Big Blue Huddle

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/what-plaxico-burress-life-in-prison-was-really-like/ar-AA14H1Hj?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6a01fa91a3b5461a80a7b8b5ddb6dd10

I really felt like jailing Plax was an injustice.   Just today, I read in the newspaper about a police sergeant who got drunk (over twice the legal limit), drove, and crashed into a stopped vehicle, nearly killing the driver (who suffered massive injury).   That sergeant didn't serve a day in jail (suspended sentence and probation) and was even allowed to retire from the police force rather than be fired so he could collect a pension.

When I compare that crime with the crime of illegal possession of a gun and shooting yourself, I don't know how that jail time was justified.

Knowing what I know now about how law abiding citizens are a target based on gun laws, any person who did what he did would have served jail time. He didn't properly holster the firearm and for it to go off he had to have had a live round in the chamber if it was a striker fire weapon. That bullet could have killed someone. 

A legal firearm owned by an FID or Carry Permit citizen can be prosecuted for a number of reasons without even firing a shot. Just taking it across state lines can result in a prison sentence. That's why many gun owners have legal insurance.

At the time I thought he was targeted because of his high profile. I know better now.

What's really touching is how family and friends turned their back on him. One incident or one decision can alter the course of a person's life. Sometimes it's in our control and sometimes it's not.

Jailing Plax was not the injustice. The injustice was giving the police sergeant a pass.

Quote from: Ed Vette on November 29, 2022, 11:49:54 AMWhat's really touching is how family and friends turned their back on him. One incident or one decision can alter the course of a person's life. Sometimes it's in our control and sometimes it's not.

This is really the case of finding out who your friends and family really are. To learn that, on top of everything else he was able to process in the correction facility, takes it to another level. He made his mistake, paid dearly for it, and knows things will never, ever, return to the way they were before that gun went off.

Even the snide remarks he receives, regarding how that impacted the 2008 Giants, will never go away. I view that season a grave disappointment, in the manner it played out, as Philly would never have done to the Giants what they did to kick them out of the post-season. The Cardinals going to the Super Bowl ... are you kidding me? Not if Plax was there. So, that's the way it is, and we can be bitter about that, but why continue after all this time?

That Plax will forever live in guilt, because of what he missed out on the football field, is bad enough. That he found out who was real to him, in his life, was painful but probably necessary anyway. That he lost the most intimate moments of being a dad will haunt him forever. You'll never get that time back and that pain is very real and doesn't go away easily. I've missed special days in my daughter's life, due to business travel, and know how it feels.

In all honesty, it would be more of a privilege to get to meet Plax now, versus when he was still playing with the Giants, for the wisdom he has taken from a near grave mistake in his life. He appears to be very much down to earth, as well as a caring family man, and is sought after in the talk radio world these days. Most of all, he is a human being, just like you and I.

I choose to remember him, at the end of Super Bowl XLII, with his family near-by, in tears as he reflected on catching the game-winning touchdown pass and the magnitude of what had just happened. It was a beautiful moment, not just for him, but for Giants' fans for the ages. It is that moment that remains with me whenever his name is mentioned.

Peace!

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 11:34:30 AMI really felt like jailing Plax was an injustice.   Just today, I read in the newspaper about a police sergeant who got drunk (over twice the legal limit), drove, and crashed into a stopped vehicle, nearly killing the driver (who suffered massive injury).   That sergeant didn't serve a day in jail (suspended sentence and probation) and was even allowed to retire from the police force rather than be fired so he could collect a pension.

When I compare that crime with the crime of illegal possession of a gun and shooting yourself, I don't know how that jail time was justified.

Welcome to the stupid gun laws out there that do nothing to prevent criminals from doing anything, yet over punish citizens who could/should have the legal right to carry!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with the decision or not but according the the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. If it happened now he would have an avenue to appeal his conviction avoiding jail. One day hopefully he'll have his record expunged. Yes what he did was stupid and reckless but at the end of the day the only person who suffered from that decision was Burress.

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 01:38:08 PMAgree with the decision or not but according the the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. If it happened now he would have an avenue to appeal his conviction avoiding jail. One day hopefully he'll have his record expunged. Yes what he did was stupid and reckless but at the end of the day the only person who suffered from that decision was Burress.

Correct!

It was an unconstitutional law!  Another reason we as citizens regardless of your beliefs need to ensure the constitution is followed and laws created don't overreach, today it's your 2A tomorrow it's another!  They won't stop overreaching if they know or think they can get away with it!

Now as Ed pointed out - him being a dummy for it not being properly holstered and it going off is an issue!  It isn't a crime though to be stupid, if so then we definitely don't have enough prisons!

He should challenge to get his record cleared!  Not that it gets him anything back sadly, but it at least takes the felony off his record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for the weakening of gun laws.  In fact, in light of the never-ending mass shootings, I would suggest the opposite. 

My point was if you consider that Plax's intent was not to rob or shoot someone, I felt the punishment was overly harsh.  To me, the punishment seemed more about political considerations (using a celebrity to make a point by punishing him more) than it was about ensuring justice was properly and fairly served.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 01:46:53 PMJust to be clear, I am not advocating for the weakening of gun laws.  In fact, in light of the never-ending mass shootings, I would suggest the opposite. 

My point was if you consider that Plax's intent was not to rob or shoot someone, I felt the punishment was overly harsh.  To me, the punishment seemed more about political considerations (using a celebrity to make a point by punishing him more) than it was about ensuring justice was properly and fairly served.

I agree; the punishment did not fit the crime. There was no ill-intent (murder vs manslaughter) but he was a big name to make an example out of.

Like @kartanoman, I view Plax in a positive light and did so even after he shot himself. Dumb decision and the consequences he suffered even before going to jail, were sufficient in my eyes. He's still one of my favorite Giants.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 01:46:53 PMJust to be clear, I am not advocating for the weakening of gun laws.  In fact, in light of the never-ending mass shootings, I would suggest the opposite. 

My point was if you consider that Plax's intent was not to rob or shoot someone, I felt the punishment was overly harsh.  To me, the punishment seemed more about political considerations (using a celebrity to make a point by punishing him more) than it was about ensuring justice was properly and fairly served.

On the second point you'd be completely wrong. The sentencing guidelines for illegally carrying in NY is mandatory. If he was given a lesser sentence it would have been the case of a celebrity getting special treatment regular people don't.

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 01:38:08 PMAgree with the decision or not but according the the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. If it happened now he would have an avenue to appeal his conviction avoiding jail. One day hopefully he'll have his record expunged. Yes what he did was stupid and reckless but at the end of the day the only person who suffered from that decision was Burress.

This is not correct. Bruen states that New York's requirement to state a proper cause for a concealed carry license is unconstitutional. Plaxico didn't have a New York (or New Jersey) license at all, and his Florida one had expired at the time of the incident. He was effectively concealing an unlicensed firearm and discharged it in a public setting. There's absolutely no basis to have his record "expunged."

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 01:46:53 PMJust to be clear, I am not advocating for the weakening of gun laws.  In fact, in light of the never-ending mass shootings, I would suggest the opposite. 

My point was if you consider that Plax's intent was not to rob or shoot someone, I felt the punishment was overly harsh.  To me, the punishment seemed more about political considerations (using a celebrity to make a point by punishing him more) than it was about ensuring justice was properly and fairly served.

Making more fun laws will not end mass killings

Evil finds a way to commit evil.

We just had someone drive through a parade last year killing people.

Someone drove a rental truck down a bike path a few years ago, killing people.

In Europe where gun laws are far tougher then here they have had multiple mass killings with a knife.

You can rent a truck and drive down a NYC sidewalk killing more then you can with most guns.

It isn't the instrument used to kill that is the issue, it's the person commuting the evil acts!

When people focus more on the mental illness aspect and stop focusing on the gun as the problem we may be able to have the right conversations on this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 01:59:37 PMOn the second point you'd be completely wrong. The sentencing guidelines for illegally carrying in NY is mandatory. If he was given a lesser sentence it would have been the case of a celebrity getting special treatment regular people don't.

I had to do some research to determine if this was correct.  From what I understand, based on my research, if Plax had been found guilty of his original charge he did face a minimum sentence.

Quote.Burress was indicted earlier this month on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of reckless endangerment. He faced a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years if convicted at a trial

Plax pleaded to the lesser charge of criminal possession of a weapon

I found this:

QuoteI have a hard time understanding, however, why Burress was unable to secure a better plea given data  (reported here around the time of his arrest) that nearly half off all persons who plead to the lesser charge of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon — a crime that has no mandatory sentence — did not serve any prison time.

https://www.nj.com/giants/2009/08/former_ny_giants_receiver_plax_2.html

https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/08/plaxico-burress-cuts-a-plea-deal-requiring-twoyear-prison-term-for-his-gun-possession.html


@Slugsy-Narrows

They say that doing (or not doing) the same thing and expecting different result is the definition of insanity

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 02:10:20 PMMaking more fun laws will not end mass killings

Evil finds a way to commit evil.

We just had someone drive through a parade last year killing people.

Someone drove a rental truck down a bike path a few years ago, killing people.

In Europe where gun laws are far tougher then here they have had multiple mass killings with a knife.

You can rent a truck and drive down a NYC sidewalk killing more then you can with most guns.

It isn't the instrument used to kill that is the issue, it's the person commuting the evil acts!

When people focus more on the mental illness aspect and stop focusing on the gun as the problem we may be able to have the right conversations on this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NYC is now by order of the Mayor bringing mentally disturbed individuals to Hospitals for evaluation. Then won't be so easily releasing them as they have in the past. Decades ago mental institutions were no longer subsidized and closed. The Ill were all released to the streets. There is a need to have institutions for those with mental illness throughout the country and means to be able to diagnose them. The criminals also have a form of mental illness and they will always find a way to arm themselves illegally.

Quote from: Ed Vette on November 29, 2022, 02:21:23 PMNYC is now by order of the Mayor bringing mentally disturbed individuals to Hospitals for evaluation. Then won't be so easily releasing them as they have in the past. Decades ago mental institutions were no longer subsidized and closed. The Ill were all released to the streets. There is a need to have institutions for those with mental illness throughout the country and means to be able to diagnose them. The criminals also have a form of mental illness and they will always find a way to arm themselves illegally.

NY has to do something   Walking around the city is giving me  Dinkens vibe from back in the day! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 03:01:23 PMNY has to do something   Walking around the city is giving me  Dinkens vibe from back in the day! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm willing to bet I'm the most pro 2A member of this forum but I learned a few years ago that talking about it on the internet won't earn you anything but haughty derision.

And I feel bad for Plax but he made a ton of judgement errors. One of the most fundamental things they teach you in CC class is the best way to avoid a confrontation is to avoid situations where they can occur if at all possible.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 11:34:30 AMI really felt like jailing Plax was an injustice.   Just today, I read in the newspaper about a police sergeant who got drunk (over twice the legal limit), drove, and crashed into a stopped vehicle, nearly killing the driver (who suffered massive injury).   That sergeant didn't serve a day in jail (suspended sentence and probation) and was even allowed to retire from the police force rather than be fired so he could collect a pension.

When I compare that crime with the crime of illegal possession of a gun and shooting yourself, I don't know how that jail time was justified.

As a police officer I can tell you , especially in a state like New Jersey almost no one goes to jail for extended period of times for a DUI ... even if it did cause an injury ... at the end of the day by definition it is still an "accident" and you do get booked for the DUI but that's it

I agree his prison sentence was a bit much ...but that's because it happened in states like Jersey and New York where they hate guns so much that they used buress as an example

If that police officer would have killed that person then yes that is a different beast... I'm not saying what he did was right because it is 100% not right

It's the elected leaders who cause this ...Jersey , ny , Illinois etc they hate guns so much they will do anything to get rid of them

But the guy who actually shot someone gets released because of "bail reform" ....then 9/10 times is committing some form of other crimes in the near future

FYI I am not speaking on behalf of any police department but my own observations and facts

Quote from: CVA14 on November 29, 2022, 12:49:57 PMJailing Plax was not the injustice. The injustice was giving the police sergeant a pass.

People causing DUIs and accidents is not just a police sergeant injustice ... it's and every person injustice .... I know from first hand experience if you are drunk and injure someone you will get charged for a DUI and be released as soon as you are sober ... and given a court date


People who want Justice should go to a place like Texas ..... but then the same people hate guns so much they will blindly risk beliefs 8n Justice because of it

Not saying you, just in general

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 02:10:20 PMWhen people focus more on the mental illness aspect and stop focusing on the gun as the problem we may be able to have the right conversations on this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not do both rather than nothing?

I felt the sentence was harsh. If memory serves Bloomberg was trying to make an example of him. He could have still sent a message without the sentence being as long as it was. He didn't hurt anyone (apart from himself) and he didn't intend to. It would be like putting someone in jail for 2 years for crashing their car into a tree after 4-5 drinks and breaking their own ankle but not hitting another car or person. Actual end-results do matter, and so does intent.

Bloomberg made an example out of him, but what do you need a gun for, just to go to a club ?? Because you wanna wear $100,000 in gold ?? Then go to respectable joints where you don't need a gun, don't have to worry about being robbed and if a problem arrives, fight with your fists like a man

Quote from: DJN on November 29, 2022, 05:40:50 PMBloomberg made an example out of him, but what do you need a gun for, just to go to a club ?? Because you wanna wear $100,000 in gold ?? Then go to respectable joints where you don't need a gun, don't have to worry about being robbed and if a problem arrives, fight with your fists like a man

He had the gun because his teammate had recently been robbed. I agree about going to clubs. Any place that serves alcohol is best avoided TBH. Your comment about fist fighting is silly.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 02:10:20 PMWhen people focus more on the mental illness aspect and stop focusing on the gun as the problem we may be able to have the right conversations on this topic.

Slugsy, identifying and treating mental illness, or one struggling to maintain mental health and wellness (e.g. stress management) is indeed part of the problem. It's not something that is easy to discuss, nor is it easy to live with someone who suffers from a form of it (e.g. depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders). Whether we're talking about guns, or any other subject, it impacts that person and those around them. The trouble you run into is that there are very few "real" treatment specialists/centers where one afflicted can go and receive "real" care. It's not as simple as going on Dr. Phil and getting to go to a dual-diagnosis facility followed by some rehabilitation place. I can share horror stories of what reality looks like for afflicted persons but I won't go into detail here. Also, if someone with a diagnosed mental illness ends up getting in trouble with the law, regarding a firearm, that individual will be placed on the FBI list as far as being prohibited from ever owning a firearm again.

