America's Gun Culture...

[LsDoorMat]

3 minutes ago, darkblue said:

We've found that a healthy mix of socialism with capitalism creates a much more tolerable hybrid system, where everyone is free to get rich but those who are much less lucky or talented (or ambitious) can still exist in a reasonably dignified and safe manner - nothing fancy, but not conditions of inhuman-ness.

Much like Denmark, Finland, Sweden and a few other leading edges of civilization.

Of course, none of us have ever been obsessed with declaring ourselves to be #1 every moment of our lives- which kind of reeks of insecurity, if you know what I mean.

Maybe that's it. Maybe your crime rate is all a product of insecurity?

 

I completely agree. However, American politics is awash in big donor money, something that has been sanctioned by our Supreme Court. Thus, when asked "Why must the Senate pass this tax bill?" - In case you don't know our Congress is about to pass an overhaul of the tax code that will probably raise everybody's taxes but the rich - Their answer is "our donors are saying no more money unless we get this passed". LOL. They are not even trying to HIDE the fact that they don't care about their constituents anymore.

[LsDoorMat]

10 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

You're right, what's the point of having any laws at all...I mean, criminals don't obey laws, do they?

You have many valid points, Calvin, but you undermine them with silly statements like that one.

It may be obvious, but it is true. The point of laws are to punish the criminals in case they are caught, and deter the lawful in case they might be tempted. To outlaw guns would do two things. It would leave the potential victims defenseless, it would let the criminals know their potential victims are harmless. And the criminals would still have their guns.  Oh, and the rich, and the politicians? They would be fine because if you can afford armed professional bodyguards you would still be able to have them.

[jamesjazzguitar]

1 hour ago, calvinnme said:

It may be obvious, but it is true. The point of laws are to punish the criminals in case they are caught, and deter the lawful in case they might be tempted. To outlaw guns would do two things. It would leave the potential victims defenseless, it would let the criminals know their potential victims are harmless. And the criminals would still have their guns.  Oh, and the rich, and the politicians? They would be fine because if you can afford armed professional bodyguards you would still be able to have them.

To me it is silly to even discuss the outlawing of guns since it will never happen in the USA because that would mean passing a Constitutional amendment that voids the 2nd.    

The actual policy question is how effective are various gun-control measures in reducing gun violence.   Sadly most studies are politically motivated and therefore the results tainted,  as well as there being multiple factors making it difficult to establish cause and effect related to specific gun-control measures.

Frankly I believe that here in CA,  where after almost any mass shooting that gets national media attention politicians pass additional gun-controls measures,  that these are passed as 'feel good \ look we are doing something' legislation.    I.e. no one really knows what impact,  if any,  such measures will have in actually reducing gun violence.    

[LsDoorMat]

Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me it is silly to even discuss the outlawing of guns since it will never happen in the USA because that would mean passing a Constitutional amendment that voids the 2nd.    

The actual policy question is how effective are various gun-control measures in reducing gun violence.   Sadly most studies are politically motivated and therefore the results tainted,  as well as there being multiple factors making it difficult to establish cause and effect related to specific gun-control measures.

Frankly I believe that here in CA,  where after almost any mass shooting that gets national media attention politicians pass additional gun-controls measures,  that these are passed as 'feel good \ look we are doing something' legislation.    I.e. no one really knows what impact,  if any,  such measures will have in actually reducing gun violence.    

Yes, and usually the mass shootings that are not terrorist related are the work of somebody who should not have had access to a gun in the first place - people with documented criminal records in which some paperwork snafu allowed them to go get a gun, or they just lied on the application. The problem is that we Americans cannot do something moderately. We have to go whole hog into idiot territory. For example, first we let doctors pass out opioids like candy and now people who truly have chronic intractable pain cannot get the treatment they need to live their lives.

[darkblue]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me it is silly to even discuss the outlawing of guns since it will never happen in the USA because that would mean passing a Constitutional amendment that voids the 2nd.    

First, we have to see who wins the 2nd civil war.

