_llvcz7Hwyc1qzb9vso1_400.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

bubba80, you are so predictable...so graduate law school yet?

[Tchocky]

Really?


Hell no.

This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.

[Bubblehead1980]

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

I do not fault her as she is emotional and not thinking clearly.The mother of the victim may be a liberal hack but I will not blame her for now and will give her the benefit of the doubt.However, it is inappropriate for the president to allow this as it is exploiting a tragedy to advance his unconstitutional agenda.Like I said, he(they) know they have no legal, rational, or even moral ground to stand in the gun "debate", so they appeal not to the rational but the irrational, the emotions of citizens hoping to gain enough support.They do this on every issue , it is wrong and just disgusting.

[Bubblehead1980]

Hell no.

This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.


That's the great thing here, this is not about opinions, it is about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that the Government shall NOT infringe upon.The Federal government has no right to do anything here, especially when the goal is not "safety" but to take a right, which they are not permitted to do. However, the point is that it is wrong to exploit this poor woman or any victim to advance his agenda.

[Buddahaid]

The worst part is that she was forced by the President to do the address. She had no choice in the matter.

Forced how? At gunpoint? :hmm2:

[Bubblehead1980]

bubba80, you are so predictable...so graduate law school yet?

I detect your sarcasm but next year will be my final year.

[Méo]

b.) Emotion > Logic and reasoning.

According to Nietzsche in his book ''beyond good and evil'' the notion of good and bad had to be replaced by the notion of ''values''.

Maybe the values of those who experienced a terrible tragedy like this simply switched from total freedom to a certain type of regulation (particularly for those who are mentally unstable).

Just sayin...

[Ducimus]

Hell no.

Is that, "Hell no the president didn't force her", or is that " Hell no she didn't have a choice"?


This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

Well I think putting someone up on the mic like that is pretty damn manipulative. It's a direct and blatant effect to tug on people's heartstrings, as opposed to sound logic and reasoning. Which, from a certain point of view (:O: ), is wrong and immoral.


You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Honestly, I think he was waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Did you watch the speech where he supposedly cried? I'm no expert on body language, but his crying on stage was lacking some vital details of sincerity:
- Your eyes are connected to your nose via tear ducts. I don't recall him sniffeling at all.
- His eyes weren't red in the slightest, as crying is apt to cause.
- No tear left his eyes. He put his finger up to the corner of his eye, paused in his speech, and that was it.

Now, it's not my intention to turn this into a debate about Obama, body language or what not, my point here is I doubt it was the worst day of his presidency, and i'm just giving you the reasons why I think this.



Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.



Well i agree nobody is going to change their minds. In fact I think it will only serve to heighten tensions between opposing views, and here I would take issue with Obama, Fienstien, et al, for inflaming and making the issue more divisive then it needed to be. They sure as hell got me politically active, which is no easy task.


EDIT:
According to Nietzsche in his book ''beyond good and evil'' the notion of good and bad had to be replaced by the notion of ''values''.

Maybe the values of those who experienced a terrible tragedy like this simply switched from total freedom to a certain type of regulation (particularly for those who are mentally unstable).

Just sayin...

I experienced plenty of violence growing up as a kid. Drive by shootings, gang violence, people out to get me wiith assorted weapons including guns, etc. etc. It didn't change my opinion any. Law and legislature is the field of logic and reasoning. Not emotionally charged kneejerk reactions.

[Sailor Steve]

Forced how? At gunpoint? :hmm2:
Did you miss his reply to Ducimus? He was being sarcastic in response to the OP. His point was that she isn't being forced, but doing it of her own free will.

I think you both missed it, possibly due to emotionalism on your parts.

[Bubblehead1980]

Did you miss his reply to Ducimus? He was being sarcastic in response to the OP. His point was that she isn't being forced, but doing it of her own free will.

I think you both missed it, possibly due to emotionalism on your parts.

And his response was well, stupid.I know she is not being forced.However, she is most likely still emotionally fragile and on an emotional driven, non rational crusade now that Dear Leader is exploiting so he can continue to solidify power and dominance over this country.Of course, it is all in the name of safety.

[Ducimus]

I think you both missed it, possibly due to emotionalism on your parts.

I couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, hence I asking for elaboration on that. Because if that's not sarcasm.. again.. citation needed! :haha:

[Buddahaid]

Did you miss his reply to Ducimus? He was being sarcastic in response to the OP. His point was that she isn't being forced, but doing it of her own free will.

I think you both missed it, possibly due to emotionalism on your parts.

I missed the sarcasm all right which was the reason for my post, but I'm far from emotional about the thread topic.

[Sailor Steve]

lol I am busy and do not have time to argue
But you do have time to spout emotionalist rhetoric? And when have you ever argued a point here at all? I'm still waiting for you to figure that out.

(plus it's like arguing with down syndrome kids)
And that kind of insult will get you to the point where you can't post here at all.

as most here seem to lean left
And again you just don't get it. I am just as hardcore on this issue as you are, maybe more so. The problem isn't which way someone leans, but your childish habit of coming in with a headline in big bold letterw, stating your opinion and then refusing to actually discuss it. After all this time you still have not learned what I've told you so many times before: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. You continue to say it as if your opinion is the only one that counts.

The sooner you'll learn that the sooner you might actually get some credibility and respect around here.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm far from emotional about the thread topic.
That's why I hedged my bet with "possibly". :sunny:

[Ducimus]

That's why I hedged my bet with "possibly". :sunny:

I dunno about you, but I hedge my bet's all the time. Im usually, not always, but usually, very careful in my wording. "Possibly" or "probably" are quite possibly some of my favorite words. :haha:

(did you see what i did there? :88) )

[TarJak]

Well I think putting someone up on the mic like that is pretty damn manipulative. It's a direct and blatant effect to tug on people's heartstrings, as opposed to sound logic and reasoning. Which, from a certain point of view (:O: ), is wrong and immoral.
Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.


Well i agree nobody is going to change their minds. In fact I think it will only serve to heighten tensions between opposing views, and here I would take issue with Obama, Fienstien, et al, for inflaming and making the issue more divisive then it needed to be. They sure as hell got me politically active, which is no easy task.

So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.

I experienced plenty of violence growing up as a kid. Drive by shootings, gang violence, people out to get me wiith assorted weapons including guns, etc. etc. It didn't change my opinion any. Law and legislature is the field of logic and reasoning. Not emotionally charged kneejerk reactions.
But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

[Ducimus]

Tarjak, in short, I disagree, on all points.

[Méo]

@Ducimus

My comment wasn't pointed at you directly, it's just that I see a lot of emotion vs reason comments on this forum.

----

Speaking of reason and facts why can't they admit that among all nations of western civilisation, United States is BY FAR the country with the highest crime rates due to firearms?...

Firearm homicide rate per 100 000 pop.

Canada: 0.51
England: 0.07
Germany: 0.19
United States: 3.21

The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership and the highest rate of officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Now, are those facts or emotion?

As Sheldon would say: ''Don't answer, it's rhetorical'' :)

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38vd_j7e2HY&feature=player_detailpage#t=33s

[TarJak]

Tarjak, in short, I disagree, on all points.
So the govt are not trying to use this woman's emotional tug to sway opinion?
Further emotion plays no part in politics.?
Thats some pretty strange logic and reasoning in my book.

[Ducimus]

@Ducimus

My comment wasn't pointed at you directly, it's just that I see a lot of emotion vs reason comments on this forum.


I admit you'll see that alot from me. Though I think that's because I'm more well practiced in compartmentalization then most people.