It is a very complicated issue and our society is currently not equipped to deal with it with even the slightest degree of effectiveness.

Peace!

Quote from: DJN on November 29, 2022, 05:40:50 PMBloomberg made an example out of him, but what do you need a gun for, just to go to a club ?? Because you wanna wear $100,000 in gold ?? Then go to respectable joints where you don't need a gun, don't have to worry about being robbed and if a problem arrives, fight with your fists like a man

And this is where the major grey area comes into to play

You just stated burress went to a place where he had to worry about getting robbed

Not everyone is burress with money , and some of these people have to worry about getting robbed all the fight

It is 100% factual that making gun laws stricter will not stop gun violence ... people who tend to shoot other people are most likely already a criminal or got a gun illegally , stolen , ...a ghost gun etc

If you live in that kind of area and are a good citizen , only defense you have with you if someone is holding you at gun point is your hands or feet to make a run for it


There is a reason places like Chicago ( possibly worse city in country) is so much more dangerous than a city in Texas

The focus is not in the right places

Quote from: DJN on November 29, 2022, 05:40:50 PMBloomberg made an example out of him, but what do you need a gun for, just to go to a club ?? Because you wanna wear $100,000 in gold ?? Then go to respectable joints where you don't need a gun, don't have to worry about being robbed and if a problem arrives, fight with your fists like a man

I agree with what you are saying and think he's a bit of a bonehead (or was, at least), but that does not change my view that his punishment was too harsh.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 29, 2022, 02:05:05 PMThis is not correct. Bruen states that New York's requirement to state a proper cause for a concealed carry license is unconstitutional. Plaxico didn't have a New York (or New Jersey) license at all, and his Florida one had expired at the time of the incident. He was effectively concealing an unlicensed firearm and discharged it in a public setting. There's absolutely no basis to have his record "expunged."

That's partially correct, but before they ruled on that point they found you have a right to carry a firearm out of the home for protection. In the Heller case the court found you have a right to have one in your home. That's why other non CCW states like Cali, ill, NJ and Hawaii are now being forced to issue permits.

And it's farcical to say that he didn't have a carry permit because the state refused to issue them except to exceedingly wealthy people and politicians. They used their arbitrarily enforced proper cause clause to decide who did and didn't get a permit. His choice was to break what is now an unconstitutional law or not carry at all.

The law enforcement environment in NYC is much different now than it was in 2008.  I can't help thinking the disposition of the case would be far different today. 

Quote from: Rambo89 on November 29, 2022, 05:32:33 PMWhy not do both rather than nothing?

Because there are no new laws or old laws that will limit or stop gun violence.  The bad guys will always find a way to get a gun or a device to cause harm!

All new laws do is make legal gun owners criminals.

If someone wants to do harm they will.

The root of the problem isn't the gun, it's the individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NY and NJ would only issue a carry permit if the person proved to a judge that they needed it for personal protection due to their job or Special situation. For example you own a jewelry store or you're a security guard. The Heller decision said that no State had the right to deny the right to carry and decide who can or can't be granted a permit. As a result all states must now allow. The states however can set up rules and standards. In NJ it's a carry permit not concealed carry only. You have to have a FID Firearm ID Card. If you don't have one you need to now qualify for one and get fingerprinted and a background check and references and renew it every two years. Then you can apply for your Carry Permit. You have to take a class on lethal force, pass a shooting competency test, get printed again, mental health check, Background check and a judge has to approve it which has slowed down the process instead of the local police chief approving it. They also have to be renewed every two years and requalify. In NJ no magazines over ten rounds, 50 Caliber banned, no assault rifles etc... Also you have to have the card on you if you carry and it has to be the firearm you qualified with.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 06:17:59 PMBecause there are no new laws or old laws that will limit or stop gun violence.  The bad guys will always find a way to get a gun or a device to cause harm!

All new laws do is make legal gun owners criminals.

If someone wants to do harm they will.

The root of the problem isn't the gun, it's the individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree.  I think we should be doing everything possible to address mass shootings what causes them and how they are able to be carried out.

Quote from: kartanoman on November 29, 2022, 05:48:13 PMSlugsy, identifying and treating mental illness, or one struggling to maintain mental health and wellness (e.g. stress management) is indeed part of the problem. It's not something that is easy to discuss, nor is it easy to live with someone who suffers from a form of it (e.g. depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders). Whether we're talking about guns, or any other subject, it impacts that person and those around them. The trouble you run into is that there are very few "real" treatment specialists/centers where one afflicted can go and receive "real" care. It's not as simple as going on Dr. Phil and getting to go to a dual-diagnosis facility followed by some rehabilitation place. I can share horror stories of what reality looks like for afflicted persons but I won't go into detail here. Also, if someone with a diagnosed mental illness ends up getting in trouble with the law, regarding a firearm, that individual will be placed on the FBI list as far as being prohibited from ever owning a firearm again.

It is a very complicated issue and our society is currently not equipped to deal with it with even the slightest degree of effectiveness.

Peace!

Kart

100% agree and with privacy Laws for your medical condition etc it gets even muddier!

Red flag laws are scary too cause all it takes is someone that doesn't like you or you have issue with to make an accusation and without due process you can have your property (guns) removed which also is a whole other issue

It's not an easy topic, it's made worse because of the political element that is charged with it.

What most people who are against guns can't comprehend is it's not the gun.  A gun loaded on the table by itself is not going to hurt anyone.

Just as a fork doesn't make people fat and a car doesn't commit a drunk driving incident!  The person behind it all is the issue and fixing that is the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Rambo89 on November 29, 2022, 06:20:05 PMI disagree.  I think we should be doing everything possible to address mass shootings what causes them and how they are able to be carried out.

You can disagree, But show me one law that prevents people from shooting others?

How would any law prevent it?  It can't.

It won't, it can't!  Unless they create something that can detect your intent.

Just like you can't pass any laws to prevent someone from buying a car, drink excessively and go out drunk driving and kill people doing so. 

Even passing background checks are not the answer, yes if you can't pass one it makes it harder to get one legally but if you want one you can get one on the street.  I am for background checks, but if you have no record or past that sends up a flag, you can still then buy a gun legally and then kill people with it.

So again it's not the gun or the ammo that's the issue   Just likes it's not the car it's the person operating it.

To limit the issue we have to address the people issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: killarich on November 29, 2022, 05:15:50 PMAs a police officer I can tell you , especially in a state like New Jersey almost no one goes to jail for extended period of times for a DUI ... even if it did cause an injury ... at the end of the day by definition it is still an "accident" and you do get booked for the DUI but that's it

I agree his prison sentence was a bit much ...but that's because it happened in states like Jersey and New York where they hate guns so much that they used buress as an example

If that police officer would have killed that person then yes that is a different beast... I'm not saying what he did was right because it is 100% not right

It's the elected leaders who cause this ...Jersey , ny , Illinois etc they hate guns so much they will do anything to get rid of them

But the guy who actually shot someone gets released because of "bail reform" ....then 9/10 times is committing some form of other crimes in the near future

FYI I am not speaking on behalf of any police department but my own observations and facts

Kill

Thank you for your service!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 06:22:30 PMKart

100% agree and with privacy Laws for your medical condition etc it gets even muddier!

Red flag laws are scary too cause all it takes is someone that doesn't like you or you have issue with to make an accusation and without due process you can have your property (guns) removed which also is a whole other issue

It's not an easy topic, it's made worse because of the political element that is charged with it.

What most people who are against guns can't comprehend is it's not the gun.  A gun loaded on the table by itself is not going to hurt anyone.

Just as a fork doesn't make people fat and a car doesn't commit a drunk driving incident!  The person behind it all is the issue and fixing that is the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true. These laws are nothing more than a political ploy to placate voters while they know they can't stop the smuggling of illegal firearms going into the state. The Red Flag laws are reason enough to carry legal insurance.

Plax would have gone to jail for a much harsher sentence if it happened today. Illegal firearm without a permit to carry or permit to purchase, taking across state lines, reckless endangerment...

Quote from: AZGiantFan on November 29, 2022, 06:17:27 PMThe law enforcement environment in NYC is much different now than it was in 2008.  I can't help thinking the disposition of the case would be far different today. 

Today forget about it...They'd claim he was the only one victimized and the charges would be dropped...Gun laws are only supposed to be enforced on people living in the suburbs in 2022

After reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 05:51:31 PMThat's partially correct, but before they ruled on that point they found you have a right to carry a firearm out of the home for protection. In the Heller case the court found you have a right to have one in your home. That's why other non CCW states like Cali, ill, NJ and Hawaii are now being forced to issue permits.

Sorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

Quotethe Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.

Again, this just isn't a correct interpretation of the actual holding of the court. Feel free to show me where in this opinion its stated that the Second Amendment a universal right to carry a firearm in public. At best, they state that there are legitimate reasons - specifically self-defense - for a person to want to carry a weapon in public, hence why they struck down the "proper cause" requirement of New York's statute. Most of the other time spent on the topic is largely dicta which doesn't control any further rulings of the court (though they've largely dispensed with any idea that long-standing precedent is settled, so I guess it's immaterial either way).

A completely different case from more than a decade prior, Heller, does (as you identify) stand for the proposition that a law banning a person from having a firearm in their home was unconstitutional (provided that they weren't disqualified from the Second Amendment's protections). But I don't see how this makes your above statement regarding what the actual holding of Bruen is somehow correct. And moreover, Heller dealt largely with an interpretation of the term "militia" - something not at issue at all in Bruen.

QuoteAnd it's farcical to say that he didn't have a carry permit because the state refused to issue them except to exceedingly wealthy people and politicians. They used their arbitrarily enforced proper cause clause to decide who did and didn't get a permit. His choice was to break what is now an unconstitutional law or not carry at all.

It's similarly farcical to imply Burress did what he did out of some upstanding moral belief that the law was unconstitutional and he would someday be exonerated or proven correct. You're also assuming that in the absence of a "proper cause" requirement, New York wouldn't be allowed to impose any conditions on the issuance of a concealed carry license and Burress would have been issued a license and legally allowed to carry. Except that's not what Bruen says, and even Alito's concurrence makes it clear that they were not saying whether any sort of limitation was unconstitutional, simply the one at issue. And guess what? The revised statute that New York implemented after Bruen prevents concealed carry license holders from bringing their weapons into bars. Under that schema, Burress still (presuming he applied for a license and got it) would have broken the law by doing what he did under the current iteration of the statute.

Quote from: TDToomer on November 29, 2022, 11:23:36 PMAfter reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

Yeah, I tend to agree.  I always thought the right to life trumped all other rights.

Quote from: TDToomer on November 29, 2022, 11:23:36 PMAfter reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

Gun violence psychology is not all that different from suicidal psychology. An industrial society had been created intentionally or not where people are forced to work in cubes...where they have ever ever diminishing opportunities for autonomy and self determination. We have moved away from the natural world. Social media is toxic to self esteem. Obviously I've grossly simplified this for the sake of brevity but the point is that the modern world is highly toxic to healthy self esteem and relationship with other humans.

Not easily fixed, but given the current climate, handing over all of our arms to a state that grows ever more totalitarian and hostile doesn't seem like a fantastic idea either.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 07:28:55 AMYeah, I tend to agree.  I always thought the right to life trumped all other rights.

If that is the case then abortion would be completely outlawed, wouldn't it?

If that was the case then the right to privacy would/could be stripped away.  As limiting your privacy especially with mental health could keep others safe.

No one right can have more weight then another and they all must be equal under the laws otherwise those who believe in some rights over another would/could weight them differently and lessen or remove your rights based on their wants and beliefs are.  Which then erodes your rights.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 07:57:00 AMIf that is the case then abortion would be completely outlawed, wouldn't it?

If that was the case then the right to privacy would/could be stripped away.  As limiting your privacy especially with mental health could keep others safe.

No one right can have more weight then another and they all must be equal under the laws otherwise those who believe in some rights over another would/could weight them differently and lessen or remove your rights based on their wants and beliefs are.  Which then erodes your rights.

Rights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 08:12:19 AMRights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

The right to life can be interpreted i.e. the right to self protection is also the right to life.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 08:12:19 AMRights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

It's not that one right trumps another. 

In the case you stated it's that there is a noise ordinance.  The ordinance doesn't say you can NEVER have a loud party.  So it's not that you lose the right to do so, it gives parameters on when you can.

There in lies the difference between losing a right and having the right to still be able to, but having guidelines on it.

By outlawing/limiting guns it strips legal law abiding American citizens of their constitutional right to bare arms which "shall not be infringed" and by infringing on those rights it could have an effect on me preserving myself or families life.  So in the preservation of life at all costs its seems by outlawing firearms it contradicts my right to protect my life and the life of those I love.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have nothing more to add apart from my wanting to take the time and offer kudos to everyone offering their opinions, experiences and insight into an incredibly difficult and complex issue. Reading the thread, in its entirety, offers a wealth of information to reflect on. Not just for Plaxico Burress, but also for the laws intended to protect us (NOTE: "placate the voters" (Ed Vette) ... a profound thought).

There's no direct solution to the issues presented but I just wanted to commend my fellow contributors for an excellent discussion.

Salut!

Peace!

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 30, 2022, 12:44:26 AMSorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

Again, this just isn't a correct interpretation of the actual holding of the court. Feel free to show me where in this opinion its stated that the Second Amendment a universal right to carry a firearm in public. At best, they state that there are legitimate reasons - specifically self-defense - for a person to want to carry a weapon in public, hence why they struck down the "proper cause" requirement of New York's statute. Most of the other time spent on the topic is largely dicta which doesn't control any further rulings of the court (though they've largely dispensed with any idea that long-standing precedent is settled, so I guess it's immaterial either way).

A completely different case from more than a decade prior, Heller, does (as you identify) stand for the proposition that a law banning a person from having a firearm in their home was unconstitutional (provided that they weren't disqualified from the Second Amendment's protections). But I don't see how this makes your above statement regarding what the actual holding of Bruen is somehow correct. And moreover, Heller dealt largely with an interpretation of the term "militia" - something not at issue at all in Bruen.