America will have to be reconstituted if it's gonna reduce its gun violence. I'd imagine a lotta people will have to die for that to happen.

[TheCid]

On 11/17/2017 at 12:32 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

     

DB is right,  nothing short of the government confiscating guns would have any significant impact and that type of law will never pass (it would required a Constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd) and if it did pass it would lead to massive armed conflicts between the government and gun owners.    

    

Depending on which source interprets the 2nd Amendment, the government can confiscate guns.  In fact, it can in situations where the individual is not permitted to purchase or own guns.  Rarely done though.

Regardless, if Congress passed a confiscation law and the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, then it could do it.  It was too many years ago that the SC came up with the current, much expanded interpretation of the 2nd Amend.  The key has always been Congress and the court determining what a well regulated militia is.

[jamesjazzguitar]

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Depending on which source interprets the 2nd Amendment, the government can confiscate guns.  In fact, it can in situations where the individual is not permitted to purchase or own guns.  Rarely done though.

Regardless, if Congress passed a confiscation law and the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, then it could do it.  It was too many years ago that the SC came up with the current, much expanded interpretation of the 2nd Amend.  The key has always been Congress and the court determining what a well regulated militia is.

OF course the government COULD confiscate guns but the point was that will never happen as it relates to confiscation of a vast majority of guns (say all guns expect single shot hunting riffles).   Just taking some guns off the street,  even so called assault weapons,  wouldn't have much of an impact on annual death-by-a-gun stats (IMO).

Therefore people for gun-control in states NOT like CA (which has strong gun-control laws and will pass additional ones after the latest shooting in the state),  should focus on THEIR state;  Try to convince their neighbor to vote for politicians that support 'reasonable' gun control.    If a Dem in a red-state join the GOP so one can vote in their primary to try to elect a GOP member that would support some gun control etc.....  I.e. Do something instead of calling for pipe dreams or just blaming everything on the NRA.

 

  

[TheCid]

5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

OF course the government COULD confiscate guns but the point was that will never happen as it relates to confiscation of a vast majority of guns (say all guns expect single shot hunting riffles).   Just taking some guns off the street,  even so called assault weapons,  wouldn't have much of an impact on annual death-by-a-gun stats (IMO).

Therefore people for gun-control in states NOT like CA (which has strong gun-control laws and will pass additional ones after the latest shooting in the state),  should focus on THEIR state;  Try to convince their neighbor to vote for politicians that support 'reasonable' gun control.    If a Dem in a red-state join the GOP so one can vote in their primary to try to elect a GOP member that would support some gun control etc.....  I.e. Do something instead of calling for pipe dreams or just blaming everything on the NRA.

 

  

Read your post and my reply.  I was replying to your comment that it would "require a Constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd" in order to confiscate guns.  No it wouldn't; just a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the necessary enabling laws by Congress. 

You said: "If a Dem in a red-state join the GOP so one can vote in their primary to try to elect a GOP member that would support some gun control etc....."  Now that is a pipe dream.  You are advocating that Dems abandon their own party so they can vote in the Republican primary?  Actually in many states you can do that already without abandoning your party.  Regardless, it would take a very large number of Dems to influence the Republican primaries in most red states, especially on gun regulation issues.  

[hamradio]

[jamesjazzguitar]

1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Read your post and my reply.  I was replying to your comment that it would "require a Constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd" in order to confiscate guns.  No it wouldn't; just a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the necessary enabling laws by Congress. 

You said: "If a Dem in a red-state join the GOP so one can vote in their primary to try to elect a GOP member that would support some gun control etc....."  Now that is a pipe dream.  You are advocating that Dems abandon their own party so they can vote in the Republican primary?  Actually in many states you can do that already without abandoning your party.  Regardless, it would take a very large number of Dems to influence the Republican primaries in most red states, especially on gun regulation issues.  