Speaking of reason and facts why can't they admit that among all nations of western civilisation, United States is BY FAR the country with the highest crime rates due to firearms?.

I would say your skewing, no.. i'm sorry, not skewing, cherry picking the data to taste. Why just guns? Why not overall violent crime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)?


EDIT:

So the govt are not trying to use this woman's emotional tug to sway opinion?
Further emotion plays no part in politics.?
Thats some pretty strange logic and reasoning in my book.

I digress.

I agree that the government is trying to play on heart strings. I said as much earlier.

While emotions do run high in politics, i feel they have no place there.

Remarks about myself, or the founding fathers of my country I disagree with. For one, you really don't know me. For two, originally the founders tried to avoid war. Which i would call a sign of logic and reason.

[Bubblehead1980]

But you do have time to spout emotionalist rhetoric? And when have you ever argued a point here at all? I'm still waiting for you to figure that out.


And that kind of insult will get you to the point where you can't post here at all.


And again you just don't get it. I am just as hardcore on this issue as you are, maybe more so. The problem isn't which way someone leans, but your childish habit of coming in with a headline in big bold letterw, stating your opinion and then refusing to actually discuss it. After all this time you still have not learned what I've told you so many times before: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. You continue to say it as if your opinion is the only one that counts.

The sooner you'll learn that the sooner you might actually get some credibility and respect around here.


I have discussed the point in the OP and my responses.This is exploitation of a woman who is most likely in such grief and a private citizen has no place given a presidential address.Of course others took the topic into other things but that i the point, this is another scumbag move on part of dear leader.My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.

[Oberon]

Why not overall violent crime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)?

That all depends on what is called 'violent crime'. The violent crime definition for UK police is different to that of the US police.

In the US, violent crime is reported as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."
In the UK, violent crime is reported as “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses”

[Ducimus]

That all depends on what is called 'violent crime'. The violent crime definition for UK police is different to that of the US police.

In the US, violent crime is reported as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."
In the UK, violent crime is reported as “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses”

So you don't classify murder as a violent crime? And you guys call us barbaric! :O: :haha:

and Honestly, what your saying there is so similar, i think your splitting hairs.

[Oberon]

So you don't classify murder as a violent crime? And you guys call us barbaric! :O: :haha:

Honestly, those are so similar, i think your splitting hairs.

:O: The point is though, that the figures are misleading because there are more crimes that are classified as 'violent crimes' in the UK that go classified as something else in the US.

[Ducimus]

:O: The point is though, that the figures are misleading because there are more crimes that are classified as 'violent crimes' in the UK that go classified as something else in the US.

How i'm interpretting this is you actually have MORE then what was cited because you have those violent crime stats in addition to........ whatever else, while we just lump them all into one category.


Backtracking a moment, and putting most everything else aside, I think the guy in that video makes an undeniable point about large metro areas. That is where most of the crime occurs, and we do have more large metro's.

Where I live, crime is so rare, i have inlaw's that rarely lock their doors. The nickname of this area is "happy valley" because everyone here lives in a bubble so to speak, because nothing bad - never, or rarely happens here. (wheres I grew up in SoCal, and am not as oblivious to crime or bad people. I always lock my doors, and put stop sticks in the windows. Others, not so much.)

Again, that brings me to gun crime being a local problem, that should be handled by local law agencies. Which.. leads me to posting this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwgZzeq8oI) (again?).

[Bubblehead1980]

Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.


So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.


But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

[TarJak]

I digress.

I agree that the government is trying to play on heart strings. I said as much earlier.

While emotions do run high in politics, i feel they have no place there.

Remarks about myself, or the founding fathers of my country I disagree with. For one, you really don't know me. For two, originally the founders tried to avoid war. Which i would call a sign of logic and reason.
I don't know you other than your persona on Subsim. Honestly, I've no desire to ever meet you either. That does not mean I cannot deduce some emotional responses, based on my own logic and reasoning.

I'm sure that you and the founding fathers use logic and reasoning, however, emotions drive the thinking that starts that process. With no emotional response, politics has no reason to exist.

Stating that one side or another in a debate is using emotion to the exclusion of logic and reasoning is disengenuous at best and unreasonable at worst.

The OP's statement that the mother's emotional responses are irrational is absurd, however that's Bubblehead for you.

There will always be emotion on both sides of any argument otherwise there is no argument.

[Ducimus]

Honestly, I've no desire to ever meet you either.

Feel the love! :haha:

You can hate my guts if you like. I don't mind.

[TarJak]

Feel the love! :haha:

You can hate my guts if you like. I don't mind.
:haha:
I don't care enough about you to hate you. Not enough emotional response. ;)

[Ducimus]

Aww geez. :haha: :salute:

edit:

seriously though, it IS hard to get upset when whoever it is is an ocean away, and is part of a completely different country and culture.

[Méo]

I would say your skewing, no.. i'm sorry, not skewing, cherry picking the data to taste.

Well that's what you think, I just don't have the time to write/do a whole study on the matter.

----

The guy in your video seems to think that he is very clever and say that others have agenda.

But I could also say that he's biased. He offers absolutely no definition at all of what is considered to be a violent crime, which should be the base of a reasonable argumentation.
(Ex. an hold up with a knife is probably considered as a violent crime but is nothing compared to mass shootings.)
Edit: Oberon made my point.

Also, he says that crimes in the U.S. has decreased over time but forget to mention that crimes in other countries ALSO decreased.

The only thing I agree with him is at the end when he says that part of the solution is the economy (but that's a very complex problem to resolve).

----

To me all this is so, so simple. The more guns there will be, the more uses of guns there will be. And a background check on people with mental issues before selling them firearms seems to me fairly reasonable.

If I ever travel to your country to go to Disneyland with my kids, will I have to rent an AR-15:06:

I kid of course...

[Ducimus]

Meo, your biased as well. Don't pretend your not.

Let's be honest, EVERYBODY in this thread is biased. If you didn't have a bias, you wouldn't be involving yourself.

[TarJak]

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.
I don't think I said either Ducimus or the Founding father's emotional responses were irrational. Merely that their emotions drove their behaviours. What they rationalise about their responses makes no difference to my point. Emotions and politics are intrinsically linked and are inseparable. When a politician says something about something you care about, you are more likely to have an emotional response that motivates you to do or say something about it.

Call it what you will, but natural instinct and emotion are one and the same thing. It is a what your pre-frontal cortex does that makes it so.


Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.
Why is their grief irrational? Can a person experiencing grief not be rational? Why is their opinion any less valid that someone that was not directly affected?


People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.
Which is why it is being debated in that paragon of logic and rational thought, the US Senate and Congress.:haha:

[TarJak]

Aww geez. :haha: :salute:

edit:

seriously though, it IS hard to get upset when whoever it is is an ocean away, and is part of a completely different country and culture.

And this is why I :subsim:

[Méo]

@Ducimus

Maybe, but I don't think I pretend anything at all. ;)

Btw, I respect some conservative like you or Steve (don't know exactly if you are, but seems so). :hmmm:

I'm just amazed to see some folks here being so extreme in their posts (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about).

If you didn't have a bias, you wouldn't be involving yourself.

You're right now I remember why I stopped posting in GR.

Peace out :sunny:

[Ducimus]

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I just have to post this one more time because I think it should be heard.