It's similarly farcical to imply Burress did what he did out of some upstanding moral belief that the law was unconstitutional and he would someday be exonerated or proven correct. You're also assuming that in the absence of a "proper cause" requirement, New York wouldn't be allowed to impose any conditions on the issuance of a concealed carry license and Burress would have been issued a license and legally allowed to carry. Except that's not what Bruen says, and even Alito's concurrence makes it clear that they were not saying whether any sort of limitation was unconstitutional, simply the one at issue. And guess what? The revised statute that New York implemented after Bruen prevents concealed carry license holders from bringing their weapons into bars. Under that schema, Burress still (presuming he applied for a license and got it) would have broken the law by doing what he did under the current iteration of the statute.

 Actually read the decision. If you did you'd have seen this.

Quote"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/

I agree with @kartanoman in that there's good info here. Let's not derail the conversation with veering into politics or personal attacks.

What was Plaxico Burress actually charged with and subsequently convicted of?

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 09:13:52 AMI agree with @kartanoman in that there's good info here. Let's not derail the conversation with veering into politics or personal attacks.

I think for how hot this topic could be all have really done a great job being respectful and keeping it going as they have! 

Just shows there can be dialog and each side can post their views and beliefs, have a conversation, hopefully each side even if they don't agree can see where the other side comes from and maybe both sides learn a little something and open up their minds a bit more about it all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

There are been a few references to self-defense or protection.  The problem with that particular claim is that the data doesn't support the claim.  For example, if you get a gun for your home to protect yourself and your family:

QuoteIn a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, researchers found that having a gun in the home was linked with nearly three times higher odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

There are similar studies that show homicide rates go up when laws are loosened to allow more people to carry firearms in public.

There was mention of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but what is ignored is the stipulation about "well-regulated militia," which strangely suggests the founding fathers supported regulating firearms.

In the end, we can do nothing (regardless of why) and continue to be the only 1st world country sacrificing so many innocent people to mass shooters; we can add more guns and make it easier to carry guns which will only make things worse, or we can make efforts to reign in the world record numbers of guns we have in this country.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2851/production/_124912301_optimised_guns_per_country-nc.png.webp)

It's hard not to look at that graph and not see why the US is where it is when consider other high income countries


(https://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/ActingOnData/2021/firearm_Page_1.png)

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
 in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 10:07:09 AMThere are been a few references to self-defense or protection.  The problem with that particular claim is that the data doesn't support the claim.  For example, if you get a gun for your home to protect yourself and your family:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

There are similar studies that show homicide rates go up when laws are loosened to allow more people to carry firearms in public.

There was mention of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but what is ignored is the stipulation about "well-regulated militia," which strangely suggests the founding fathers supported regulating firearms.

In the end, we can do nothing (regardless of why) and continue to be the only 1st world country sacrificing so many innocent people to mass shooters; we can add more guns and make it easier to carry guns which will only make things worse, or we can make efforts to reign in the world record numbers of guns we have in this country.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2851/production/_124912301_optimised_guns_per_country-nc.png.webp)

It's hard not to look at that graph and not see why the US is where it is when consider other high income countries


(https://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/ActingOnData/2021/firearm_Page_1.png)

Rich

You are stretching and trying to shoe horn in regulating firearms with regulating a militia

To regulate a militia is to create a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

Which has nothing to do with regulating firearms.

Have you also looked up and researched how many citizens in this country by carrying a firearm or having one in their homes have saved countless lives and thwarted criminals from crimes/robberies and home invasions?

The media and news does their best to suppress these stories and information on this.  Take just recently in Indiana, a man with a conceal carry killed a shooter in the mall and saved many lives.  This story got little to no media attention on countless news stations.  It's one of thousands or more of incidents a year where store owners, home owners, and every day citizens help and save their fellow man because they have the right to bare arms and choose to exercise that right.

Statistics will always be tweaked to serve the cause for which the person is doing the analysis for.  Both sides do it.

I believe that it comes down to is this, in my opinion.

The constitution gives you the right.

If SOMEONE chooses not to exercise their right that is their choice.

To limit others rights because of personal belief is not right.

People's rights don't end, where others beliefs begin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: TONKA56 on November 30, 2022, 10:28:38 AM"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
 in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

I could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 10:46:22 AMI could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

Ask the people of Ukraine that question or consider security against tyranny. Not that anyone would ever attempt to undermine an election or seize control of the nation by circumventing the constitution.  /sarcasm/ 

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 10:46:22 AMI could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

T

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 11:22:52 AMT

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That domestic threat has been underscored the last two years if anyone hasn't been paying attention.

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 10:46:22 AMI could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

The reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is that it holds the government ultimately accountable to the people and not the other way around. All other considerations such as self defense and hunting are secondary and more than occasionally used as straw men. Prior to the drafting of the Bill Of Rights and certainly prior to the Enlightenment it was standard practice for the common citizen/peasant/serf/pleb to be denied by the ruling authorities the right to keep and bear arms. Those denied that right are little more than serfs/slaves. This is why the second amendment exists.

Quote from: TONKA56 on November 30, 2022, 07:56:35 AMGun violence psychology is not all that different from suicidal psychology. An industrial society had been created intentionally or not where people are forced to work in cubes...where they have ever ever diminishing opportunities for autonomy and self determination. We have moved away from the natural world. Social media is toxic to self esteem. Obviously I've grossly simplified this for the sake of brevity but the point is that the modern world is highly toxic to healthy self esteem and relationship with other humans.

Not easily fixed, but given the current climate, handing over all of our arms to a state that grows ever more totalitarian and hostile doesn't seem like a fantastic idea either.

I never suggested that! In fact no on this thread has. There are many things you can do beside doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which is what the the NRA wants.

We are living in two different countries if you think the USA is a Totalitarian government.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 11:22:52 AMT

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't referring to the police. I was specifically talking about the military. Not sure if you served in the military but when we raise our right hand, we take the oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I mentioned, the 2A was necessary then because we did not have a dedicated military force. Today we do so our primary defense is the military and not individual citizens who do not wear the uniform.

Everyday citizens have the power of the vote to keep the government in check. Weapons are not necessary to do that. The checks and balances of power within the government prevent any one branch from taking over.

Here is the thing, the founding fathers who wrote our Constitution were intelligent, well-educated men.  They argued and reviewed every point and detail.  If they didn't want any sort of government regulation on firearms, the 2nd amendment would have read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is not what was written. 

As for arguments about guns keeping the government in check, this is just me, but I trust our military and law enforcement more than I do the people buying guns with the objective of keeping my government in check.  The last two armed people who decided to "keep our government in check" with firearms have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and face 20 years in prison.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-oath-keepers-member-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-keepers-verdict-seditious-conspiracy-trial-rcna58415

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 12:09:17 PMI wasn't referring to the police. I was specifically talking about the military. Not sure if you served in the military but when we raise our right hand, we take the oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I mentioned, the 2A was necessary then because we did not have a dedicated military force. Today we do so our primary defense is the military and not individual citizens who do not wear the uniform.

Everyday citizens have the power of the vote to keep the government in check. Weapons are not necessary to do that. The checks and balances of power within the government prevent any one branch from taking over.

Yet the military cannot just go into cities and town and bring law and order if they could Chicago would be perfect to do it on.

The power of the vote is not enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 02:25:42 PMYet the military cannot just go into cities and town and bring law and order if they could Chicago would be perfect to do it on.

The power of the vote is not enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 02:35:22 PMIt's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

And when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 03:01:16 PMAnd when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The discussion about the intent of the founding fathers and the Bill Of Rights has become secondary. The gun debate as of today is a cultural war between urban and rural dwellers. It is a conflict between those who grew up around firearms, were exposed to them at a young age, and see them as integral to their culture and their heritage - a symbol of tradition and self reliance and those that presumably grew up in urban areas where there were no weapons in the house. The latter wants no part of gun ownership and believes no one else should posses them either...except for the state. They have confidence in state authority and in the police to protect them.

It is a debate between those that favor independence from the state and those that advocate greater state dependence.
 
Obviously there are outliers to these assumptions but I believe this to be generally true. 

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 03:01:16 PMAnd when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The government is not some untouchable nebulous entity. They are people ELECTED by other people. If they aren't doing the job they were elected to, VOTE... THEM... OUT.

You and I talked before about public service term limits. As a nation, I think we need to start there. If the highest office in the land is limited to 2 terms, no one else should be able to serve more than that.

I'm on the fence about guns, in all honesty. Personally, let people have all the guns they want... limit the amount of ammunition they can have.

I feel the 2A was needed for a specific time period for a specific situation. That time has passed and the situation no longer exists.

Quote from: TONKA56 on November 30, 2022, 03:31:01 PMThe discussion about the intent of the founding fathers and the Bill Of Rights has become secondary. The gun debate as of today is a cultural war between urban and rural dwellers. It is a conflict between those who grew up around firearms, were exposed to them at a young age, and see them as integral to their culture and their heritage - a symbol of tradition and self reliance and those that presumably grew up in urban areas where there were no weapons in the house. The latter wants no part of gun ownership and believes no one else should posses them either...except for the state. They have confidence in state authority and in the police to protect them.

It is a debate between those that favor independence from the state and those that advocate greater state dependence.
 
Obviously there are outliers to these assumptions but I believe this to be generally true. 

Those urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 03:37:55 PMThose urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends. 

Unfortunately tragedies are politically weaponized to lead to a dichotomy of conclusions/solutions where there can be no compromise.

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 02:35:22 PMIt's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

As you said, it's about accountability.  The government is accountable to the people.  A man with a gun or a group of people with guns is accountable to no one.  I don't see how you can live in a free democracy AND have who has the biggest and most guns making the rules. 

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 03:37:35 PMThe government is not some untouchable nebulous entity. They are people ELECTED by other people. If they aren't doing the job they were elected to, VOTE... THEM... OUT.

You and I talked before about public service term limits. As a nation, I think we need to start there. If the highest office in the land is limited to 2 terms, no one else should be able to serve more than that.

I'm on the fence about guns, in all honesty. Personally, let people have all the guns they want... limit the amount of ammunition they can have.

I feel the 2A was needed for a specific time period for a specific situation. That time has passed and the situation no longer exists.

T

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 03:37:55 PMThose urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends.

And the majority bought illegally by criminals that couldn't get them legally!  So again the legal law abiding citizen who are in the majority lose their rights because of those in the minority who are the problem?

How is that right and fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 03:43:24 PMAs you said, it's about accountability.  The government is accountable to the people.  A man with a gun or a group of people with guns is accountable to no one.  I don't see how you can live in a free democracy AND have who has the biggest and most guns making the rules.

The government has the biggest and most are you saying they shouldn't be making the rules?

If so then we are onto something here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 04:12:03 PMT

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For people like Pelosi, and Thurmond, and Supreme Court justices, etc... TERM LIMITS! So, yes, we as the voters still have a say!

The first amendment was not to satisfy an imminent need as the second amendment was. I already stated what the threats were that necessitated the second amendment. Our military is much more capable and ready to handle any threat to our nation than any armed militia.

To think that a group of citizens and vigilantes are going to overthrow our government and our military is really a slap in the face to those of us who have served. Many have given their lives to protect our way of life, to include how we govern and are governed. The core of that is our voice and our ability to vote. It's more powerful than any weapon.  :ok:

I don't give a xxxx about my Constitutional right to own firearms. The other rights I still care about very much, but the government can have that one back any time. I'll manage.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 04:12:03 PMT

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For every Pelosi, there are the same hacks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who sway as the wind blows.

AND, I certainly agree about Term limits. I was going to start a thread about that but thought it would be too controversial, but I am in full agreement. NO ONE, from the President to any Supreme Court Justice to the town dogcatcher should be allowed to have a position for life. No matter how good people may think they are doing, you need change for the good, or bad.

 Just my thought on guns.

I have never owned a gun and never will. I had a gun for 4 years while I was in the service but never had to fire it against anyone.

Just the way I see it, there are guns, and then THERE ARE GUNS. No one outside the police or militia should be allowed to own an assault weapon. If you want a gun, fine, go out and buy a Dirty Harry weapon for all I care. If you want to protect your home, fine, own a Glock, shotgun, or any normal gun. You want to hunt, make it fair and own a real hunting rifle. But NO ONE has the need to own an assault rifle.

I'm going to delete any post that introduces politics from this point on. And anyone who responds to it.

Respect the fucking rules.

Quote from: Ed Vette on November 30, 2022, 05:26:16 PMI'm going to delete any post that introduces politics from this point on. And anyone who responds to it.

Respect the fucking rules.

My bad, Ed. I started talking about voting and term limits.

Quote from: LennG on November 30, 2022, 05:15:53 PMJust my thought on guns.

I have never owned a gun and never will. I had a gun for 4 years while I was in the service but never had to fire it against anyone.

Just the way I see it, there are guns, and then THERE ARE GUNS. No one outside the police or militia should be allowed to own an assault weapon. If you want a gun, fine, go out and buy a Dirty Harry weapon for all I care. If you want to protect your home, fine, own a Glock, shotgun, or any normal gun. You want to hunt, make it fair and own a real hunting rifle. But NO ONE has the need to own an assault rifle.

Lenn

To give ya some info.  Then you can decide from there what you think......

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.  It's a made up term that has been politicized to scare people into believing that it is something it's not.

The type of firearm you are mentioning is probably a semi automatic rifle.

If you look at the picture attached the top rifle is a semi automatic in .223  very popular hunting and target shooting rifle.  This one is not one that the anti gun people go after and want banned. 

Yet...... The bottom rifle is also a semi auto rifle in .223.  That is a so called "assailant rifle" as the media and Government like to falsely claim.

The difference....... NOTHING!  Other then how it looks.

To add a semi automatic hand gun can hold as many rounds as some semi automatic rifle. 

So when they talk about assault rifles it's all just fear mongering to scare those that don't know the difference.

For the next question as why do you need 30 rounds or a large capacity magazine.

3 armed criminals kick in the front door of a single mother home at night with her kids.  As her son dialed 911 mom fought off the 3 attackers while waiting for the police to arrive.  If she only had a 6 shot Dirty Harry gun the 3 armed criminals would have overpowered her and or killed her and her kids!  Taken them and sold them into human trafficking.

Yes that is an extreme situation but the difference in 6 shots vs 30 could mean the difference between life or death.  If it's your daughter and grandchildren which option would you give them?

There are also reasons for hunting to have more then just a few shots but that goes into a different convo and scenario.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221130/342a9b6441cd5af0c3660a18653febe9.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No more politics, Paul.

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 05:56:33 PMNo more politics, Paul.

