We're in a crazy period. Home values have been rising and "flipping" is starting up again in places like Miami and Las Vegas, today the stock market is going through the roof, setting a new record. The jobs report tells us that jobs are being created at a very slow pace and that new unemployment claims are down. 

At the same time, the new jobs don't pay as well as the jobs they are replacing and the income gap is wider than ever.

Is it time for a revolution?

Views: 986

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Keith, I'm pretty much with you on most of your arguments against gun control, though I'm confused as to why you think John Stewart advocates banning all weapons.  I never miss his show and near as I can tell he only wants some common sense restrictions on certain aspects as a whole.  I'll also say that I think it is absurd for anyone to think their 2nd amendment rights entitle them to any and all weapons.  Not saying that you neccessarily think this I'm just saying.  Limiting magazine sizes on the whole seems silly, but it is fairly probable that had Lanza only had a 10 round clip some more people may have escaped as they did when he changed mags anyway.  Now this is an extreme example IMO and you can't account for or hardly legislate against crazy.  Personally, I'd like to see something added to the 2nd making general training and safety training mandatory with any firearm purchase.  And a question for you Keith, are  you against the universal background check?  If you are, do you feel this would lead to the so called "national registry" and then to disarmament of us all?

Hey Jimmy - Yes, I am against universal background checks for exactly those reasons. Here's my reasoning:

1. There is no way to enforce background checks on private sales without having a registry to know where all firearms are.

2. There are many politicians who are doing everything they can to disarm the citizenry (kind of reminds me of all the ways the selfRIGHTeous are trying to get religion taught in public schools; just a little bit at a time).  There is no reason that I can think of that they would restrain themselves.

3. Going after "assault weapons" to try to stop gun violence is nonsensical. As you point out, the number of people who have misused that tool can be named.  So, we are trying to "ban" these weapons because 1 on 30 million are misused.  Doesn't make much sense to me.

BTW, did you know that you are 3 or 4 times more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than by a private citizen? I'm not sure why people keep insisting on "safety training" when so few firearm accidents happen.  I mean no more than most other tools.  Did you know that as many people are hurt by falling off of ladders and such than accidental firearm discharges?  Sure, it happens, but do we really need to change our national constitution to take people's stupidity into account?  Is that what our constitution is for? My understanding of the constitution is limiting government in order to create a free republic, not micro manage people on an individual level.

One more thing: as far as the Lanza incident - stating that if he only had 10 round mags more people might have gotten away really know nothing about how these things happen.  But even if this were the case, I don't really see the benefit of punishing hundreds of thousands of people because of one incident.  It's a matter of perspective.  If someone drove their car into a school playground and killed a bunch of kids, should we then limit all cars to only be able to travel at 5 mph so more people could "get away" if the car is misused? It's over reacting in a massive way.

And we're back to your favorite obfuscation, cars.

As for the issue with John Stewart - He, like everyone else that advocates "common sense" gun control are doing so for the sole purpose of "preventing gun related crimes".  Since banning anything to do with "assault weapons" (where the implication is assault rifle-style weapons) will have a miniscule effect on gun related crime, if any at all, the next step is not to admit failure, but to push for MORE gun control. John is completely ignoring all of the evidence showing that gun control actually have a negative effect on crime. People love to use the phase "with gun control, you get few gun-related deaths."  Well, DUH! If you ban cars, there would be fewer car accidents, too.  But if you look at the crime rates as a whole, the more restrictive the gun control laws, the higher the overall crime rate (including violent crimes). When people refuse to acknowledge these statistics, when their policies fail to accomplish their "goals", they call for more restrictions rather than accept that they failed and look for other solutions.

You are correct that John isn't calling for "total" disarmament, but that is the direction he is obviously leaning and would be happy to see.  He never advocates for restriction of government control, which is ironic since he points out how ineffective, dishonest, and untrustworthy our government is.

@archaeopteryx - Okay, maybe we're just on a different wave lengths. Obviously we don't agree on the gun control issue.  So, let me see if I can understandwhere you're coming from, if you are willing to answer a few questions.  I would appreciate just straight answers.  I'm not trying to be inflammatory or condescending, so if my question can be construed as such, I ask for forgiveness ahead of time, I really don't mean them that way.

1. What do you think the 2A (2nd amendment) is for?

2. Do you see any value at all in keeping the 2A?

3. What's your justification for limiting the rights of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens based on the action of less than 10 people?

4. Given the fact that 95% of all gun related crimes involve either handguns or shotguns, what is the justification for focusing on semi-automatic weapons?

Let's start with those and see if we can find some common ground up to this point, okay?

Now that you've released your caps key, possibly we can have a meaningful discussion.

1. What do you think the 2A (2nd amendment) is for?

Irrelevant, as the subject will be addressed in question #2.

2. Do you see any value at all in keeping the 2A?

Absolutely! I lived in Mexico for a number of years, where ownership of firearms is strictly forbidden, giving credence to the adage, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." We are one of the few countries in the world, in which citizens have a constitutional right to own guns. We don't always use them wisely, but fortunately, most of us do. The only thing I've been saying all along, is that there are some weapons we don't need to possess for hunting or self preservation.

3. What's your justification for limiting the rights of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens based on the action of less than 10 people?

I have no idea what ten people you're talking about. Gangs have assault weapons, drug dealers have assault weapons - if there are only ten of those, our crime problems should soon be solved.

4. Given the fact that 95% of all gun related crimes involve either handguns or shotguns, what is the justification for focusing on semi-automatic weapons?