A Colorado Sheriff Responds To President Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwgZzeq8oI)

This sheriff succinctly makes nearly every argument that I think i've been trying to make in this thread. On this note, I am a bit tired of posting about this, so i'll bow out of this thread now. Not intended as a cope out, I'm just genuinely weary of the politics, and I hope this is all over soon.

edit:
@Ducimus

Maybe, but I don't think I pretend anything at all. ;)

Btw, I respect some conservative like you or Steve (don't know exactly if you are, but seems so). :hmmm:

I'm just amazed to see some folks here being so extreme in their posts (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about).

Peace out :sunny:

I think you'll find me somewhere in, or near, the Libertarian camp. And yeah I know what your talking about.

[Oberon]

How i'm interpretting this is you actually have MORE then what was cited because you have those violent crime stats in addition to........ whatever else, while we just lump them all into one category.

:hmmm: Not entirely sure I follow that line of thought. The reason we have more 'violent crimes' in that category are because we class crimes in that category that the US doesn't. So it's really the other way around, we lump them all into one category, including crimes that in the US aren't counted as 'violent crime'. For example, in the UK, all sexual offenses are classed as 'violent crime' not just forcible rape. Vehicle theft, purse snatching and bicycle theft are also classed as 'violent crime' (now you see why our officers are always stuck behind desks of paper).


Backtracking a moment, and putting most everything else aside, I think the guy in that video makes an undeniable point about large metro areas. That is where most of the crime occurs, and we do have more large metro's.

Where I live, crime is so rare, i have inlaw's that rarely lock their doors. The nickname of this area is "happy valley" because everyone here lives in a bubble so to speak, because nothing bad - never, or rarely happens here. (wheres I grew up in SoCal, and am not as oblivious to crime or bad people. I always lock my doors, and put stop sticks in the windows. Others, not so much.)You certainly do have more large scale urban areas, and it cannot be denied that there is a higher rate of crime in urban areas than in rural areas. Around here, which is pretty rural but still a tourist hotspot, crime is also very low, we had a spate of break-ins by a drug addict looking to fund his latest fix, but they were mainly focused on commercial areas and the odd holiday home. If anything, around here, there are more traffic offences and related deaths than any real violence, although there are certain towns that are a bit rough, and it's usually the youth partaking in the crime because they can get away with it more. But I digress...

Now, if you compare the stats for property crime rates in the UK and US, you get the following picture (data from 2011):
US - just over 9,000,000
(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/property-crime/property-crime and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-2)
UK - +/- 2,124,169
(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_263244.pdf - For some reason, Violence against the person and Sexual assault are included in the Total Property Damages section of this report, I removed them to get the figure I have displayed)


EDIT: And in the time it took me to research that, the discussion has ended. :haha: This is why I fail at maths! :har: But anyway, there's no real axe to grind here, as you've probably seen in other threads I can argue both sides of gun control, and I fall probably somewhere in the middle of the argument (I do that a lot, I had this annoying habit of being able to see both sides of most disagreements) but I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding which is cropping up a lot in America at the moment. :salute:

[Oberon]

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I just have to post this one more time because I think it should be heard.

A Colorado Sheriff Responds To President Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwgZzeq8oI)



Now that I can agree with. The primary reason the government is acting on gun control is so it can be seen as 'doing something'. It is primarily a political act rather than an effective act.

Well said that officer. When government tries to get involved with law enforcement, usually a mess will follow, I think any policeman could agree with that.

The question is, how does one address the 'culture of violence' and 'criminal gun activities', I don't think anyone in either the US or UK government knows the answer to this.

[Sailor Steve]

I have discussed the point in the OP and my responses.This is exploitation of a woman who is most likely in such grief and a private citizen has no place given a presidential address.Of course others took the topic into other things but that i the point, this is another scumbag move on part of dear leader.My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.
No, you screamed and yelled and waved your arms. Your point is actually a good one, but you are indeed being quite emotional. What you say here about private citizens and presidents is much more reasonable, but as soon as you call it "disgusting". You may think it is, and it may be, but that is an extremely emotional response, and not rational at all.

Also, you will never be able to have a real discussion as long as you keep pushing the hard-right point of view.

Of course Obama is using this for his own agenda. It's what politicians do. He is no better and no worse than other presidents who have done this, and no different. Unless you can respond equally to the ones on "your" side when it happens, then you will continue to come across as nothing more than a right-wing shill.

[TarJak]

My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.
So you had no emotional response to the story? Why post something about it then? Having emotions is not a weakness, although that is what you are implying and you are actually doing what you are accusing Obama and this mother of. Using emotion to sway and argument. Doing so under the guise that you are being logical and reasonable is just BS.

Where is the truth in saying that this mother's emotions invalidate her right to a voice in this debate?

As Steve and I pointed out the politicians on both sides will use emotion to sway people, that's what they do. If you expect anything else, then you are certainly not living in the real world.

[Tribesman]

Why not overall violent crime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)?

Since that has already been answered last time you posted the same video surely the question is ...
Why are you repeating the same rubbish from the same source when it has already been shown to be complete rubbish?

Not entirely sure I follow that line of thought.
oberon.
That is because that "line of thought" does not follow anything like thought.
The sets of figures used are completely incomparible so any attempt at drawing conclusions by comparing those figures is an exercise in dishonesty.

[Sailor Steve]

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.
You really need to study a little history. After a couple of taxes the Founders (all of them, not just the famous ones) overreacted by a huge margin, tarring and feathering tax collectors, rioting, mobbing and attacking soldiers merely for what they represented. This is not to say the British governors were any better, yelling for soldiers when a little honest discussion would have done the trick. To their credit the Founders didn't actually start shooting until troops were sent to confiscate weapons. The first time they got rational and logical was when they decided it was time to write the Declaration, and that was a year after the war had started. By that point they had to start being rational or lose everything.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.
This is a good observation. If only you had started with this, rather than the way you did.

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.
And that's something you'll never get whenever a 'hot-button' topic like this arises. No one is being rational here, on either side. For something rational to happen it needs to be discussed rationally, not with words like "disgusting". This is, however, a start.

[mookiemookie]

So you had no emotional response to the story? Why post something about it then? Having emotions is not a weakness, although that is what you are implying and you are actually doing what you are accusing Obama and this mother of. Using emotion to sway and argument. Doing so under the guise that you are being logical and reasonable is just BS.

When you consider the misogynistic statements he's made in the past, the "weak emotional woman" thing makes perfect sense.

[Bubblehead1980]

When you consider the misogynistic statements he's made in the past, the "weak emotional woman" thing makes perfect sense.

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY. I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality.However, this is off topic as this post was about the president exploiting a grieving mother to appeal to emotions and prevent a rational, fact based discussion on an issue.

[Tchocky]

You, Bubblehead, are certainly never emotional.

[Sailor Steve]

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY.
Do you have any actual proof for this claim? It's merely your opinion.

I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality.
And we're back to the same old games. If you can't come up with any facts, use innuendo and call people names.

However, this is off topic as this post was about the president exploiting a grieving mother to appeal to emotions and prevent a rational, fact based discussion on an issue.
That's a fair point, but it has been pointed out that most if not all politicians do this, and you only bring it up when it's the side you don't like, which makes you disengenuous at best. Besides, can you show one single instance on this forum where you have ever offered a rational, fact-based discussion about anything? You started this thread ranting and raving about it, not discussing it. You almost got there once, but now you're back to the hardcore one-sided name game.

Oh, and capslock, which indicates shouting when used in print, doesn't help your argument for someone else being unreasonable.

[Tribesman]

Do you have any actual proof for this claim? It's merely your opinion.