The conversation is fine I don't see the problem!  No one is bashing one party or another - isn't an overall great convo everyone's having!  Deleting the posts I don't think I right as for once we are having a great conversation amongst people sharing info!

Disagree with this completely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2022, 07:28:55 AMYeah, I tend to agree.  I always thought the right to life trumped all other rights.

Innocent life, 100%.

I haven't had a chance to participate much in this conversation, but I have read through the thread, and my personal opinion is that this was an engaging and thoughtful discussion between members with varying viewpoints but I saw neither condescension nor disrespect in this thread. I thought it was interesting to hear people's points of views, and I thought people did a good job backing their views up with reasonable points (on both sides).

Obviously, this is a Giants board, so a 3-5 page discussion about the 2nd amendment and gun control may be out of place, but if a thread occasionally veers into a current events topic or even a controversial topic, if people behave the way they did in this thread I'm not sure I understand why that's a problem.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 06:00:44 PMThe conversation is fine I don't see the problem!  No one is bashing one party or another - isn't an overall great convo everyone's having!  Deleting the posts I don't think I right as for once we are having a great conversation amongst people sharing info!

Disagree with this completely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We all need to abide by the rules. It's going fine but we know how it ends.

Let's keep it on the guns and laws.  :ok:

Sorry I had to delete what you took valuable time to post.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 30, 2022, 06:04:47 PMI haven't had a chance to participate much in this conversation, but I have read through the thread, and my personal opinion is that this was an engaging and thoughtful discussion between members with varying viewpoints but I saw neither condescension nor disrespect in this thread. I thought it was interesting to hear people's points of views, and I thought people did a good job backing their views up with reasonable points (on both sides).

Obviously, this is a Giants board, so a 3-5 page discussion about the 2nd amendment and gun control may be out of place, but if a thread occasionally veers into a current events topic or even a controversial topic, if people behave the way they did in this thread I'm not sure I understand why that's a problem.

We've been down this road before. A few of the moderators even fought to try it again. It went clean for a while. Alas, it failed yet again. It's inevitable.

Quote from: T200 on November 30, 2022, 06:20:28 PMWe all need to abide by the rules. It's going fine but we know how it ends.

Let's keep it on the guns and laws.  :ok:

Sorry I had to delete what you took valuable time to post.

T

It's intertwined as the laws are written by politicians.

And yea I know sooner or later someone may go off the rails, but till then I think was going well and should have been allowed to continue till we couldn't.

Just my 2 cents and I'll bow out now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can own a gun while someone else lives.  These are not mutually exclusive and the framing of that argument is invalid.  My right to own a gun does not infringe on the right to life.  And nowhere is it stated that one right trumps another.  If one is understanding the intent behind the Constitution it should be rather apparent that all the rights complement each other.

Quote from: TONKA56 on November 30, 2022, 10:28:38 AM"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
 in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

well maintained

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 30, 2022, 05:46:32 PMLenn

To give ya some info.  Then you can decide from there what you think......

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.  It's a made up term that has been politicized to scare people into believing that it is something it's not.

The type of firearm you are mentioning is probably a semi automatic rifle.

If you look at the picture attached the top rifle is a semi automatic in .223  very popular hunting and target shooting rifle.  This one is not one that the anti gun people go after and want banned. 

Yet...... The bottom rifle is also a semi auto rifle in .223.  That is a so called "assailant rifle" as the media and Government like to falsely claim.

The difference....... NOTHING!  Other then how it looks.

To add a semi automatic hand gun can hold as many rounds as some semi automatic rifle. 

So when they talk about assault rifles it's all just fear mongering to scare those that don't know the difference.

For the next question as why do you need 30 rounds or a large capacity magazine.

3 armed criminals kick in the front door of a single mother home at night with her kids.  As her son dialed 911 mom fought off the 3 attackers while waiting for the police to arrive.  If she only had a 6 shot Dirty Harry gun the 3 armed criminals would have overpowered her and or killed her and her kids!  Taken them and sold them into human trafficking.

Yes that is an extreme situation but the difference in 6 shots vs 30 could mean the difference between life or death.  If it's your daughter and grandchildren which option would you give them?

There are also reasons for hunting to have more then just a few shots but that goes into a different convo and scenario.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221130/342a9b6441cd5af0c3660a18653febe9.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The first so-called "assault rifle" was the German Sturmgewehr 44. It's introduction in the latter years of World War 2 marked a turning point in military armament as the battle rifle was gradually phased out over the next twenty years.

The battle rifle such as the M1 Garand and later the M-14 fired full powered cartridges such as the 7.62x63 (.30-06) and later the 7.62x51 (.308). These cartridges were heavy and more encumbering for soldiers to carry in quantity. Also most firefights occurred at ranges under 300 meters, so the longer range of the full powered rifle was unnecessary. Also as select fire capability (semi-auto as well as fully automatic mode by way of a control switch) was introduced to rifles, the intermediate power cartridges such as the 7.62x39 and later the 5.56x45 NATO provided greater controllability.

The modern AR platform rifle is not an assault rifle as it lacks the capability of fully automatic fire. It is a civilian semi automatic rifle. The 5.56 NATO round us essentially a .22 caliber cartridge with enough powder capacity to be effective out to 500 meters. It is an excellent rifle for varmints or for shooters of small stature who don't like recoil.

Quote from: TONKA56 on November 30, 2022, 07:03:32 PMThe first so-called "assault rifle" was the German Sturmgewehr 44. It's introduction in the latter years of World War 2 marked a turning point in military armament as the battle rifle was gradually phased out over the next twenty years.

The battle rifle such as the M1 Garand and later the M-14 fired full powered cartridges such as the 7.62x63 (.30-06) and later the 7.62x51 (.308). These cartridges were heavy and more encumbering for soldiers to carry in quantity. Also most firefights occurred at ranges under 300 meters, so the longer range of the full powered rifle was unnecessary. Also as select fire capability (semi-auto as well as fully automatic mode by way of a control switch) was introduced to rifles, the intermediate power cartridges such as the 7.62x39 and later the 5.56x45 NATO provided greater controllability.

The modern AR platform rifle is not an assault rifle as it lacks the capability of fully automatic fire. It is a civilian semi automatic rifle. The 5.56 NATO round us essentially a .22 caliber cartridge with enough powder capacity to be effective out to 500 meters. It is an excellent rifle for varmints or for shooters of small stature who don't like recoil.

Well explained!!!

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221201/575f0918ce1b2a53ffd50cdadacc3e60.jpg)

"SOME PEOPLE" will tell you the top picture is a hunting rifle and the bottom rifle is the evil people killing assault rifle.

To help educate all........

They are both the SAME RIFLE!!!!!  Only difference is how they look.  This is the lack of information they try and spread to fear monger and get the general public that doesn't know about firearms to be scared.

And the AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle or automatic rifle as SOME PEOPLE would lead you to believe, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle.

For the next question as why do you need 30 rounds or a large capacity magazine think about this scenario..........

3 armed criminals kick in the front door of the home of a single single mother home at night with her kids.

As her son dials 911 mom retrieves her rifle and fought off the 3 attackers while waiting for the police to arrive. If she only had a 6 shot "Dirty Harry" gun the 3 armed criminals would have overpowered her and or killed her and her kids! Could have taken them and sold them into human trafficking.

Yes that is an extreme situation but the difference in 6 shots vs 30 could mean the difference between life or death. If it's your daughter and grandchildren or wife and kids, which option would you give them?

There are also reasons for hunting to have more then just a few shots but that goes into a different convo and scenario.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk pop

I have a question for the pro-gun people on this thread.   If we play the game- if you were king

How would you stop all the mass shootings and reduce the number of single shootings?  What laws and rules would you change to make a country safer and save innocent lives?

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 08:10:12 AMI have a question for the pro-gun people on this thread.   If we play the game- if you were king

How would you stop all the mass shootings and reduce the number of single shootings?  What laws and rules would you change to make a country safer and save innocent lives?

Hey Rich,

For starters here's a post one of my best friends put together a couple years ago. He's a licensed mental health professional, a counselor, and owns and operates multiple homes for mentally disabled people. Not saying I endorse it wholesale but definitely worth considering.

******

It is also not true that mass shootings are up - its a trick of statistics. If you dig into the incidents you will note that two officers drawing their guns on one subject and someone discharging a weapon is classified as a mass shooting.  What has become more sophisticated on all sides is tricking the data points and weaponizing them.   

Gun owners have been proposing changes for years and few from the other side listen because the options don't include banning guns.  So, here we go, once again a SIMPLE ten-point plan....

1. Background checks - instantaneous, on the web, anyone can access and free.(criminal proceedings for adults are public record anyway)

2. Make second OUI/DUI a felony.

3. Make all domestic violence assaults nationwide felonies.

4. Make bump stocks and other after-market modifications that allow a weapon to simulate automatic weapon fire subject to Tax Stamps purchases. 

5. Make habitual (5) operation of a motor vehicle after suspension of a license a felony.

And the less popular crime control measures (because most gun crime in this country is related to drug crime) 

6. Legalize marijuana

7. Actively work to reduce stigma for drug treatment, and expand methadone treatment centers (if you think the opioid crisis is a problem now, wait until what the next decade brings)

8. Deport criminally violent non-citizens. (both undocumented and on VISA - which is currently the law but not enforced due to all kinds of reasons that you see playing out on the nightly news).

9. Improve suicide training and reporting measures for all mandated reports

10.  Develop 'mental health' response officer training programs in all police departments nationwide.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 08:10:12 AMI have a question for the pro-gun people on this thread.   If we play the game- if you were king

How would you stop all the mass shootings and reduce the number of single shootings?  What laws and rules would you change to make a country safer and save innocent lives?

Rich

Sadly there is no law that will stop it!  NONE!

We already have a law that makes murder illegal, it's ignored!  So why would any law or rule in addition stop someone from doing it?

As I have stated, the issue isn't the gun.  Till we stop blaming the instrument and blame the individual and work to help/fix the individual we can't move forward.

Most recently when someone couldn't acquire a gun they have used a knife and a vehicle to kill multiple people in a mass attack.

Stricter laws will NEVER prevent evil from committing evil.  You know why, cause evil doesn't follow the rules/laws.   So now put a law on the books saying this is illegal and are they going to say darn can't use that it's illegal???  No they will ignore the rule.

If you limit magazine capacity or the type of gun to own that stops the avg man/woman from owning it but doesn't STOP a criminal from getting one and using it.

So there are no laws possible that will STOP IT! 

What can we do to LIMIT IT:

Background checks can minimize and limit who can legally purchase a firearm but there are enough illegal guns that if someone really wants a gun that bad, they will be able to get one.  Or they will find other methods.  A heavy truck down a mid town manhattan sidewalk will kill and injure more people then standing there with a gun.

I think not having gun safety in schools is incredibly foolish.  I think gun education would help tremendously.  Accidental shooting happen when people who don't understand and know about firearms find one and pick  one up.  So to answer your question on what can be done to prevent/reduce, train people on legit gun safety, educate the masses on what the firearms are and not what the media calls them.  Show them ramifications of using a firearm!  If we can teach sex education to kids to keep them safe from getting diseases or pregnant, to reduce the spread of AIDS that kills why not teach them about firearms?

Not to get political but had we taken the money sent to the Ukrainian the Government could have taken every elementary and high school in this country, made a single point of access and hired at least 1 armed security guard for EVERY SCHOOL!  If we can "find" the money for foreign counties how can we not finally find the money to protect our kids? 

I think gun free zones are foolish, you are telling criminals no one in this area can have a gun come on over and shoot you are all good till the police show up.  So limit the number of soft targets! 

If you notice when a mass attack happens it's in areas where the attacker feels they themselves won't initially be confronted and killed.  So again make less soft targets!  Stop posting no guns allowed and use even reverse psychology and say conceal carry permitted! 

If people think people are armed they may be less inclined to attack!  Also with that allow those who can pass a background check and qualify with their firearm to carry!  This country won't turn into the Wild West!  Most people that go through the process legally and do carry, pay for insurance, are less likely to draw their weapon unless it's necessary cause they understand the ramifications of drawing that weapon is a last resort.

I know for someone who is against or not comfortable with and around guns can't comprehend that more guns could be the answer, but it can.  Many of these attackers don't want to die, they are mentally ill and lashing out hence when the police arrive at times they surrender.  So if they don't know who in the school, mall, playground, has a firearm cause it's concealed, they are less likely to attack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Slugsy-Narrows if "nothing" can be done to reduce gun violence, how do you explain why the US has so much more gun violence compared to other wealthy nations (I have already posted the graph)?

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 09:16:18 AM@Slugsy-Narrows if "nothing" can be done to reduce gun violence, how do you explain why the US has so much more gun violence compared to other wealthy nations (I have already posted the graph)?

Because we are a free nation that has guns and is our right as citizens to have them.

Due to that fact is why Japan never attacked the west coast!  It's also the reason why German rolled through Europe almost unopposed as there was no civilian help to add a minimal military and arming the Ukrainian civilians is why Russia is struggling to defeat them.

When the population can't own guns at all, when their government has gone door to door and confiscated guns there are less guns obviously.  Less guns of course would mean less gun deaths, but again can't get a gun, drive down a parade or busy street! 

You again are still focusing on the item and not the individual.

Because their are less guns in some counties look at their other means of attacks and killings.  More knife attacks and other means to kill are still happening. 

There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States.

Overall, there are roughly 77.49 million legal adult gun owners in the United States.

If guns were the problem the death rate would be much higher!  The issue isn't the instrument it's the individual.

Guns flow over the boarder illegally due to the border not being secure.  Getting in the hands of criminals.

Gang violence in this country in major cities produce the majority of gun deaths in this country to begin with.  Why aren't cities cracking down on gangs and prosecuting more!!??

So I asked in my post back to you!

With murder already illegal and that ignored!  What law would be put in place to limit further the killing of innocents?

Seeing when people can't get a gun they find other means, take the item used out of the equation......

What is the consistent factor still present?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 01, 2022, 09:27:29 AMDue to that fact is why Japan never attacked the west coast! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you're referring to the "every blade of grass" quote attributed to Yamamoto, that has actually been debunked. He didn't say it.

Quote from: TONKA56 on December 01, 2022, 09:34:16 AMIf you're referring to the "every blade of grass" quote attributed to Yamamoto, that has actually been debunked. He didn't say it.