AGAIN,  I meant to confiscate ENOUGH guns to make a difference the 2nd Amendment would have to be overturned.    E.g.  cities passed laws banning certain type of hand guns.   The SCOTUS ruled this was unconstitutional.   So  I don't see a new interpretation of the 2nd amendment since there is way too much existing case law that defines an Americans right to own a gun  (and a minor change in the interpretation wouldn't lead to ENOUGH guns being removed).   

Yes,  I recommend that in sure-to-be-red-states large numbers of Dems abandon their own party so they can vote in the GOP primary in states that have a 'closed' primary.     Of course these Dems can still waste their vote by voting Dem in the general (I say 'waste their vote' because the odds a Dem will win is very low in these red neck states).      So why waste one's primary vote.    Note that when CA had closed primaries I switched parties before each primary so I could vote in the primary where my vote made a difference. 

Cid,   if I recall correctly most of the time your voted is 'wasted' (worthless);  i.e. you rarely vote for someone that wins because people with your POV are vastly outnumbered in your state.   So maybe it is time to try something different. 

PS:  I do agree that it is a pipe dream to expect enough Dems to crossover and vote in the GOP primary in order to elect a more moderate GOP candidate.   It would take a very concentrated grass roots effort and the Dems just can't pull this type of thing off.

 

 

[LawrenceA]

1 hour ago, hamradio said:

Your meme writer should learn to spell. It would make their point less stupid, but not by much.

The Vegas shooter was a legal gun owner, as were dozens of other mass shooters, murderers and miscreants, and yes, we've noticed that it's a problem.

[hamradio]

SNL should hire the producer of this video. LMREO!

 

[darkblue]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:18 PM, LawrenceA said:

Seriously folks, If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So the 125,000 shootings a year in the U.S. are being done by umbrella owners, huh?

I knew it!

[mr6666]

Giffords group asks web hosts to shut down ‘ghost gun’ sites

"A gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords asked two web hosting companies on Friday to shut down websites selling parts and machines that help make untraceable homemade firearms known as “ghost guns.”

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked the providers that host GhostGunner.net and GhostGuns.com to disable the websites for violating the hosting companies’ terms of service.

The sites sell kits, components and machines that help create homemade semi-automatic weapons. It’s legal to build a gun in a home or a workshop, and advances in 3-D printing and milling have made it easier to do so. The kits can be purchased legally for a few hundred dollars without the kind of background check required for traditional gun purchases.........

https://apnews.com/7b9214aea1b147fc8cf5f780cd791d4d/Giffords-group-asks-web-hosts-to-shut-down-'ghost-gun'-sites?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

[hamradio]

1 hour ago, darkblue said:

So the 125,000 shootings a year in the U.S. are being done by umbrella owners, huh?

I knew it!

Maybe a few.

 

[hamradio]

Record breaking background checks, 203,086, breaks previous records that were set on Black Friday in 2016 and 2015

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/361833-gun-background-checks-set-record-on-black-friday

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/11/guns_top_black_friday_best-sel.html

[darkblue]

1 hour ago, hamradio said:

Record breaking background checks, 203,086, breaks previous records that were set on Black Friday in 2016 and 2015

Excellent!

No more shootings are gonna happen now - yay.

[mr6666]

Dan Diamond‏Verified account @ddiamond

 

It's been eight weeks since more than 500 people were killed or wounded by one gunman in Las Vegas. Congress has done nothing in response.

1:34 PM - 26 Nov 2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu 14h14 hours ago

 

 

Ted Lieu Retweeted Dan Diamond

Dear @ddiamond: That's not true. Congress stood silently for 60 seconds after the Las Vegas mass shooting.

Then a few weeks later, Congress stood silently for 60 seconds after the Texas mass shooting.

[jamesjazzguitar]

4 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Dan Diamond‏Verified account @ddiamond

 

It's been eight weeks since more than 500 people were killed or wounded by one gunman in Las Vegas. Congress has done nothing in response.

1:34 PM - 26 Nov 2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu 14h14 hours ago

 

 

Ted Lieu Retweeted Dan Diamond

Dear @ddiamond: That's not true. Congress stood silently for 60 seconds after the Las Vegas mass shooting.