It's not merely his opinion, its a CAPSLOCK opinion:03:

[gimpy117]

Apparently the mother of a Newtown, CT shooting victim will deliver the President's Weekly radio address for him.This is inappropriate and disgusting as they are exploiting this woman's grief for political purposes as they know they do not have legal or moral ground to stand on in their efforts to destroy the second amendment! Instead, they push emotion based propaganda hoping it will garner support based on the irrational emotional feelings for this woman.Of course the media will not call Obama out for this, they never do. :/\\!!


I think she kind of has a vested interest in gun control. Right Or wrong, the parents of newtown (or at least some) are campaigning for Obama's proposed gun bills. Just because they had a tragedy happen does not mean they do not get to participate in our political process. Should I say the same thing to parents of dead soldiers when they ask for us to support the troops? HECK NO! parents shouldn't bury their kids no matter how they passed on...and I can understand anybody who puts the word out there after any kind of tragedy.

[mookiemookie]

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY. No it's not. (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News/news/june98/nr4.html)

I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality. No it's not.

[Sailor Steve]

HECK NO!
BE CAREFUL. THE CAPSLOCK POLICE ARE ON PATROL.

[HunterICX]

BE CAREFUL. THE CAPSLOCK POLICE ARE ON PATROL.

HALT LOWERCASE SCUM, YOU'VE VIOLATED THE LAW!!!

HunterICX

[Hottentot]

WHO INVOKES THE SACRED NAME OF OUR HALLOWED CAPSLOCK IN THIS UNWORTHY THREAD?! SOMEONE START BEATING THE HERETICS WITH BIG STICKS WHILE I GET THE PRETZELS!!

[Stealhead]

I AM CAPSLOCK HEAR ME ROAR!! !!RAOR EM REAH KCOLSPAC MA I

[Tribesman]

WHO INVOKES THE SACRED NAME OF OUR HALLOWED CAPSLOCK IN THIS UNWORTHY THREAD?! SOMEONE START BEATING THE HERETICS WITH BIG STICKS WHILE I GET THE PRETZELS!!
YOU SEEM EMOTIONAL. ARE YOU A WOMAN?
FOR SO IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN WOMEN ARE EMOTIONAL SO MUST IT BE TRUE

[AVGWarhawk]

WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS. MEN ARE FROM MARS.

[JU_88]

Apparently the mother of a Newtown, CT shooting victim will deliver the President's Weekly radio address for him.This is inappropriate and disgusting as they are exploiting this woman's grief for political purposes as they know they do not have legal or moral ground to stand on in their efforts to destroy the second amendment! Instead, they push emotion based propaganda hoping it will garner support based on the irrational emotional feelings for this woman.Of course the media will not call Obama out for this, they never do. :/\\!!


Not the first time and wont be the last. Its all too easy to shut down any line of argument, reasoning or even questioning with an emotional response such as "think of those who have died" Yep, if all else fails goes for the heart strings. Its nothing new.

[Bubblehead1980]

Not the first time and wont be the last. Its all too easy to shut down any line of argument, reasoning or even questioning with an emotional response such as "think of those who have died" Yep, if all else fails goes for the heart strings. Its nothing new.

I know it is nothing new but more people call it out, perhaps over time, it won't be such an effective tactic. Appealing to emotions to influence important decisions, especially the second amendment RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitution, instead of a legitimate debate on the second amendment(even though it is pretty clear) is appealing to the lowest of the low. People should be offended, because it's manipulative, cynical, and WRONG.

This is one reason I despise the left, they never try to argue facts or the a logical, rational basis, they go on emotion, mob rule etc This is beneath me as a human and beneath everyone else.Unfortunately, some people are just stupid and do not realize this.:/\\!!

[Sailor Steve]

I know it is nothing new but more people call it out, perhaps over time, it won't be such an effective tactic. Appealing to emotions to influence important decisions, especially the second amendment RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitution, instead of a legitimate debate on the second amendment(even though it is pretty clear) is appealing to the lowest of the low. People should be offended, because it's manipulative, cynical, and WRONG.
Calling it out is one thing. Becoming overly emotional yourself and making yourself look more a fool than they do is another thing entirely.

This is one reason I despise the left, they never try to argue facts or the a logical, rational basis, they go on emotion, mob rule etc This is beneath me as a human and beneath everyone else.Unfortunately, some people are just stupid and do not realize this.:/\\!!
You're about to get laughed at some more, for the simple reason that you've just described yourself again. Can you show a single time when you have argued facts on a logical, rational basis in these forums. You say it's beneath you, yet you use emotional tactics and name-calling practically every time you post. I've tried time and again to show you the error of your ways, but you still don't get it.

[Oberon]

This is one reason I despise the left, they never try to argue facts or the a logical, rational basis,

This from a paragon of rational debate... :hmmm:

[razark]

[T]he left... never try to argue facts or the a logical, rational basis...
Still waiting on an answer:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2013349&postcount=48

Unfortunately, some people are just stupid and do not realize this.:/\\!!
Hehehehehehehe. You said it, bubs.

[Tribesman]

Still waiting on an answer:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=48 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2013349&postcount=48)

Don't be cruel Razark, you know full well where his topic on Obamas secret army of nazi dentists is, you are just rubbing it in to make bubbles look like ....bubbles:D

[JU_88]

This is one reason I despise the left, they never try to argue facts or the a logical, rational basis, they go on emotion, mob rule etc This is beneath me as a human and beneath everyone else.Unfortunately, some people are just stupid and do not realize this.:/\\!!

hmm, Im pretty satistfied that its an indervidual thing rather than a partisan thing, Ive seen people from both sides do what you describe in similar quantities.

[Ducimus]

United States Senate voting record for today.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm

It update's about every 20 to 30 mins.

EDIT:
Since I'm bumping this thread (instead of creating a new one), i may as well toss this in here too.

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/17/cant-make-progress-in-gun-debate-until-there-is-respect-on-both-sides/)

[Bubblehead1980]

The attempt to infringe upon our Second Amendment RIGHTS was voted down today in the US Senate.This is a clear victory in the ongoing battle to preserve what is left of our Republic.The war will remain "hot" as long as Dear Leader is President but this was a great day for liberty as it triumphed over reactionary emotional politics.Sadly, only ten or so individuals were the deciding factor.I will admit, it was great watching obama look like a petulant child at his post vote conference and sad watching grieving families be exploited for political purposes for I fear that in their grief, they realize not what they do.Stay informed, Stay involved, Stay vigilant.

[Tchocky]

This thread promises to be full of lively discussion and totally free of bluster.

[Ducimus]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2043052&postcount=333

[Platapus]

Not that anyone in GT would be interested in facts, but just in case, here is a link to the legislation if anyone wants to read it

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:sp715:

It should be noted that the vote taken to day was on the amendment to S.649. The Senate still needs to vote on S. 649.

HEN13499 aka Grassley Cruz amendment also failed

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/HEN13499.pdf

So both sides lost today.

[eddie]

In before yubba and Oberon!:haha:

[Armistead]

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49/faolbushcraft/Misc/bth_popcorn-1.gif

Oh boy,,,yet another gun control thread...

[Stealhead]

In before yubba and Oberon!:haha:

It might be a while for Yubba he got brigged the other day they may still have him sleeping it it off.:03:

[Red October1984]

'Merica

Nuff said. :yep:

[Stealhead]

Not that anyone in GT would be interested in facts, but just in case, here is a link to the legislation if anyone wants to read it

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:sp715:

It should be noted that the vote taken to day was on the amendment to S.649. The Senate still needs to vote on S. 649.