Not just that quote and I heard that as well, but I have read a variety of different beliefs/theories that civilians having firearms were and or did make a land invasion questionable.  Even if it was a minimal deterrent I'm still good with it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 01, 2022, 09:50:04 AMNot just that quote and I heard that as well, but I have read a variety of different beliefs/theories that civilians having firearms were and or did make a land invasion questionable.  Even if it was a minimal deterrent I'm still good with it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As @TONKA56 the entire claim that civilian gun ownership prevented Japan from invading the West Coast is false (I will add, as a student of military history, there was just no way Japan could have successfully invaded Hawaii, much less the mainland, the simply lacked the resources).  Yet, to have people see these false claims in "a variety of different" forms is truly troubling.  Paul is a voter, and he presses politicians on gun policies.  Yet, those positions and beliefs are formed, in part, on incorrect information.

I have some faith (or maybe it's just wishful thinking) that if all the facts are accurately known, America's great democracy will reach good positions more often than not (the wisdom of the crowd and all that).   Yet, it seems more and more people don't have all the facts, or worse, they have "facts" that are simply wrong.  Worse, I don't think that wrong information is accidental or inadvertent.

If I had one wish for this nation moving forward, it was that all Americans would treat information like a court treats evidence.  What are your expert witness's credentials?   Do you click into claims to verify the accuracy and quality of claims?   Do you consider the quality of studies?  Do you read about the flaws and limitations of studies?   Do you note if the study is published or not?

On a side note, I think it should be incumbent on social media companies (since they are a major source of the spread of misinformation) to put in filters that eliminate or at least place warning on misinformation.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 10:06:16 AMAs @TONKA56 the entire claim that civilian gun ownership prevented Japan from invading the West Coast is false (I will add, as a student of military history, there was just no way Japan could have successfully invaded Hawaii, much less the mainland, the simply lacked the resources).  Yet, to have people see these false claims in "a variety of different" forms is truly troubling.  Paul is a voter, and he presses politicians on gun policies.  Yet, those positions and beliefs are formed, in part, on incorrect information.

I have some faith (or maybe it's just wishful thinking) that if all the facts are accurately known, America's great democracy will reach good positions more often than not (the wisdom of the crowd and all that).   Yet, it seems more and more people don't have all the facts, or worse, they have "facts" that are simply wrong.  Worse, I don't think that wrong information is accidental or inadvertent.

If I had one wish for this nation moving forward, it was that all Americans would treat information like a court treats evidence.  What are your expert witness's credentials?   Do you click into claims to verify the accuracy and quality of claims?   Do you consider the quality of studies?  Do you read about the flaws and limitations of studies?   Do you note if the study is published or not?

On a side note, I think it should be incumbent on social media companies (since they are a major source of the spread of misinformation) to put in filters that eliminate or at least place warning on misinformation.

So you focus on the smallest point I make rather then the overall question you had that I answered twice.

This is why nothing gets done!

Rather then discuss openly, honestly it's fall back to argue the smaller points that are extremely insignificant to the overall conversation to continue to push your own agenda.

So I will ask a final time.

With murder already being illegal and the highest crime punishable by law.  What laws will stop people from killing?  By any means?  Again banning an item doesn't stop it!  For every life you say you can save by not being shot their are other instances where guns save lives or evil uses something else to kill.

So again is the issue the gun or the person commuting the act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on November 29, 2022, 06:38:19 PMKill

Thank you for your service!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks slugs

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 10:06:16 AMOn a side note, I think it should be incumbent on social media companies (since they are a major source of the spread of misinformation) to put in filters that eliminate or at least place warning on misinformation.

If social media is reliant to tell us the truth and be the keepers of misinformation we are doomed!  Social media has become just another corrupt tool. 

The misinformation police tagged a post I made on my hunting profile as the information within this post has been fact checked and deemed not entirely accurate based on CBC findings.

It has to do with SHOT PLACEMENT of an arrow! 

Yea things are really being read and fact checked and to whose standard!?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 09:16:18 AM@Slugsy-Narrows if "nothing" can be done to reduce gun violence, how do you explain why the US has so much more gun violence compared to other wealthy nations (I have already posted the graph)?

In fairness he didn't say "nothing" could be done. He said "no law" can prevent it. I might agree with this, but 100% do not believe that nothing can be done. 

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 01, 2022, 10:14:58 AMSo you focus on the smallest point I make rather then the overall question you had that I answered twice.

This is why nothing gets done!

Rather then discuss openly, honestly it's fall back to argue the smaller points that are extremely insignificant to the overall conversation to continue to push your own agenda.

So I will ask a final time.

With murder already being illegal and the highest crime punishable by law.  What laws will stop people from killing?  By any means?  Again banning an item doesn't stop it!  For every life you say you can save by not being shot their are other instances where guns save lives or evil uses something else to kill.

So again is the issue the gun or the person commuting the act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul,

Misinformation isn't "the smallest point" in my opinion.  It's a huge problem.

You asked why don't cities crack down on gang violence.  I will answer that question.  First, cities are hamstrung because of the illegal guns coming through the iron pipeline. Second, stopping gangs is not as easy as you seem to think, because there is freedom of assembly so it's not illegal to just be in a gang.

To your point about guns just being an instrument of murder, guns make murder magnitudes easier.  Not only do guns make it easier to kill, but it makes it quicker to kill.  How many seconds does it take to draw a weapon, point, and pull the trigger?  Compare that to other means of killing.  Guns also have the ability to kill beyond the intended victim, which makes them somewhat unique. 

I mean, you walk into a crowded office building (or school) with a military-grade weapon with high capacity magazine and spare clips and killing dozens (before you are stopped) is rather easy.  Go into that same building with just a knife you would be lucky to kill 2 or 3.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 10:26:33 AMPaul,

Misinformation isn't "the smallest point" in my opinion.  It's a huge problem.

You asked why don't cities crack down on gang violence.  I will answer that question.  First, cities are hamstrung because of the illegal guns coming through the iron pipeline. Second, stopping gangs is not as easy as you seem to think, because there is freedom of assembly so it's not illegal to just be in a gang.

To your point about guns just being an instrument of murder, guns make murder magnitudes easier.  Not only do guns make it easier to kill, but it makes it quicker to kill.  How many seconds does it take to draw a weapon, point, and pull the trigger?  Compare that to other means of killing.  Guns also have the ability to kill beyond the intended victim, which makes them somewhat unique. 

I mean, you walk into a crowded office building (or school) with a military-grade weapon with high capacity magazine and spare clips and killing dozens (before you are stopped) is rather easy.  Go into that same building with just a knife you would be lucky to kill 2 or 3.

Drive down a busy Manhattan sidewalk kill more then you can shoot! 

Mix fertilizer and blow up a building kill more then you can with a gun.

I'm ok still haven't addressed the issue!

It's not the equipment used!  It's the person using it.

The focus is on the wrong thing!  We need to limit those who shouldn't have access to.  Not limit the item in general.

In that case card should be limited cause 12-20k people a year die in drunk driving accidents.

Did we limit the cars or limit how alcohol could be consumed and what is considered drunk driving and penalize the driver?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: TONKA56 on December 01, 2022, 10:23:51 AMIn fairness he didn't say "nothing" could be done. He said "no law" can prevent it. I might agree with this, but 100% do not believe that nothing can be done.

Exactly Tonka and I gave examples of what can be done to reduce it but that was ignored!

Nice post on your end there was a lot of solid options there as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 08:10:12 AMI have a question for the pro-gun people on this thread.   If we play the game- if you were king

How would you stop all the mass shootings and reduce the number of single shootings?  What laws and rules would you change to make a country safer and save innocent lives?

I think slugs mentioned mental health ....

As a cop I can tell you 98% of shootings are done with illegal/stolen/ghost guns

You can make. Gun with a 3d printer these days, if we are able to ban all guns are we going to ban 3d printers ?

You only need the gun to work once to cause damage , so it doesn't need to be an expensive sig suar

If someone wants to cause mass chaos they will find a way, if they can't use guns they can easily find a way to make a crappy explosive

Mass shootings are usually with the intent to cause massive death in one shot... you away guns they will find a different way

When it comes to shooting in general those are mostly done with illegal guns anyways .... Someone holding up a sign stating "ban all guns" isn't going to stop the crazy person with mental illness from walking in my sons and daughters school and shooting it up

Only a good person with a gun will stop them or have a Fighting chance to stop them

At the end of the day you will NEVER get rid of guns, stopping good people from getting guns is only going to put your and my kids more at danger .... Kids can only hide in a closet for so long ....

I'm all for better background checks and making it more difficult to get apProved...but an outright ban is ignorant

Once again I have been dealing with this for 7 years now... never have I dealt with a shooting that was done with a legally owned gun

Can it happen that a legally owned gun owner will do something ? Yes of course and it has happened ... but that is where mental health comes into play and the powers that be make sure the right people get a gun


In the end this is something none of us will ever agree on ,  but I'm speaking from a first hand experience pov ..that's all I got to say on that front

Quote from: killarich on December 01, 2022, 10:43:39 AMI think slugs mentioned mental health ....

As a cop I can tell you 98% of shootings are done with illegal/stolen/ghost guns

You can make. Gun with a 3d printer these days, if we are able to ban all guns are we going to ban 3d printers ?

You only need the gun to work once to cause damage , so it doesn't need to be an expensive sig suar

If someone wants to cause mass chaos they will find a way, if they can't use guns they can easily find a way to make a crappy explosive

Mass shootings are usually with the intent to cause massive death in one shot... you away guns they will find a different way

When it comes to shooting in general those are mostly done with illegal guns anyways .... Someone holding up a sign stating "ban all guns" isn't going to stop the crazy person with mental illness from walking in my sons and daughters school and shooting it up

Only a good person with a gun will stop them or have a Fighting chance to stop them

At the end of the day you will NEVER get rid of guns, stopping good people from getting guns is only going to put your and my kids more at danger .... Kids can only hide in a closet for so long ....

I'm all for better background checks and making it more difficult to get apProved...but an outright ban is ignorant

Once again I have been dealing with this for 7 years now... never have I dealt with a shooting that was done with a legally owned gun

Can it happen that a legally owned gun owner will do something ? Yes of course and it has happened ... but that is where mental health comes into play and the powers that be make sure the right people get a gun


In the end this is something none of us will ever agree on ,  but I'm speaking from a first hand experience pov ..that's all I got to say on that front

Kill
Thanks for you input from someone on the front lines having to address this problem daily!  Your insight is great to read.

You brought up a good point about explosives - you can Google it and find that many of the ingredients are easy to get.

3D printers is another new issue that I completely didn't think about.

It just further proves, evil will find a way!  We just need to make it more challenging for them without violating the rights of others.

The majority should never have to give up their rights and beliefs for an very small minority of the population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 01, 2022, 10:56:03 AMThe majority should never have to give up their rights and beliefs for an very small minority of the population.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lmymdcwv4karyhxr_8jwfa.png)

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 10:58:26 AM(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lmymdcwv4karyhxr_8jwfa.png)

And your point?

This tells us nothing.

What is considered more strict?  In some states you buy a firearm by showing a DL.  So yes in that case I agree! 

In other states i need a firearm id, have a background check and if looking to buy a pistol apply for a permit which takes 30 days at least to obtain.  So in that case no.

You can throw out generic info but without knowing what is being asked and who is doing the asking your statistics are just numbers to try and just your position cause it's what you believe so there is bias in it

I am still waiting for you to address my questions since I was courteous enough to address yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Slugsy-Narrows

I am not sure what question you asked that I didn't address.  I know you just asked what my point was.  You raised the issue of the rights of the minority shouldn't trump the rights of the majority.  So I showed you that the majority of the nation wants stricter gun laws.

Also, I keep hearing the claim that it's illegal guns.  Well, here is a stat of the legality of the weapons used in mass shootings, I think it's safe to say it's not the illegal weapons that are the issue



I will also play the if I were king game.  If I were king, owning a gun would be on par with owning and using an automobile.  You would need to get licensed, you would need insurance (who would regulate owners to keep their guns secure and used properly), and you could lose your license if you don't use your firearms in a safe, legal manner.

Being King won't get it done with the powers states have in the constitution. But, I would have sensible gun laws universal throughout the nation. Right now, you can go to a gun show in many states and buy guns from a vendor without a background check. There are cameras set up and they will follow you to your car and if you buy a gun and ship it to another location outside of NJ to a similar state, they will still pick up your plate and the ATF will come knocking on your door and you will get arrested and your property searched and your guns confiscated.

All States requiring a background check and mental health check back to juvenile, fingerprinted and Firearm ID Card and registration of all handguns and rifles with a magazine load. Age restriction to 21 years of age like NJ. All states with reciprocal carry permits. A mandatory firearms class and field test for all handgun and carry permits. No ban on caliper or what are bogus called "assault rifles". I would consider restrictions on ammo quantity purchases.

Mandatory jail sentences for carrying an illegal firearm or not being licensed in every state.

I would take Marijuana and psychedelics off Federal Class one classification and release all those incarcerated for that. I would abolish cashless bail and remove bail completely on certain crimes such as violent crimes and grand larceny.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 11:21:53 AM@Slugsy-Narrows

I am not sure what question you asked that I didn't address.  I know you just asked what my point was.  You raised the issue of the rights of the minority shouldn't trump the rights of the majority.  So I showed you that the majority of the nation wants stricter gun laws.

Also, I keep hearing the claim that it's illegal guns.  Well, here is a stat of the legality of the weapons used in mass shootings, I think it's safe to say it's not the illegal weapons that are the issue

<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/" rel="nofollow">(https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons.jpg)</a>
Find more statistics at&nbsp; <a href="https://www.statista.com" rel="nofollow">Statista</a>


I will also play the if I were king game.  If I were king, owning a gun would be on par with owning and using an automobile.  You would need to get licensed, you would need insurance (who would regulate owners to keep their guns secure and used properly), and you could lose your license if you don't use your firearms in a safe, legal manner.

I was stating shootings in general , not mass shootings

Either way mental health is the main issue with a mass shooting, if someone wants to shootup a school full of kids that is def a mental health issue .... No one is shooting up a school to over turf wars , drugs, or street cred... it's because someone has a mental issue

And I agree we should have licensing and stuff.... But the gun isn't the issue there legally or illegally owned

Quote from: killarich on December 01, 2022, 11:39:19 AMI was stating shootings in general , not mass shootings

Either way mental health is the main issue with a mass shooting, if someone wants to shootup a school full of kids that is def a mental health issue .... No one is shooting up a school to over turf wars , drugs, or street cred... it's because someone has a mental issue

And I agree we should have licensing and stuff.... But the gun isn't the issue there legally or illegally owned

I agree that gun violence in general and mass shootings are two different topics (obviously related).   I think both are issues that need and should be addressed.