Then a few weeks later, Congress stood silently for 60 seconds after the Texas mass shooting.

Ted Lieu clearly doesn't understand how members of Congress are elected.   Ted,  you can only vote in YOUR district \ state.     You only represent THOSE in your district \ state.

Ted, this is called democracy.

 

 

[Princess of Tap]

2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Ted Lieu clearly doesn't understand how members of Congress are elected.   Ted,  you can only vote in YOUR district \ state.     You only represent THOSE in your district \ state.

Ted, this is called democracy.

 

 

Democrats in the House of Representatives have appointed Ted Lieu as their Assistant Whip. He has, therefore, the right to speak for them in the House Representatives as one of their elected representatives.

[jamesjazzguitar]

58 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Democrats in the House of Representatives have appointed Ted Lieu as their Assistant Whip. He has, therefore, the right to speak for them in the House Representatives as one of their elected representatives.

So Lieu is complaining about the Dems lack of action.   Ok,  that makes sense since the Dems are mostly powerless.

Lieu is a Los Angeles Congressman and we know him well out here.   To me he is extreme especially when it comes to illegal immigration.    But he also is arrogant.   CA already has the strongest gun control laws in the nation.   Lieu does NOT represent the citizens in all the districts (the majority BTW) that do NOT want strong gun control laws.

 

[Princess of Tap]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So Lieu is complaining about the Dems lack of action.   Ok,  that makes sense since the Dems are mostly powerless.

Lieu is a Los Angeles Congressman and we know him well out here.   To me he is extreme especially when it comes to illegal immigration.    But he also is arrogant.   CA already has the strongest gun control laws in the nation.   Lieu does NOT represent the citizens in all the districts (the majority BTW) that do NOT want strong gun control laws.

 

 Apparently you may know the personality of Congressman Ted Lieu better than I do.

However, I have read his comments online and watched him on cable news and he appears to be a reasonably good advocate for his position. 

While I agree more with your stance on immigration than his, I can well understand and appreciate why he would have a different opinion of illegal immigration than us,  since he himself is an immigrant from Taiwan.

That's what makes the United States such an exceptional and fascinating place because people come here from all over the world with varying viewpoints. Sometimes it depends how long your family has been in this country as to how you view different issues.

 

[jamesjazzguitar]

16 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

 Apparently you may know the personality of Congressman Ted Lieu better than I do.

However, I have read his comments online and watched him on cable news and he appears to be a reasonably good advocate for his position. 

While I agree more with your stance on immigration than his, I can well understand and appreciate why he would have a different opinion of illegal immigration than us,  since he himself is an immigrant from Taiwan.

That's what makes the United States such an exceptional and fascinating place because people come here from all over the world with varying viewpoints. Sometimes it depends how long your family has been in this country as to how you view different issues.

 

I don't understand why a LEGAL immigrant would have more favorable views toward ILLEGAL immigrants.   In fact legal immigrants should feel cheated by illegal immigrants.    E.g. if there wasn't so much illegal immigration,  someone like Lieu would be able to legally immigrate more people from Taiwan (a country I believe where the USA should increase the number of legal immigrants,  but only after illegal immigration is reduce from the southern border).

Note the same concept applies to refugees.  The USA should take in more refugees but the more illegal immigration the less the USA can assist refugees that wish to migrate to the USA legally.

 

[darkblue]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't understand why a LEGAL immigrant would have more favorable views toward ILLEGAL immigrants.   In fact legal immigrants should feel cheated by illegal immigrants. 

Bingo. Polling of legal immigrants has consistently shown that they are for a strict immigration system. These polls are routinely buried (ignored, downplayed, marginalized) by mainstream news operations. Doesn't fit the desired narrative.

[mr6666]

Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu 2h2 hours ago

At Hearing on concealed carry legislation. Despite two of the worst mass shootings in US history this year,

House Republicans now want to allow people with stalking and crime of violence convictions to carry concealed guns.

That's NUTS!