HEN13499 aka Grassley Cruz amendment also failed

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/HEN13499.pdf

So both sides lost today.

Reading your first link it is my interpretation that firearms listed in section 402 these are the permitted firearms.Is that correct?
Kind of confusing because you need to also have the current code as well to cross reference seeing as it is an amendment to that.

Here is the current code simply look for the section where each item is added in.

It seems to me to be more clearly defining different firearms what is allowed if that firearm can possible be produced in such a manner that it may violate the code.Basically it is adding more firearms to the list.In other words clearly defining more firearms as permitted that currently are not clearly.

I do not know to be honest looking at that crap it may as well have been in Russian.

[Platapus]

Hard to tell. The way these amendment bills are written, it almost defies reading by humans.

[Stealhead]

That is where I am confused is it saying those guns are illegal period?

The way it is written it looks like it is saying you cant own them period.Or it might be saying that those are permitted.

I think the ones in the top list are the ones that must meet a set standard to be allowed but what is the standard?

[Stealhead]

I think this bill bans a lot of firearms because of this line:

identification Markings for Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.--Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.''.

and this one

Identification Markings for Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.--Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall be identified by a serial number and the date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.''.

And this

(w)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition

And they claim that this bill expands gun rights? I beg to differ when it has a huge list of currently legal firearms that clearly would no longer be legal and makes magazine over 10 rounds illegal.

[mookiemookie]

Funny how the child bangs the drum of "GO AMERICA!" and bows down at the altar of democracy when things go his way, but when they don't, it's a failing of the system (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199684) and complains how America is full of disgusting immigrants. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1942856#post1942856)

In short, you're still crass and offensive, and as always, get lost.

[Stealhead]

Funny how the child bangs the drum of "GO AMERICA!" and bows down at the altar of democracy when things go his way, but when they don't, it's a failing of the system (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199684) and complains how America is full of disgusting immigrants. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1942856#post1942856)

In short, you're still crass and offensive, and as always, get lost.

You are addressing Bubblehead I assume because if you are putting me in the same boat has him you are way way off the mark.Especially the part about disgusting immigrants I would have to cut myself in half if that where the case because my mother is not a native born American.

Not trying to pick a fight just clarifying things you did link threads started by him though your intent is not 100% clear your referring to Bubbles or making a blanket statement.If you are talking about Bubbles which I believe that you are based on your usual style then carry on.

[mookiemookie]

You are addressing Bubblehead I assume because if you are putting me in the same boat has him you are way way off the mark.

Oh no, I was addressing OP. Sorry I didn't quote his dribble and it looked like I was replying to you.

*hat tip*

[Subnuts]

Man, can't we just volunteer someone to start a gun control thread every day until every American owns an unregistered M249 that they can carry around in grocery stores without anyone raising an eyebrow?

[mookiemookie]

Man, can't we just volunteer someone to start a gun control thread every day until every American owns an unregistered M249 that they can carry around in grocery stores without anyone raising an eyebrow?

You can take my GAU-19 when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. Or my cold dead Hummer. Either way, really. I need it for home defense. And hunting.

Why do you hate America?

[vienna]

So, basically, nothing at all has changed, re: gun laws? Yeah, victory, whatever.....(yawn)...

<O>

[Tchocky]

And they claim that this bill expands gun rights? I beg to differ when it has a huge list of currently legal firearms that clearly would no longer be legal and makes magazine over 10 rounds illegal.

The expansion bit was an amendment to make it mandatory that states respect CC permits issued in other states. You get concealed carry in Wisconsin, it has to be respected in Delaware no matter what their laws are.

Which I imagine would become a "states rights" issue for the Republican caucus had this bill been about anything except guns.

[mookiemookie]

Which I imagine would become a "states rights" issue for the Republican caucus had this bill been about anything except guns.

*cough* recognizing gay marriages *cough*

[Stealhead]

Oh no, I was addressing OP. Sorry I didn't quote his dribble and it looked like I was replying to you.

*hat tip*

That what I thought but my brain is a little fired reading that legal gobbledygook.I swear lawyers do that just to enure that they have a job.If the crap was in plain English you'd have no need for them.

By the way your avatar the cat he stars in a Bjork video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB9d-MMIx0.

Cat:Women are emotional leftist fools"
Bjork:Jerk!
Cat:Eww Glenn Beck my hero!!
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/tumblr_m1jmyb797Q1qgx23ro1_500_zps47939d80.gif (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/tumblr_m1jmyb797Q1qgx23ro1_500_zps47939d80.gif.htm l)

[Bubblehead1980]

Funny how the child bangs the drum of "GO AMERICA!" and bows down at the altar of democracy when things go his way, but when they don't, it's a failing of the system (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199684) and complains how America is full of disgusting immigrants. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1942856#post1942856)

In short, you're still crass and offensive, and as always, get lost.

No, it's not about "my way" you, fellow subsimmer you. This is about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.Yes, when the Congress manages to pass unconstitutional, idiotic things that will and already are harming us, that have no business being passed anyways as they are blatantly unconstitutional then our system failed. I am banging the drum as you put it, because for now, liberty has been upheld but as the OP stated, it's always in danger, especially while Dear Leader is in office.

Our system is failing and yes, we have a lot of disgusting immigrants that break laws cause problems etc when they have NO right to be here.Sure citizens do same, but it is kind of like your kid, well you will tolerate your kid and punish them accordingly, but you do not want to deal with other people's children.I am for legal immigration but you don't allow so much immigration, especially illegal(government has allowed illegal immigration) to go on for many years, that it allows a demographics to shift and causes the country to move away from what has made it great, if left unchecked we will end up like everyone else.Call the racist, xenophobic whatever, it is not, it is the truth. I am for legal immigration of people we want, the end.

As far as your ling to the "disgusting immigrants" , like typical liberal without a spine, something no "PC" you pitch a fit about.I was saying I dislike the Iranians in my class , partly because the do smell.That is not racist, bigoted etc, they really do smell! I would think the same if a white person smelled. Do all Iranians smell? no However, that stereotype is a stereotype because many more people aside from me have encountered a smelly iranian or two. Just get over yourself and your sensitive bs.

In short, you are whiny, petulant, and far too sensitive.Get over yourself.:yeah:

[Stealhead]

Drinking game time chug a beer each time the words liberal,sensitive,liberty,"smell" and "truth" appear.


http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/1336066024_beer_drinker_pukes_on_friend_zps31e7614 7.gif (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/1336066024_beer_drinker_pukes_on_friend_zps31e7614 7.gif.html)

[Bubblehead1980]

Drinking game time chug a beer each time the words liberal,sensitive,liberty,"smell" and "truth" appear.


http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/1336066024_beer_drinker_pukes_on_friend_zps31e7614 7.gif (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/1336066024_beer_drinker_pukes_on_friend_zps31e7614 7.gif.html)

or you could make a real point...

[AndyJWest]

Does this thread have a real point? It doesn't look that way to me - or at least, there doesn't seem to be any real point in having yet another thread on exactly the same subject as every other "OMG the gummint is stealin our guns, rustlin our wimmin and *%$#%£# our cattle" thread.

[vienna]

Well, the thread was started by Bubbles...did anyone really expect it to have any point?...

<O>

[Cybermat47]

"OMG the gummint is stealin our guns, rustlin our wimmin and *%$#%£# our cattle"

http://imageshack.us/a/img94/8841/photoapr18133521.gif
OH MY GOOOOOOD!

[eddie]

Well, the thread was started by Bubbles...did anyone really expect it to have any point?...