On the issue of mental health, how do you resolve the issue that is created when you start using mental health as a red flag for gun ownership?  In other words, will people avoid getting the mental healthcare services they need if they are fearful of losing their guns or not being able to buy them in the future?   So how would you address that particular issue?





This is for @Slugsy-Narrows who talked about alternative means of killing





Independent of what I just discussed, how many are aware of the server shortage of mental healthcare providers?   

QuoteYou raised the issue of the rights of the minority shouldn't trump the rights of the majority.  So I showed you that the majority of the nation wants stricter gun laws.

This is just bad logic. 

The first sentence is applied to the second sentence.

The first sentence is about rights.

The second sentence is about what some supposed majority of people want or desire or would like to see (Don't get me started on polls).  Not rights.

Just because the majority of the country wants something doesn't make it a right. 

Also, it seems that some significant number of people don't understand what a right is.  For example, there are many who believe there is a right to health care.  If someone else has to give it to you, then you're not entitled to it.   Its not a right.

https://youtu.be/wwL0x75k6Jk

I just got back from the range and there was a large group of about 50 Hasidim boys that were brought in by either their Rabbi or School Teacher for a class and to learn how to shoot. I imagine some of them may one day get a carry license for personal protection with the climate being what it is and the rise in antisemitism in the world today.

Whatever anyone believes or would like, it's all moot. The highest court in the land has decided. 

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 01, 2022, 02:34:53 PMI just got back from the range and there was a large group of about 50 Hasidim boys that were brought in by either their Rabbi or School Teacher for a class and to learn how to shoot. I imagine some of them may one day get a carry license for personal protection with the climate being what it is and the rise in antisemitism in the world today.

Whatever anyone believes or would like, it's all moot. The highest court in the land has decided.

That Rabbi should be commended

Teaching our youth about guns gives them an education, if more people were properly educated and taught they would probably have a different view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: jimmyz on December 01, 2022, 12:01:42 PMThis is just bad logic. 

The first sentence is applied to the second sentence.

The first sentence is about rights.

The second sentence is about what some supposed majority of people want or desire or would like to see (Don't get me started on polls).  Not rights.

Just because the majority of the country wants something doesn't make it a right. 

Also, it seems that some significant number of people don't understand what a right is.  For example, there are many who believe there is a right to health care.  If someone else has to give it to you, then you're not entitled to it.   Its not a right.

Well said Jimmyz.

It's also interesting that even one life we save matters, yet that same logic isn't applied to everything.  Only what fits their beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hypothetical question

If you could ban all guns for good BUT every murderer, serial killer , or any person who used a gun would be released from prison as long as they served 5 years or anyone from this point who is charged for such will only serve 5 years max....

Do you make that decision as King ?

Quote from: killarich on December 01, 2022, 07:23:44 PMHypothetical question

If you could ban all guns for good BUT every murderer, serial killer , or any person who used a gun would be released from prison as long as they served 5 years or anyone from this point who is charged for such will only serve 5 years max....

Do you make that decision as King ?

No!

Again evil will find a way to do evil.

No more guns, then what is the next best means to kill with and they will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2022, 11:21:53 AM@Slugsy-Narrows

I am not sure what question you asked that I didn't address.  I know you just asked what my point was.  You raised the issue of the rights of the minority shouldn't trump the rights of the majority.  So I showed you that the majority of the nation wants stricter gun laws.

Also, I keep hearing the claim that it's illegal guns.  Well, here is a stat of the legality of the weapons used in mass shootings, I think it's safe to say it's not the illegal weapons that are the issue

<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/" rel="nofollow">(https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons.jpg)</a>

Find more statistics at  <a href="https://www.statista.com" rel="nofollow">Statista</a>


I will also play the if I were king game.  If I were king, owning a gun would be on par with owning and using an automobile.  You would need to get licensed, you would need insurance (who would regulate owners to keep their guns secure and used properly), and you could lose your license if you don't use your firearms in a safe, legal manner.

Feel free to reread my posts then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is an outstanding article from a Yale Law professor that was published in the Harvard Law Review.  Turns out this deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is a relatively recent phenomenon that started in the 1980s.


https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_DeadOrAliveOriginalismAsPopularConstitutionalismInHeller.pdf

Of course, those actions have had dire consequences.

Study: U.S. gun death rates hit highest levels in decades

https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-science-health-covid-mental-20f5e2cb5fb50ff747fe316fdc4db5c4

Yet the Supreme Court keeps upholding gun rights and knocking down laws made by anti gun politicians and a violation of the 2A.

So am I to take the writing of more then likely an anti gun professor or the ruling from MULTIPLE Supreme Court justices.

Still also wondering why multiple people including a police officer have responded to this thread, made statements and asked question and still one person here rather then address them and maybe have to admit something they don't want to avoids and keeps throwing out info to try and support their own agenda rather then address the questions and discuss them as we have done I  kind.

Before you ask what questions - read the thread again it's right there.

Here is another one

If every life matters, and we have to ban guns cause if it saves even one life and that sacrifice is worth it, does that mean that you also denounce abortion?  Cause if all life matters then abortion should be outlaws as even 1 life matters.

If you can't admit to that then your argument that even one life matters is flawed.

And before anyone asked I am pro choice so let's not jump on this for anything more then figuring out if all lives matter and even saving 1 is worth going to the extreme for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 08:33:47 AMYet the Supreme Court keeps upholding gun rights and knocking down laws made by anti gun politicians and a violation of the 2A.

So am I to take the writing of more then likely an anti gun professor or the ruling from MULTIPLE Supreme Court justices.

Still also wondering why multiple people including a police officer have responded to this thread, made statements and asked question and still one person here rather then address them and maybe have to admit something they don't want to avoids and keeps throwing out info to try and support their own agenda rather then address the questions and discuss them as we have done I  kind.

Before you ask what questions - read the thread again it's right there.

Here is another one

If every life matters, and we have to ban guns cause if it saves even one life and that sacrifice is worth it, does that mean that you also denounce abortion?  Cause if all life matters then abortion should be outlaws as even 1 life matters.

If you can't admit to that then your argument that even one life matters is flawed.

And before anyone asked I am pro choice so let's not jump on this for anything more then figuring out if all lives matter and even saving 1 is worth going to the extreme for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you read the article that I posted?  If so, please explain the flaw in the points that were raised. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 02, 2022, 08:47:22 AMDid you read the article that I posted?  If so, please explain the flaw in the points that were raised.

I've responded to all your questions in kind

When you match the same courtesy to myself and others here I will consider further explanations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 08:53:02 AMI've responded to all your questions in kind

When you match the same courtesy to myself and others here I will consider further explanations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you think people who don't agree with you should be educated because it might change your mind.   Yet when you have a chance to read about the legal history of the second amendment that was written by a Yale professor and published in the Harvard review, you refuse because you think it will tell you stuff that doesn't match your existing beliefs.  Worse, you go on to attack the paper you didn't even read.

This strikes at the heart of the problem.   Therefore is no effort to learn or fully understand an issue.   There is no willingness to listen to the other side or try to understand them.    There is a refusal to learn all the facts and to verify what you learn.

I understand and even sympathize with the pro-gun people.   I think they have some valid points.   I don't want to confiscate all guns.  I do want more restrictions though.    I firmly disagree with the corrupted Supreme Court and their rulings to make weapons more available to criminals, the mentally ill, and terrorists.   Those concerns are clearly not unfounded,just listen to the news every day.  I feel like not only doesn't your side listen, but you won't take accountability for all the deaths your laws and policies are clearly causing.

Sorry if this is overly harsh, but mass shootings should be a once in a decade event (or better yet,longer) but instead it's become a weekly event.  I care too much about my country and the people being killed and maimed to go along with more guns for more people position.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-2/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 02, 2022, 09:16:18 AMSo you think people who don't agree with you should be educated because it might change your mind.   Yet when you have a chance to read about the legal history of the second amendment that was written by a Yale professor and published in the Harvard review, you refuse because you think it will tell you stuff that doesn't match your existing beliefs.  Worse, you go on to attack the paper you didn't even read.

This strikes at the heart of the problem.   Therefore is no effort to learn or fully understand an issue.   There is no willingness to listen to the other side or try to understand them.    There is a refusal to learn all the facts and to verify what you learn.

I understand and even sympathize with the pro-gun people.   I think they have some valid points.   I don't want to confiscate all guns.  I do want more restrictions though.    I firmly disagree with the corrupted Supreme Court and their rulings to make weapons more available to criminals, the mentally ill, and terrorists.   Those concerns are clearly not unfounded,just listen to the news every day.  I feel like not only doesn't your side listen, but you won't take accountability for all the deaths your laws and policies are clearly causing.

Sorry if this is overly harsh, but mass shootings should be a once in a decade event (or better yet,longer) but instead it's become a weekly event.  I care too much about my country and the people being killed and maimed to go along with more guns for more people position.

You are making an assumption I haven't read it or won't.

What happens when you assume????

I'm still waiting for your response to everyone here who took the time to answer you but you have cherry picked your response!

My guess is because you haven't yet researched and found an argument to support your belief and agenda or cause you have no answer, or by responding it contradicts what you have stated.

So which is it?

Again have the courtesy to respond to those you responded to you and stop cherry picking your arguments.

I'd love yo hear your response to all lives matter even if it's just one I posed.  And I'd you aren't sure which one I'm referring to again reread the posts, it's all there for you to respond to all.

As for a refusal to learn and think of something other then your entrenched belief name one thing we have discussed here that opened your eyes and make you question what you believe?  If you want to talk about close minded and issues with people not willing to open their minds you are the pot calling the kettle black then.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 02, 2022, 10:24:04 AMhttps://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-2/

Great find Ed!  Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 11:24:15 AMGreat find Ed!  Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just the facts Jack.

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 02, 2022, 02:38:35 PMJust the facts Jack.

Some people can't handle the truth - doesn't fold up nice and neat to fit within their agenda!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 04:56:42 PMSome people can't handle the truth - doesn't fold up nice and neat to fit within their agenda!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Instead of listening to people you don't agree with and try to understand their point of view, you demonize them.   

Paul, do you honestly believe such an approach is good for our country? 

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 02, 2022, 05:02:47 PMInstead of listening to people you don't agree with and try to understand their point of view, you demonize them.   

Paul, do you honestly believe such an approach is good for our country?

I have demonized no one, nice try trying to play victim once again.

Are you ever going to answer the various replies and questions that have been sent you way on this topic?

As for opposing view I have zero issue discussing it with people.  As long as they are willing to have an open mind and not shoe horn and cherry pick their responses (as you do and have done)

Just had a similar convo with a coworker today that thought an AR meant Assault Rifle.

After our discussion and showing her pictures and explaining it to her and the different reasons you may want to or need to own such a weapon her response was I didn't know that, it's was never explained like that to me.  I see where you are coming from and although I would never own one, still don't believe it's needed, I can understand your point of view though.

There is a difference!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 05:37:51 PMI have demonized no one, nice try trying to play victim once again.

I am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt, Paul.  Please explain how these two statements furthered our conversation about guns in America.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 02, 2022, 04:56:42 PMSome people can't handle the truth - doesn't fold up nice and neat to fit within their agenda!

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 01, 2022, 06:36:26 PMWell said Jimmyz.

It's also interesting that even one life we save matters, yet that same logic isn't applied to everything.  Only what fits their beliefs.

I mean, most people are coming to the table with their thoughts on the issue, or facts and figures, was respectful discourse with others on the thread, or a link to something that adds perspective to the discussion.  What was the purpose of those two posts, if not to demonize?   

https://independentcitizen.com/run-hide-and-fight-makes-as-much-sense-as-duct-tape-to-stop-terrorism/

I am willing to listen to both sides presented.   I will qualify that as I follow these principles

Critical Consumers of the News
Manipulating critical consumers of the news is difficult because:

■ They study alternative perspectives and world views, learning how
to interpret events from multiple viewpoints.
■ They seek understanding and insight through multiple sources of
thought and information, not simply those of the mass media.
■ They learn how to identify the viewpoints embedded in
news stories.
■ They mentally rewrite (reconstruct) news stories through awareness of how stories would be told from multiple perspectives.
■ They analyze news constructs in the same way they analyze
other representations of reality (as some blend of fact and
interpretation).
■ They assess news stories for their clarity, accuracy, relevance,
depth, breadth, and significance.
■ They notice contradictions and inconsistencies in the news
(often in the same story).
■ They notice the agenda and interests served by a story.
■ They notice the facts covered and the facts ignored.
■ They notice what is represented as fact (that is in dispute).
■ They notice questionable assumptions implicit in stories.
■ They notice what is implied (but not openly stated).
■ They notice what implications are ignored and what are
emphasized.
■ They notice which points of view are systematically put into a
favorable light and which in an unfavorable light.
■ They mentally correct stories reflecting bias toward the unusual,
the dramatic, and the sensational by putting them into perspective or discounting them.
■ They question the social conventions and taboos being used to
define issues and problems


I will add to that,

I note factual claims lack citations.

I note the use of anecdotal evidence (which is a poor practice).

I will note if the sources misrepresent opposing points of view or paint people holding those views in a poor light.

I will click on citation links (and go further until I know the whole truth)

I will note if there is an effort to be truthful (making sure all relevant facts are presented) or just honest (meaning what was said could be very misleading but isn't technically a lie)

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2022, 08:43:39 AMI am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt, Paul.  Please explain how these two statements furthered our conversation about guns in America.

I mean, most people are coming to the table with their thoughts on the issue, or facts and figures, was respectful discourse with others on the thread, or a link to something that adds perspective to the discussion.  What was the purpose of those two posts, if not to demonize?

I too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences hypocrisy and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you justifry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 1 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child? (Again I'm pro choice I'm just looking for how you justify one v the other)

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 03, 2022, 12:22:48 PMI too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you just fry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 2 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child?

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In all fairness many don't believe in consciousness and life at either certain stages of pregnancy or pre birth.

I don't know why you argue when someone claims to be more enlightened than you, adhering to high principles and navigating bias and cherry picked anecdotes. Let me tell you how this ends. Nothing either one says changes minds. Your coworker was respectful to your beliefs yet she didn't change her attitude. Do you know what changes a person's mind? When they are out in that situation of fight or flight and live or die.

Read the article I posted from a Libertarian site who goes after both parties to expose them. Some compelling reasons to carry yet I don't at this point and a President whom I voted for who is looking to take away the liberty of citizens to defend themselves just to appeal to voters and doesn't understand that he's going to kill his party in swing states. I'm not stating that to introduce politics in the discussion but to demonstrate ignorance among our leaders at the state and federal level and the consequences of denying liberty and how it can lead to other abuses of government.

Elections have consequences and although I won't make claims that the members of the Supreme Court are "corrupt", they will have a bias of their own. A revision of history and other actions could have resulted in a different majority of this highest court and the issue of guns in America and the right to carry would have gone very differently. Unfortunately for the antigun community that's not the case. As you can see, I agree with gun control measures within reason as you and Rich do too. Don't really know what the debate is about.

Taking away a woman's choice and denying free speech even if you don't like what they say, mask and vaccine mandates of children and blurring the division of church and state are all about Liberty. Live your life as you choose but don't impose your fears and ideology on me.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 03, 2022, 12:22:48 PMI too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences hypocrisy and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you justifry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 1 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child? (Again I'm pro choice I'm just looking for how you justify one v the other)

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2022, 01:18:16 PMAbortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2022, 01:18:16 PMAbortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

Just to briefly comment on the above;

I am pro choice, and I am not particularly religious.

However, I do feel abortion is killing. I don't particularly like it, but I am supportive of it simply because I think the alternative is much worse. The idea of living in a society that forces pregnant women not wanting to go through with childbirth to have their child strikes me as primitive bordering on downright barbaric.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend abortion isn't killing.

That is just my personal feeling on it. I am not saying anyone here including myself is right or wrong. I fully appreciate the subject is up for debate. I'm only describing the way I personally see it.

The gun violence on the streets is much more prevalent in a country with 332 million people and goes under the radar in most cases. How do these kids who are not of age to get a permit or register a firearm have them in their possession? This underground of weapons smuggling is one of the problems that needs to be addressed.
https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/southpassaic/news/teen-trio-from-rockland-all-caught-packin-pistols-on-paterson-streetcorner-police/850847/

QuoteNew York's Likely-Trafficked Guns Predominately Come from Iron Pipeline States
The NYAG's Organized Crime Task Force and other law enforcement agencies have frequently disrupted gun trafficking schemes that purchase firearms, predominately handguns, in states south of New York along the I-95 corridor and that transport the weapons to New York markets. These states — Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida — have been identified as net "exporter" or "supplier" states[30] and the steady stream of firearms along the interstate has earned it the nickname "the Iron Pipeline."[31] Our analysis of the data shows these states deserve their anecdotal nickname. In addition to the Iron Pipeline states, Ohio, which has easy access to western New York via I-90, stands out as an important but often overlooked source of crime guns, particularly to the Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse markets.

QuoteNew York's Gun Traffickers Choose States with Weak Gun Laws to Get their Guns
There were certain commonalities among the states that supply New York with its trafficked guns. First, all are "net exporters" of crime guns according to ATF national statistics.[32] Each also generally scores poorly on objective measures of the strength of gun safety laws.[33] In particular, these states lack gun laws fundamental to preventing illegal diversion. For instance, all but one of these states have no requirements for background checks for private sales or at gun shows (Pennsylvania, and only for handguns). And all but one do not require a permit prior to a handgun purchase (North Carolina). This is a stark contrast to the other states along I-95 south, which were responsible for just over 2% of New York's trafficked guns combined. New Jersey, for instance, requires a permit for handguns and long guns, each requiring a background check. Even though New Jersey shares a border with and has several major arteries into New York, it contributed less than one percent of New York's trafficked guns.

Much more at the link

https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/#:~:text=70%25%20of%20likely%2Dtrafficked%20guns,%2Dstate%20likely%2Dtrafficked%20guns.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2022, 01:18:16 PMAbortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

This has zero to do with religious beliefs Rich so let's not even get on religion. As I never brought it up and don't intend to go there.

You state you are a man of medicine and science.

If something has a heart beat.  It is alive, correct?  Please yes or no.

Science and Medicine has found that to be factually accurate.  As far as I can quickly research.

You can't have a heartbeat and be dead or not living correct?

And you directly do something to stop that heart from beating and it then dies.  That is killing.

So again since you still haven't directly answered the question I will ask it again and word it differently to help.

If everything has a heartbeat is alive.

If every life matters.

If even saving 1 life means doing whatever it takes.

If this is your foundation.

How then do you justify taking away someone's constitutional right to bare arms in the hope to save even 1 life, yet you are ok with the killing of countless babies a year.

Again do not add any religious beliefs in their.

We are talking scientific life heart beating vs not!

If every heartbeat/life matters then shouldn't that be across the board?

Secondly you state you don't want the Government to force one groups beliefs onto another.

Then the 2nd question is this:

Why is it then ok to force anti gun beliefs of one group onto another?

Again why is ok for one thing but yet not another?

Is that NOT hypocrisy at its highest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 03, 2022, 01:36:35 PMJust to briefly comment on the above;

I am pro choice, and I am not particularly religious.

However, I do feel abortion is killing. I don't particularly like it, but I am supportive of it simply because I think the alternative is much worse. The idea of living in a society that forces pregnant women not wanting to go through with childbirth to have their child strikes me as primitive bordering on downright barbaric.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend abortion isn't killing.

That is just my personal feeling on it. I am not saying anyone here including myself is right or wrong. I fully appreciate the subject is up for debate. I'm only describing the way I personally see it.

Dave

I think many people feel as you do.  I for one.  Those that refuse to admit it as bravely as you do are either not being honest or refuse to answer because I'm doing so it then shows the hypocrisy they have due to their other statements and/or beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 03, 2022, 02:57:39 PMThis has zero to do with religious beliefs Rich so let's not even get on religion. As I never brought it up and don't intend to go there.

You state you are a man of medicine and science.

If something has a heart beat.  It is alive, correct?  Please yes or no.

Science and Medicine has found that to be factually accurate.  As far as I can quickly research.

You can't have a heartbeat and be dead or not living correct?

And you directly do something to stop that heart from beating and it then dies.  That is killing.

So again since you still haven't directly answered the question I will ask it again and word it differently to help.

If everything has a heartbeat is alive.

If every life matters.

If even saving 1 life means doing whatever it takes.

If this is your foundation.

How then do you justify taking away someone's constitutional right to bare arms in the hope to save even 1 life, yet you are ok with the killing of countless babies a year.

Again do not add any religious beliefs in their.

We are talking scientific life heart beating vs not!

If every heartbeat/life matters then shouldn't that be across the board?

Secondly you state you don't want the Government to force one groups beliefs onto another.

Then the 2nd question is this:

Why is it then ok to force anti gun beliefs of one group onto another?

Again why is ok for one thing but yet not another?

Is that NOT hypocrisy at its highest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/health/brain-dead-basics

The question should be if that is a sentient being with consciousness and aware. Without brain activity there is no life. Nobody knows when that occurs.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 03, 2022, 03:00:08 PMDave

I think many people feel as you do.  I for one.  Those that refuse to admit it as bravely as you do are either not being honest or refuse to answer because I'm doing so it then shows the hypocrisy they have due to their other statements and/or beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 03, 2022, 03:23:24 PMAgreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

At what point do you believe it's killing? At conception? After 22 days when the heart starts beating?

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 03, 2022, 03:50:21 PMAt what point do you believe it's killing? At conception? After 22 days when the heart starts beating?

I personally think it's technically killing after conception. Obviously it becomes grizzlier and a lot more off-putting the more the fetus develops, but if we're talking about "killing" in the technical sense of the word I personally believe it is killing anytime after conception.

@Slugsy-Narrows

By your definition, you are a mass murderer many times over since you have killed many animals with heartbeats (your definition of life.

You are correct; I am a man and science and medicine.  I think this man, who is both a man of science and a philosopher does the best job laying out the real issue, which is when does an embryo become a human being (and an entity, if terminated, would be considered murdering a human being)

So here is perhaps the best explanation I have seen in quite some time:

QuoteScott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.

The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone's body contains that person's complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.

The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual.

The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus's brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life.

The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks.

The final possibility is birth itself.

The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human.

Perhaps biologists of the future will learn more. Until then, when human life begins during fetal developments is a question for philosophers and theologians. And policies based on an answer to that question will remain up to politicians – and judges.

https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514


2.  Paul, you claim that "abortion has nothing to do with religion."  If that were actually true, we wouldn't get these sorts of figures that clearly show religious beliefs impact one's beliefs about abortion:


(https://i.imgur.com/h4DfrZ4.png)

Paul, I also notice you have repeatedly called out those that don't agree with you as hypocrites.  From my perspective, that is pretty much to be expected.  By your own admission, you consumed a great deal of propaganda (the false claims that Japan didn't invade the US because of private gun ownership).  One of the things about propaganda is it tends to be used when a position is questionable or weak (otherwise, one could simply give a sound case for a position).  Since one has a weak case, one of the best things is to find a target for the intended audience of the propaganda, someone they dislike or hate.  So they sell you their ideas by pointing out that those with other viewpoints are bad flawed people who are just hypocrites.  Nothing is better at manipulating people than playing on human weaknesses like fear, hate, vanity, and anger.  I have little doubt you have been told repeatedly that people who don't agree with your views on guns are nothing but hypocrites. 

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 03, 2022, 03:23:24 PMAgreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

DB,

I think when you pretend to know what motivates others and what other people are thinking, you can go down a very dark path. 

Rich

I think our discussion has run its course.

Since you continue to deflect and refuse to answer a simple question.

You repeatedly twist words to stop from answering questions or to put your own twist on it to justify your agenda.  Or use others information to skirt around answering it directly.

I asked you basic questions, you can simply answer yes or No as it doesn't need a complex detailed answer, yet you refuse, cause by doing so it shows you are being hypocritical.

Bringing up my hunting which isn't even a part of this topic is your way of deflecting as we aren't talking about hunting but again it's your way to divert from the topic at hand to try and justify your own means and paint me in a bad light and being passive aggressive. 

I will agree yes I openly and willing kill animals for food.  Which is neither illegal or an issue.  It's not murder under the law and I hunt within the law.  The only difference between me gathering the meat myself and you, is you let someone else do the killing for you.  So I guess that makes you an accessory!

It's all very simple!

I don't have to justify the 2A, it's our rights as citizens born in this country THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  The Supreme Court has upheld it many times and the courts continue to strike down overreaching gun laws.

Now, Since you refuse to answer it I'll answer the questions for you.

You do believe in abortion.  Hence when you lost your mind here when the Supreme Court made their ruling.  Again I am pro abortion (with certain limitations and justifications, late term abortion I think is horrible, but that is my opinion)

You can't agree that by stopping a heart beat, it is killing someone and every human life matters in all regards , including those of unborn children cause to do so would be openly admitting to being a hypocrite.  We know you can't won't and would never openly admit that so I'll say it for you.  It's hypocritical.

You have also shown that you are not ok that a religious group has a belief and that belief shouldn't be imposed on others yet you and others are more then ok to impose your beliefs on them in regards to our 2A rights, which again is hypocritical.

So with that said my discussion on this topic ends with you here.  Go ahead and make whatever accusations and comments will make afterwords for you feel better.  I'm good with where this is left between us.  I'm sure you will not try and make me sound like the bad guy.  It's ok, the truth is here plain for all to see and judge for themselves.

To everyone and anyone else:

I will continue to discuss this with anyone who wants to seriously and honestly, answer questions and trade ideas and thoughts.

Feel free to DM me as well if you don't wish to discuss it openly as I know this is a sensitive topic and others get judged here for their opinions and beliefs.  As we can plainly see.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Slugsy-Narrows I skimmed your ugly rant...   at least you got one thing right, "this conversation has run its course."

Statistics

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 04, 2022, 10:31:23 AMStatistics

Great info!

Thanks for posting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was watching the latest Joe Rogan Podcast with Neal deGrasse Tyson and he was plugging his book which had a chapter on Statistics. He told about the stats for how many people get killed by Deer crossings each year. It was looked into to see what could be done about it. One options was to release Cat Predators like a Wildcat and the reduced population would save 60 lives but the cat would likely kill 10 small children. It was a scenario that just wouldn't fly. Better to hire Elmer Fudd and give him a license. 

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 04, 2022, 12:44:22 PMI was watching the latest Joe Rogan Podcast with Neal deGrasse Tyson and he was plugging his book which had a chapter on Statistics. He told about the stats for how many people get killed by Deer crossings each year. It was looked into to see what could be done about it. One options was to release Cat Predators like a Wildcat and the reduced population would save 60 lives but the cat would likely kill 10 small children. It was a scenario that just wouldn't fly. Better to hire Elmer Fudd and give him a license.

Ed

For habitat the worse thing you can do is add a '
Non native animal to an area, Especially a predator!.

I believe they did this once before I would have to search but it was i believe in the north mid west I believe and it was wolves.  Started having major issues with livestock once they started decimating the deer population.

Could you imagine Cougars in NJ with how developed a state we are.  Look at the  issue with bears now when not controlled.

Other animals become prey and not just wild animals but domestic.

You start to see less naturally native animals and more of the new invasive species.  Pythons in FL - got out during a Hurricane years ago from an exotic facility and started over populating.  They now have hunts for them.

We see this with hogs down south.  Breed to quick, population out of control can't be controlled.

States have wasted millions of tax payer dollars to try and trap sterilize etc deer and other animals.  Animals aren't monogamist, you aren't sterilizing enough of them to make an impact.  1 buck will breed himself to death literally!

The only way to control the population is via hunting.  Especially with a what...... a firearm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some very important statistics

GUN VIOLENCE BY THE NUMBERS

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provides annual statistics on fatal firearm injuries. Using data from the most recent years available (2015-2019), Brady establishes five-year averages of firearm fatalities. While Brady historically used CDC data to establish averages for gun-related injuries as well, recent findings show there are more accurate sources. Due to funding restrictions and other constraints, the sample size utilized by the CDC is so small that its estimate of firearm injuries ranges significantly. Data provided by Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's HCUPnet, and collected from emergency departments and databases, gives a more comprehensive picture of gun injuries in the U.S. The numbers below represent a three-year average of the most recent HCUPnet data available (2013, '14, and '16). It is important to note that data reported for children and teens contains data only for 1-17-year-olds.