<O>

Good point!:D

[vienna]

How very sharp of you!...

<O>

[Stealhead]

or you could make a real point...

You should consider taking your own advice sometime.

[Bubblehead1980]

You should consider taking your own advice sometime.

I made a point, the post was to discuss the vote today, as it was a victory for those of us who prefer not to be subjects.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Huzza for quoting ones self!:O:
Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA

Its interesting how in the US the population seems to always contradict itself, we throw a person in prison because of a crime, we let them out on "good behavior", and yet certain persons are apposed to making it more difficult for said criminal to get a weapon so they can commit further crimes and how members of a "certain political party" complains that we can or can't enforce the rules and laws concerning firearms when a "certain organization" has told that "certain political party" to defund the departments and/or organizations tasked with enforcing said rules and laws concerning firearms. Also could someone please explain to me how any of the gun control measures that have been brought up in the past few months, A) Have anything what-so-ever to do with changing any part the Constitution of the United States and/or it violates Article V of the Constitution. B) How exactly do these gun controlling measures violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution when the courts have ruled otherwise? C) When has any person who has and/or currently supports gun control measures has said "The government is going to take away your guns!", or has said anything similar?

Just some food for thought, though I doubt it will change anyone's mind on what they believe on this particular subject. On a side note as to the third question yeah I know it was Senator Feinstein who said it. But the probability of taking away the gun of the entire population of the United States is impossible, impractical, and highly improbable.

[Bubblehead1980]

Huzza for quoting ones self!:O:
On a side note as to the third question yeah I know it was Senator Feinstein who said it. But the probability of taking away the gun of the entire population of the United States is impossible, impractical, and highly improbable.


The second amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.The government doing anything to prevent a citizen(except say a convicted felon) or someone who is actually mentally ill from obtaining a gun is unconstitutional. There are background checks now for gun stores, private sellers should have their own discretion but can't knowingly sell to a felon or wackjob.This weekends tragedy in Boston shows no matter how many rights we give up(Patriot Act) bad things can and will happen, it is called life and the price of living in a FREE Republic, not a nanny police state, even though we are much closer because of our emotional reaction to 9/11 The Feds simply want a way to track who has what and they have no right to do so.

While it would be pretty much impossible to confiscate guns en masse, they could pass a law saying everyone must turn firearms in and after time period if caught with one, harsh penalities, many would regrettably turn them in, others would retain in, some would find themselves in horrible legal situations, some would go waco and ruby ridge and we would have government abusing it's power yet again.Why you people do not understand that the one thing that keeps the government in line, especially when we have more maniacal leaders like NHO in office is the fact there so much of the population is heavily armed, they know they could never achieve what they want via force.They have tried for many years the slow but sure approach and it is why they use propaganda and emotion to try get people to give up their rights.

Aside from the clear violation of the second amendment, the spirit of the second is also violated by checks, etc as the founders intended for the citizens to always have a manner to defend themselves against tyranny.They lived under it and knew the nature of man, and the men who make up governments as history had shown and has since.This is one reason they did not say muskets etc, they knew firearms would advance, as technology does, they knew though that opponents of liberty seeking power do not, they have always been there, and always will.

[AndyJWest]

Paranoia...

[Tribesman]

it was a victory for those of us who prefer not to be subjects.
But bubbles, you are a subject:rotfl2:

[Nippelspanner]

*sigh*
Why am I even still entering pointless threads like this?
I should have learned my lesson after some year in GT...

Damn...

[u1950]

:up:Paranoia...

[Oberon]

In before yubba and Oberon!:haha:

Sorry I'm late, Mr President! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKP9wOK4aE)

Anyway, not much more I can add to the discussion other than:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/820/4edd0a501861331d6400000.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Man, can't we just volunteer someone to start a gun control thread every day until every American owns an unregistered M249 that they can carry around in grocery stores without anyone raising an eyebrow?

If someone will reply with a link to the previous gun control threads, I'll merge them.

[Oberon]

If someone will reply with a link to the previous gun control threads, I'll merge them.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203683

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203694

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203710

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203587

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203573

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203535

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203468

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203378

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202957

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203145

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203129

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203123

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202501

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202410

There we go, that's going back to page 10, and that's just the obvious threads, not the ones that got derailed into gun control law discussion. :salute:

[Onkel Neal]

Sheesh, people, use the existing thread :timeout: We don't need a new thread on the same topic every 4 days.

Merged.

[Ducimus]

Sheesh, people, use the existing thread :timeout: We don't need a new thread on the same topic every 4 days.

Merged.

Just for the record. I, for one, was. And I think I kept rhetoric to a minimum. Most certainly by way of comparison at the very least.

[mookiemookie]

Looking at the way this story is being reported...

The Senate, which is controlled by the president's own party, handed him a stinging first defeat for his second term by voting down a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun buyers.

A stinging first defeat...handed Obama a stinging first defeat.

How about the people that this proposed law would have affected? How about the law itself? But no, the news media couches it in terms of Obama's wins and losses. A "blow to" the gun control movement. A "stinging defeat" for the president.

According to the media, it's not a stinging defeat to anyone but Obama. Idiots. Horse race journalism at its finest.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

The second amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.The government doing anything to prevent a citizen(except say a convicted felon) or someone who is actually mentally ill from obtaining a gun is unconstitutional. There are background checks now for gun stores, private sellers should have their own discretion but can't knowingly sell to a felon or wackjob.This weekends tragedy in Boston shows no matter how many rights we give up(Patriot Act) bad things can and will happen, it is called life and the price of living in a FREE Republic, not a nanny police state, even though we are much closer because of our emotional reaction to 9/11 The Feds simply want a way to track who has what and they have no right to do so. There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one. Its the job of every government to protect their citizens yet in this nation our government isn't allowed to do so because of way some people define the 2nd Amendment. As for the background checks in gun stores that to my understanding has been per individual states but hasn't existed at a national level, private sellers already use their own discretion as to whom they will or will not sell a firearm to. And could you elaborate how exactly a private seller can't knowingly sell to a felon or a mentally ill person without knowing if the person they are selling to is or isn't a felon or mentally ill? As for what happened in Boston, while it was horrific and tragic no amount of bills, rules, laws, or acts can 100% prevent bad things from happening, that's a fact.

While it would be pretty much impossible to confiscate guns en masse, they could pass a law saying everyone must turn firearms in and after time period if caught with one, harsh penalities, many would regrettably turn them in, others would retain in, some would find themselves in horrible legal situations, some would go waco and ruby ridge and we would have government abusing it's power yet again.Why you people do not understand that the one thing that keeps the government in line, especially when we have more maniacal leaders like NHO in office is the fact there so much of the population is heavily armed, they know they could never achieve what they want via force.They have tried for many years the slow but sure approach and it is why they use propaganda and emotion to try get people to give up their rights. To be correct they could try to pass said law only to have it voted down anyways as the current political climate would make it nearly impossible to do so. On the other hand to make a similar law where people volunteer to turn in their firearms at their discretion and not force them to turn in their firearms would gain much more acceptance. I cite two passages from the gun laws in Finland " Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offence. Unlicensed firearms may be confiscated by the police without punishment under a gun amnesty law, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrendered in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed. It is also possible for the owner to get a license for the gun.", "Due to changes to the legislation, unregistered firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does so of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. Unlicensed weapons may be turned over to the police, without fear of prosecution. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of unregistered firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even the Finnish Civil War." As to the last half of this particular quote I cite from the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment "In United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Aside from the clear violation of the second amendment, the spirit of the second is also violated by checks, etc as the founders intended for the citizens to always have a manner to defend themselves against tyranny.They lived under it and knew the nature of man, and the men who make up governments as history had shown and has since.This is one reason they did not say muskets etc, they knew firearms would advance, as technology does, they knew though that opponents of liberty seeking power do not, they have always been there, and always will. Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.