STATISTICS ON DAILY GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

DAILY GUN VIOLENCE IMPACTING PEOPLE OF ALL AGES IN THE U.S.

Every day, 321 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

111 people are shot and killed
210 survive gunshot injuries
95 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
42 are murdered
65 die from gun suicide
10 survive an attempted gun suicide
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally and survive
1 is killed by legal intervention*
4 are shot by legal intervention and survive
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot and survive but the intent was unknown


DAILY GUN VIOLENCE IMPACTING CHILDREN AND TEENS (1-17)

Every day, 22 children and teens (1-17) are shot in the United States. Among those:

5 die from gun violence
3 are murdered
17 children and teens survive gunshot injuries
8 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
2 children and teens either die from gun suicide or survive an attempted gun suicide
8 children and teens are unintentionally shot in instances of family fire — a shooting involving an improperly stored or misused gun found in the home resulting in injury or death


ANNUAL GUN VIOLENCE IMPACTING PEOPLE OF ALL AGES IN THE U.S.

Every year, 117,345 people are shot. Among those:

40,620 people die from gun violence
15,343 are murdered
76,725 people survive gunshot injuries
34,566 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
23,891 die from gun suicide
3,554 survive an attempted gun suicide
492 killed unintentionally
547 are killed by legal intervention
1,376 are shot by legal intervention and survive
347 die but the intent was unknown
4,471 are shot and survive but the intent is unknown
547 women are killed by their husband or male dating partner**


ANNUAL GUN VIOLENCE IMPACTING CHILDREN AND TEENS (AGES 1-17)

Every year, 7,957 children and teens are shot in the United States. Among those:

1839 children and teens die from gun violence
992 are murdered
6,294 children and teens survive gunshot injuries
2,788 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
693 die from gun suicide
166 survive an attempted gun suicide
10 are killed by legal intervention
101 are shot by legal intervention and survive
99 are killed unintentionally
2,893 are shot unintentionally and survive
38 die but the intent was unknown
380 are and survive shot but the intent is unknown

*Legal intervention is defined by the CDC as: deaths due to injuries inflicted by police or other law enforcement agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and performing other legal actions. It excludes injuries caused by civil insurrections.

Note: The data historically collected by the federal government on fatal shootings is not comprehensive. CDC data on cause of death relies on the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). The NVSS tends to misclassify police involved shootings as homicides if law enforcement intervention is not mentioned on death certificates. Further, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not require local police departments to give full information about officer involved shootings as part of its homicide reports, and participation in the Uniform Crime Reporting System is voluntary. While the FBI has begun a pilot project to track fatal and non-fatal use of force by law-enforcement offices through an online national database, this information is not yet available.


**This number is a five-year average derived from Violence Policy Center's "When Men Murder Women" analysis of FBI homicide data, 2014-18 (the five most recent years available for this).

Brady averages the five most recent years of complete data from death certificates (2015-2019) available via CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html, and three most recent years of complete data from emergency department visits (2013, '14, and '16) available via the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP's) online query system, hcupnet.ahrq.gov. Numbers may not sum to 100% because of rounding of CDC averages.

Emergency department statistics on HCUPnet are from the HCUP Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD), and State Inpatient Databases (SID). All diagnoses of external cause of injury that patients receive in emergency departments are assigned an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. The assignments of specific ICD codes are reflected in the data shown he

https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics#:~:text=Annual%20Gun%20Violence%20Impacting%20People%20of%20All%20Ages%20in%20the%20U.S.&text=15%2C343%20are%20murdered,23%2C891%20die%20from%20gun%20suicide

In 2020, 620,327 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2011–2020, in 2020, a total of 615,911 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 198 abortions per 1,000 live births.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

So 40,620 people are killed by guns and let's ban guns.

Yet over 1/2 a million babies (620+ MILLION) are killed and we want to expand on that.

That is 15 times more then gun deaths.

I thought every life mattered no matter what?

Why are we cherry picking what we want to ban??

If we aren't being hypocritical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Slugsy-Narrows you can repeat the non-factusl claim that abortion is murder, but it won't magically make it true.  Your efforts to equate abortion with gun violence are a textbook example of false framing.  Of course, even if you fail in your framing efforts it does serve to distract from the real stats that show the terrible cost of not properly regulating firearms.

And you can throw your stats around as well and guess what, it's not magically going to make the 2A go away either.

So while you continue to IGNORE the constitutional rights as American Citizens we have and to your dismay and my celebration we continue to overturn and defeat the far left grabbing laws they keep trying to impose.

I'm still waiting for your response on how limiting legal sales to legal citizens will reduce the gun problem   A few people here took the time to answer you but you still haven't repaid the courtesy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Slugsy-Narrows you can corrupt my Supreme Court to get your way, but their rulings are still unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional.  They have all the validity of Putin's rulings have to the Russian people.

Here is what a conservative President (and lifelong NRA member) said before propaganda and scheming created a false reading of the 2nd amendment, which turned our nation into a gun kil-zone.

Former Republican U.S. President and California Gov. Ronald Reagan once said, "There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon."

AND

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

Ronald Reagan

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/10JhviFuU2gWD6/giphy.gif)

Now that's funny!  Your Supreme Court - lol 

So when the courts had a left majority those courts were ok and not corrupt- to much how you all think.

Elections have consequences as we can see first hand everyday
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/W1VHPNYJ4vNu8N1Vsy/giphy.gif)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(https://www.bradyunited.org/assets/static/images/quilt-images/16.svg)

(https://www.bradyunited.org/assets/static/images/quilt-images/229.svg)

(https://www.bradyunited.org/assets/static/images/quilt-images/155.svg)

(https://brady.imgix.net//1994-assault-weapon-ban.png?fit=crop&w=500)

(https://www.bradyunited.org/assets/static/images/quilt-images/90percentOfCrimeGuns.svg)

(https://www.bradyunited.org/assets/static/images/quilt-images/300percentRiskOfDeath.svg)

But notice it didn't stop it!  Nor will it ever.  Why evil will find a way and still do it!

Also during that time a federal building was blown up by a homemade bomb and not a gun.  Bombs are already illegal.

And it was an illegal law hence why they can't get another one passed even when they had the presidency under Obama with the house and the senate and Biden most recently.

So your party has had multiple years to do something wouldn't and couldn't get the votes to make it happen.

Ever wonder why???

It's pandering to people like you that they keep saying we need one but even when they are in power and have the ability they don't.

Speaking of which why if preventing gun violence is an issue have they not funded to protect schools.

Can send money to Ukraine who he is in bed with and wait till that info starts to really come out now.  But can't protect our schools and kids!  Hmmmm!!!  If it matters so much and we need to do it at any cost, why not print more money and fund every school for single access and security?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association's lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: "One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

former Justice  John Paul Stevens

QuoteThe enclosed memorandum explains the basis for my firm belief that the Second Amendment does not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government to regulate the non-military use or possession of firearms. I have decided to take the unusual step of circulating the initial draft of a probable dissent before [Scalia] circulates his majority because I fear the members of the majority have not yet adequately considered the unusual importance of their decision.

While I think a fair reading of history provides overwhelming support for Warren Burger's view of the merits, even if we assume that the present majority is correct, I submit that they have not given adequate consideration to the certain impact of their proposed decision on this Court's role in preserving the rule of law. We have profound differences over our role in areas of the law such as the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process, but I believe we all agree that there are areas of policy-making in which judges have a special obligation to let the democratic process run the show ...

What has happened that could possibly justify such a massive change in the law? The text of the amendment has not changed. The history leading up to the adoption of the amendment has not changed ... There has been a change in the views of some law professors, but I assume there are also some professors out there who think Congress does not have the authority to authorize a national bank, or to regulate small firms engaged in the production of goods for sale in other states, or to enact a graduated income tax. In my judgment, none of the arguments advanced by respondents or their numerous amici justify judicial entry into a quintessential area of policy-making in which there is no special need or justification for judicial supervision.

This is not a case in which either side of the policy debate can be characterized as an "insular minority" in need of special protection from the judiciary. On the contrary, there is a special risk that the action of the judiciary will be perceived as the product of policy arguments advanced by an unusually powerful political force. Because there is still time to avoid a serious and totally unnecessary self-inflicted wound, I urge each of the members of the majority to give careful consideration to the impact of this decision on the future of this institution when weighing the strength of the arguments I have set forth in what I hope will not be a dissent.

QuoteThroughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court's unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, "In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Still can't answer any questions!  Typical

You can keep throwing up more info that justifies your belief!

If I cared to live in my basement and google all day too I could post a bunch of stuff proving the opposite. 

I don't have to though, I have the constitution and the courts backing up my rights vs your wants!  Thank god for constitutional judges that read and interpret the LAW verse create law from the bench like some do!

In the end your beliefs/wants are irrelevant as the courts keep ruling in the favor of pro 2A rights.

So keep on trying and failing though it's fun to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/12943.jpeg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/3a06874e470ce6e8b87d2f547f78265e.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/ad6c6193c5264a336dad045c337dc05f.jpg)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/462272f33375c67a3d8679cfbd7e3110.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/bc5c6d4fbf21c10ef3c05afb044b86f0.jpg)

We all can Google and post pics or stats! 

The difference is yours won't change my 2A right to bare arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Benitez's ruling on June 21, 2021, leaving the ban in place as appeals were litigated


Judge Roger Benitez

Benitez was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to serve as a United States magistrate judge. On May 1, 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush

Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified." In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ABA committee investigator reported that, "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills.

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 05, 2022, 08:16:43 AM(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/3a06874e470ce6e8b87d2f547f78265e.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221205/ad6c6193c5264a336dad045c337dc05f.jpg)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 05, 2022, 08:23:25 AMA three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Benitez's ruling on June 21, 2021, leaving the ban in place as appeals were litigated


Judge Roger Benitez

Benitez was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to serve as a United States magistrate judge. On May 1, 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush

Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified." In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ABA committee investigator reported that, "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills.

https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6798-california-assault-weapons-ban-scotus-end-ruling/

And when the Supreme Court hears this case what do you think will happen lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on December 05, 2022, 08:29:52 AMhttps://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6798-california-assault-weapons-ban-scotus-end-ruling/

And when the Supreme Court hears this case what do you think will happen lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you bragged about before, your side has perverted our Constitution and crapped on our democratic principles/the will of the American people.    A president who the American people voted against being president appointed 3 out of the 7 Supreme Court justices.   The last President to win the vote of the American people was denied the right to appoint a judge by a Senator who was elected by far less than a million Americans (compared to the 66 million that had voted for that President). 

Those three judges appointed by a President who the American people didn't want were all unqualified and made it clear their ideologies and religious beliefs were more important than our Constitution and the will of the American people.

So I think there is an excellent chance that the same judges (who were appointed against the will of the American people) who have perverted our justice system and our Constitution will continue to ignore our Constitution and rule against the American people in favor of their radical political ideologies and beliefs.

Sadly many Americans will needlessly die due to their rulings.  Then again, dictatorships have never been shown to be a good thing.  Democracies with a fair and impartial judiciary system that properly interprets and protects the rights of the people have always been the best way. 

I guess that's why Gallop has found 53% of Americans disprove of the Supreme Court while only 40% support what they have been doing.

Why don't you two take this to PMs? You're just talking past each other.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 05, 2022, 08:52:54 AMAs you bragged about before, your side has perverted our Constitution and crapped on our democratic principles/the will of the American people.    A president who the American people voted against being president appointed 3 out of the 7 Supreme Court justices.   The last President to win the vote of the American people was denied the right to appoint a judge by a Senator who was elected by far less than a million Americans (compared to the 66 million that had voted for that President). 

Those three judges appointed by a President who the American people didn't want were all unqualified and made it clear their ideologies and religious beliefs were more important than our Constitution and the will of the American people.

So I think there is an excellent chance that the same judges (who were appointed against the will of the American people) who have perverted our justice system and our Constitution will continue to ignore our Constitution and rule against the American people in favor of their radical political ideologies and beliefs.

Sadly many Americans will needlessly die due to their rulings.  Then again, dictatorships have never been shown to be a good thing.  Democracies with a fair and impartial judiciary system that properly interprets and protects the rights of the people have always been the best way. 

I guess that's why Gallop has found 53% of Americans disprove of the Supreme Court while only 40% support what they have been doing.

We have an electoral college for a reason so total votes out of left leaning cities and states (that are all running like garbage and in the toilet by left leaning politicians) aren't what elects a president and that is also something smart our founders did!

So a properly elected president got to nominate and have passed by a simple majority (due to rules the left put in place to ram judges through while Obama was president) got to put 3 judges on the court!

The senate held up an Obama nominee yes and by the rules they could and they would have done it if roles were reversed!  Hence to all elections have consequences.

As for perverting the constitution the left hasn't red and followed the constitution in decades!  If not for constitutional judges and conservatives the left would have used the constitution for toilet paper as they continually try to do!

So yes conservative have the majority in the Supreme Court!  I'm am glad they do!  Someone needs to reign in the radical leftist policies eroding this nations core.  You want a socialistic lifestyle great, but it isn't happening hear any time soon!  It's going to take decades to get the Supreme Court to flip! 

Bumbling Joe only got 1 nomination cause they forced a sitting judge to retire for fear that when he isn't elected for a 2nd term and the presidency FLIPS BACK RIGHT!  They would get another conservative judge!

The next president will probably get to put 1 if not 2 more on the bench!  Oh if that is another conservative constitutional type judge that actually reads and interprets the law as written and not from a socialist point of view what Will you all do?  Are there enough coloring books and crying rooms to house you all?

I hope so for your fragile egos and souls!

Lastly this isn't a democracy we are a republic   There is a difference.

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? "Constitutional" refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's an insidious and sinister agenda on the part of the government to instill fear in Americans in order to make us compliant as they slowly take away our liberty. It's both parties who have taken part in this and it's gotten worse since 9-11. All the while driving a stake of division between us where we are compelled to take a side.

Woke, Cancel Culture, mandates and war. Women against men, Black against White and humanity against humanity. Every war to use up old weapons so budgets are approved to replenish the military industrial complex.

We all need to wake up and understand what's going on here. Vote out any Republicrats who are out for themselves and to perpetuate an agenda of control and not the people. It's very disconcerting to have one party that is a coalition of special interest groups and the other who struggles to find an identity just to gain control over the other.

This thread is a microcosm of what is ubiquitous in our society. Why don't you simply find a common ground and work off of that instead of satisfying some basic need to win. When that happens, we all lose.