[GoldenRivet]

Looking at the way this story is being reported...



A stinging first defeat...handed Obama a stinging first defeat.

How about the people that this proposed law would have affected? How about the law itself? But no, the news media couches it in terms of Obama's wins and losses. A "blow to" the gun control movement. A "stinging defeat" for the president.

According to the media, it's not a stinging defeat to anyone but Obama. Idiots. Horse race journalism at its finest.

Lil Bush lived through it

So will obummer

[AVGWarhawk]

Looking at the way this story is being reported...



A stinging first defeat...handed Obama a stinging first defeat.

How about the people that this proposed law would have affected? How about the law itself? But no, the news media couches it in terms of Obama's wins and losses. A "blow to" the gun control movement. A "stinging defeat" for the president.

According to the media, it's not a stinging defeat to anyone but Obama. Idiots. Horse race journalism at its finest.


Ultimately it does not matter who it stings. It was defeated. This tells me that some are taking a look at the bill and actually reading it. Unlike a few bills passed in a matter of minutes that are a "swiping" victory for POTUS.

[mookiemookie]

Lil Bush lived through it

So will obummer

Ultimately it does not matter who it stings. It was defeated. This tells me that some are taking a look at the bill and actually reading it. Unlike a few bills passed in a matter of minutes that are a "swiping" victory for POTUS.

I think you guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the bill is or the issue was. When the media reports on it being a "victory" or a "defeat" for the President, it's purely focusing on the horse race, the partisan politics involved and the "score" between Team R and Team D.

Whether or not you think a given piece of legislation is good or bad, when the news media reports on its passing or failure as a "victory" or "defeat" for the sitting President or the political party that backed it, that's trash journalism. That's crap that hurts the country. It's focusing on the spectacle of politics that's become a stupid sideshow and it neglects to inform people about what's really going on in terms of the laws that will affect them. It puts the actual issue aside...you know, the thing that's actually gonna affect people...and makes the important thing out to be whether it was a "victory" or "defeat" for the President.

It hurts democracy and turns voters into idiots.

[Ducimus]

I think you guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the bill is or the issue was. When the media reports on it being a "victory" or a "defeat" for the President, it's purely focusing on the horse race, the partisan politics involved and the "score" between Team R and Team D.

Whether or not you think a given piece of legislation is good or bad, when the news media reports on its passing or failure as a "victory" or "defeat" for the sitting President or the political party that backed it, that's trash journalism. That's crap that hurts the country. It's focusing on the spectacle of politics that's become a stupid sideshow and it neglects to inform people about what's really going on in terms of the laws that will affect them.

It hurts democracy and turns voters into idiots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2EPKKVrqI

[Bilge_Rat]

Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.

Trying to discuss legal reasoning with Bubba is pointless. As defined by the Supreme Court in D.C. v Heller, there was nothing in the Senate Gun Bill that was an unconstitutional restriction of Second Amendment rights:


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgmentof the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.





http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(see pp. 54-56).

so expanded background checks, assault weapon bans, high capacity magazine bans, etc. are all within the jurisdiction of Congress.

Its not a constitutional issue, its purely a political issue.

[Ducimus]

Its not a constitutional issue, its purely a political issue.

I think it' a cultural issue. There really are two sides to the American coin. On one side, you have the people who live in reallly large meto areas. They tend to be more progressive in their views. San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, etc etc.

On the other side of the coin, is just about everybody else.

From past posts that I think you've made, i think your on the progressive side of the coin. If correct, I say to you and others of the progressive persuasion, that I highly suggest reading these two articles:

The gun debate is a culture debate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/)

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/17/cant-make-progress-in-gun-debate-until-there-is-respect-on-both-sides/)

[Tchocky]

The gun debate is a culture debate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/)

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/17/cant-make-progress-in-gun-debate-until-there-is-respect-on-both-sides/)

I stopped reading after this.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.


This would be the mother of all false comparisons.

[Ducimus]

I stopped reading after this.


And because people REFUSE to understand the cultural divide, and remain WILLFULLY IGNORANT, the vicious circle will go round and round.

Personally, having originally come from California, i know exactly how people in large metro's view guns. Living where I do now, I also know the other side of the coin as well.

Anyway, whatever. I have better things to do then try and nudge immoveable objects.

[Bilge_Rat]

I think it' a cultural issue. There really are two sides to the American coin. On one side, you have the people who live in reallly large meto areas. They tend to be more progressive in their views. San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, etc etc.

On the other side of the coin, is just about everybody else.

From past posts that I think you've made, i think your on the progressive side of the coin. If correct, I say to you and others of the progressive persuasion, that I highly suggest reading these two articles:

The gun debate is a culture debate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/)

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/17/cant-make-progress-in-gun-debate-until-there-is-respect-on-both-sides/)

As a Canadian and a responsible gun owner myself, I try to stay out of it since it is a U.S. issue. I only intervene on the Constitutional aspects. Canada's own bill of rights was heavily influenced by the U.S. constitution and judges up here always keep an eye on what is going on south of the border, so I have to pay attention as well.

[Tchocky]

Seriously Ducimus, I understand a lot of what 2nd Amendment defenders are talking about, I think I understand why a lot of people don't want any further gun control.

What I don't do is bother myself reading articles that are badly-phrased broadsides against imaginary opponents. The points made in that article are nothing to do with a "cultural divide" - they're trying to make pro-gun people look stupid.

The same pointless tautological arguments are made. Criminals don't obey laws (why is this always phrased like some sort of messianic revelation?). Swimming pools kill more people than guns. Why aren't liberals banning swimming pools?

Look at this.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

To paraphrase - some parents are good parents, some are insane.

Look at the second article. The headline calls for respect on both sides - then proceeds to list a bunch of stupid things gun control advocates said. Including Jim Carrey. Note that there is no call for respect from gun rights advocates.

Now for God's sake, I could write an article complaining about gunrights advocates and quote nobody except Ted Nugent and BubbleHead1980. It would be the easiest thing to write but would also be fundamentally worthless as a piece of writing. The same goes here.

The author has only one piece of advice for gun rights advocates - get your facts right. He's saying that one side is already respectful and just has to tighten the messaging. It's the Democrats (led by Jim Carrey) who are cruel manipulative liars.

[Tribesman]

I stopped reading after this.

Its worth reading both, he does the swimming pools nonsense again in the 2nd piece.

[mookiemookie]

I stopped reading after this.




This would be the mother of all false comparisons.

Seriously. That article was basically "anti-gun people are irrational and need to come around to our way of thinking." That was the author's entire point.

And the second article, he spends 98% of the piece pointing out how ridiculous the anti-gun crowd is in his eyes, and he spends two sentences saying "Gun-rights supporters need to stop characterizing all gun-control advocates as ultimately wanting to “ban guns.” Most do not."

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

[Ducimus]

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think you guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the bill is or the issue was. When the media reports on it being a "victory" or a "defeat" for the President, it's purely focusing on the horse race, the partisan politics involved and the "score" between Team R and Team D.

Whether or not you think a given piece of legislation is good or bad, when the news media reports on its passing or failure as a "victory" or "defeat" for the sitting President or the political party that backed it, that's trash journalism. That's crap that hurts the country. It's focusing on the spectacle of politics that's become a stupid sideshow and it neglects to inform people about what's really going on in terms of the laws that will affect them. It puts the actual issue aside...you know, the thing that's actually gonna affect people...and makes the important thing out to be whether it was a "victory" or "defeat" for the President.

It hurts democracy and turns voters into idiots.

I understand your point about the media and the circus it provides. But, as thinkers, we rise above. Some do not think nor rise above though.

[Tchocky]

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure how to put this without being offensive - you're exactly the kind of person this article is seeking. Concerned about Second Amendment rights, but want to be civil and not-a-jerk about it.

Notice that the article says there's nothing wrong with you - it's the liberals who need to get a grip. The whole thing is one-sided with a nice happy title that gives it the covering of bipartisanship the content/arguments do not warrant.

[Ducimus]

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

Neither is CNN, as I have already pointed out. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2040344&postcount=92) Your not going to get an unbiased news source in the United States. Period. ALL news sources pander to a demographic for ratings. Your best bet is to read multiple sources and filter out the rhetoric, instead of focusing on just the rhetoric. Admittedly, that can be hard at times.


EDIT:
I'm not sure how to put this without being offensive - you're exactly the kind of person this article is seeking. Concerned about Second Amendment rights, but want to be civil and not-a-jerk about it.

Notice that the article says there's nothing wrong with you - it's the liberals who need to get a grip. The whole thing is one-sided with a nice happy title that gives it the covering of bipartisanship the content/arguments do not warrant.

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

[geetrue]

I was saying I dislike the Iranians in my class , partly because the do smell.That is not racist, bigoted etc, they really do smell! I would think the same if a white person smelled. Do all Iranians smell? no However, that stereotype is a stereotype because many more people aside from me have encountered a smelly iranian or two.

I can't help you with your other problems :woot:, but I think I can shine some light on the smelly Iranian problem.

I just found out the reason why flamingo's are pink ...

it's because they eat shrimp: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2305/are-flamingos-pink-because-they-eat-shrimps

... honest injun :yep:

so perhaps what you and your friends are really smelling is something that is not in your diet like
garbazo beans and olive oil or something like that.


I have another suggestion for those of us (including me)
that jump on these assumptions that bubbleheads theories
are mis-aligned and in need of our constant attention to correction.

Stop feeding the humans :know:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4836563624854919&w=207&h=207&c=8&pid=3.1&qlt=90

[Tchocky]

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.

[Ducimus]

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

Well, thank you for acknowledging my point. I could illustrate the differences I have encountered if your interested. I have to admit though If i hadn't have seen the differences in how guns are perceived myself, I probably wouldn't have believed the differences either.


However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews. When I first wrote my post, I had originally included the caveat "if you can stomach fox news", but for some reason removed that sentence. I guess because I have bounced back and forth between CNN and Foxnews so many times, that I'm getting past the point where the bias on either one makes any serious difference to me. Funny, last year, I ONLY read CNN, and NEVER read fox news at all. Now I read them both equally. Go figure.

[Tribesman]

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews.
The problem isn't that it is on fox, the problem is the writer is full of crap.
You could have been CNN, WSJ, the BBC or VNN publishing it, it wouldn't matter as the pieces are still rubbish.

[August]

"Dangerous and unusual"

The AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other firearm and with millions of them in civilian hands it could not be considered at all unusual. Then there is the use of "and" instead of "or".

[Bubblehead1980]

There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one. Its the job of every government to protect their citizens yet in this nation our government isn't allowed to do so because of way some people define the 2nd Amendment. As for the background checks in gun stores that to my understanding has been per individual states but hasn't existed at a national level, private sellers already use their own discretion as to whom they will or will not sell a firearm to. And could you elaborate how exactly a private seller can't knowingly sell to a felon or a mentally ill person without knowing if the person they are selling to is or isn't a felon or mentally ill? As for what happened in Boston, while it was horrific and tragic no amount of bills, rules, laws, or acts can 100% prevent bad things from happening, that's a fact.

To be correct they could try to pass said law only to have it voted down anyways as the current political climate would make it nearly impossible to do so. On the other hand to make a similar law where people volunteer to turn in their firearms at their discretion and not force them to turn in their firearms would gain much more acceptance. I cite two passages from the gun laws in Finland " Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offence. Unlicensed firearms may be confiscated by the police without punishment under a gun amnesty law, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrendered in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed. It is also possible for the owner to get a license for the gun.", "Due to changes to the legislation, unregistered firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does so of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. Unlicensed weapons may be turned over to the police, without fear of prosecution. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of unregistered firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even the Finnish Civil War." As to the last half of this particular quote I cite from the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment "In United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That is what the Second Amendment says, clear, plain, and simple. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.Yes, it mentions militia but if you do some reading, you will find the founders also sought to facilitate the natural right of self preservation/defense, especially against tyranny, which they had lived under.They knew the nature of man, the nature of government, was to seek more and more power over time and diminish liberty.That is the spirit and purpose behind the second amendment and whole bill of rights, that is spelled out rather clearly in the above quoted line! To keep government at bay and protect the Republic.Sure, they could not imagine we would have such weaponry but they did not mention muskets or cannon etc because they knew things would advance and citizens should have proper weapons to guard against tyranny and protect one's life, liberty, and property.

The Heller decision says there is a "pre-existing right codified" in the Second Amendment which "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" Cruikshank was wrong and does not apply thanks to Heller, period.Quoting that decision, is a waste of time.

Quoting gun laws in Finland is absurd, they DO NOT apply, Finland is not the US, it has no value, no basis here in the US, the end.

[Bubblehead1980]

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



I agree there is a cultural divide BUT that is what is great here, opinions aside, we have the supreme law, the constitution, which grants the right to bear and keep armed.This is not a privilege but a RIGHT that shall not be infringed.This makes the anti gun crowd incorrect.They don't like it? Push for an amendment to the US constitution to change it! The lack of knowledge about this goes to the overall "dumbing down" of our culture and foreign influences over the last century.Allowing collective, marxist thinking to gain enough traction that it has influenced a portion of the population.Some of it is ignorant, stupid, emotional reactionary politics after tragedies. For the last 60+ years if the influence of leftist so called "thinking" had no influenced our government, then children from the time they were young, would have been taught all about their constitutional rights and the importance but with these infiltration of such ignorant thinking, these rights are not emphasized as they should be.This allows for emotion based politics among the unwashed masses not not the profound respect for individual rights, especially the right to self defense that is at the basis of the second amendment!

[AndyJWest]

"dumbing down". :rotfl2:

[Stealhead]

This allows for emotion based politics among the unwashed masses not not the profound respect for individual rights, especially the right to self defense that is at the basis of the second amendment!

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.

[Oberon]

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.

Does that count as ethnic cleansing? :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.


It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

[Tchocky]

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

You really are unpleasant.

[Platapus]

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.


Sure that is not just a euphemism for people who don't share your opinion?

[Bubblehead1980]

Great quote of Margaret Thatcher about liberals who get personal, like most do.They don't argue specifics, they just attack.You're racist, bigoted, etc

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

[Tchocky]

Great quote of Margaret Thatcher about liberals who get personal, like most do.They don't argue specifics, they just attack.You're racist, bigoted, etc

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

Two minutes separate these posts.

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

[Buddahaid]

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

Elitist dumbing up of our precious kinder is what you're suggesting then. It's been done before and was something of a flop.

[Stealhead]

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.


I know exactly what you meant by it.I was making fun of it.