First, I have no way of knowing if your statics are correct. If someone is trying to shoot another person with a handgun, the likelihood of doing so depends on his ability to shoot accurately. With an assault rifle or a StreetSweeper, that ability is insignificant, all one has to do, is aim in the general direction of the target, and the odds are in favor of hitting it, and hitting it hard.

Ah, okay, I see the problem.  You think that the 2A is ONLY for hunting and self defense.  So, what our argument boils down to is that you don't understand what the 2nd amendment if for.  That certainly explains a lot.

I'm beginning to think you also see 6-foot white rabbits, I checked my comment you're responding to, thinking I didn't say anything of the kind, and sure enough, I didn't say anything of the kind.

I said, "The only thing I've been saying all along, is that there are some weapons we don't need to possess for hunting or self preservation." - how can you possibly construe from that, that I don't understand the second amendment?

Did I address living in the backwoods, stockpiling firearms, while waiting for the Commies to come and try to kill us all? No, I didn't, because it was irrelevant to my initial contention, which, in case you've lost sight of what that was, was that assault rifles and StreetSweepers are unnecessary for hunting or self preservation - possibly you may recall that I mentioned that.


1. I fail to see how checking if someone is a felon or mentally skewed has anything to do with tracking the gun itself.  I mean when I bought my pistol it has a serial number on it..frankly I don't care who knows I have it. 

2.  Which politicians are trying to disarm the public completely and what steps have they taken?  Near as I can tell Republicans love their guns, and Democrats are quite fond of them as well. 

3. total agreement on this one.

As for the safety training and the constitution.. our laws shouldn't protect us from ourselves but from each other.  And so, yes, safety training should be mandatory.  Something so simple as making sure your chamber is clear could have saved a lot of lives over the years.  Granted, even with the training and proper storage, shit happens.  I'm worried about the idiot that has the right to buy a firearm because he happened to be born in this country.  I really don't see how anyone could argue against safety training for some with such lethal potential.  On the other hand, I am a big fan of natural selection, just not someone else selecting me because they are careless.

The Lanza thing, actually some kids did make their escape while he reloaded.  But I admit it just happens to be a detail of this particular incident, and not a trend or anything we can really impact by going after this.  I agree this only distracts from attacking the root of the problem, which is why he went postal in the first place.

As for John Stewart.  I think the phrase "gun related crime" is inaccurate in his case.  Gun related deaths involving semi-automatic high powered rifles with 10-30 round clips ending up in the hands of the deranged, might be more appropriate.  He has actually stated as much that he doesn't want to see all guns vanish or anything like that, just some small steps to save a few lives I suppose.  He does like to point to Australia as an example.  And also, yes he most certainly does point out the absurdity the government sometimes tries to enforce.  The latest issue I believe was the soda ban in New York.  One of many things he takes the gov to task on.  You sure you watch his show?

Bottom line  to me, is ending the drug war would cut more gun related crime than actually cutting guns.  Then start dealing with anti-depressants and replace with some form of cannabis. 

Sounds like we're in pretty in close step with our thinking.  I like the idea of gun safety courses.  I actually think that there should be more training involved to get a CCW.  I've gotten CCWs in 3 states and the required training is, IMO, completely inadequate. They are classroom only and usually about 2 hours at most.  I think these training courses should be at least a full day and at a range where people get practical, hands-on training.  I just don't think it is appropriate to put that requirement in the constitution, that's not the place for it.

Felons are already denied firearms. Making them illegal to everyone else won't change that. I have to wonder why people think that there aren't already laws against these people getting guns. I also hear a lot about how easy it is to buy firearms off the internet. I think it's funny because the last firearm I bought was a shotgun off an internet site. They were still required to send it to a gun broker, who still had to run a background check on me. It took me 3 months to get that weapon, even though I have CCW licenses in 3 states, including my own (which requires extensive federal background checks).  As for felons, why aren't we focusing on violent criminals instead of people who don't deserve to lose their civil rights? I've had 7 felony charges brought against me in my life. 4 for being behind on voluntary child support (not not paying, just being behind), 2 for felon theft (I bought a house from a guy at full market value and then borrowed money back from him at 3x the going interest rate without missing a payment, let alone ever being even a day late on any payment) and 1 for having a pocket knife on my person when I went to pay my taxes. I know that most people don't experience the horrible corruption that is rampant in our government, but I have experienced it first hand.  Just lucky I guess.  BTW - none of them stuck, I've never actually been prosecuted for any crimes. Which is why they haven't been able to destroy my life; they've just cost me about $100k.

Dianne Feinstein's whole group advocates complete disarmament of the populous. They don't say that outright in public, but they try anything they can to chip away at the 2A whenever possible.  Both Oregon and Washington have proposed bills that categorizes pretty much every semi-automatic (whether that be rifle, shotgun or pistol) as an "assault weapon" and requires people to choose between abandoning their 2A or their 4A.  Yes, these bills allowed law enforcement to, without warrant, permission, or notice, enter people's homes at their own discretion for "inspections".  This is why the 2A is still so important.  Our governments are trying to, in one fell swoop, eliminate not only our right to bear arms, but dissolve the security against illegal search and seizure.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. Ending the drug war and fixing out medical system would make huge strides toward preventing unnecessary deaths. Both from firearms as well as medical deaths, which constitutes about 10x the deaths that guns could ever aspire for.

I believe that our 2A is more important today than ever.  I love my country, but I fear my government.

eh..I'm not worried about it.  The 44% of republicans that believe an armed uprising is at hand would do better to get a library card.  Their pea-shooters are not the way to fight tryanny in this day and age in this country.  The superior education and strategy is the key.  It's all about branding.  Just ask Karl Rove and Frank Luntz.  I'm not worried in the least about the government taking away our guns.  If they ever did give it a go, you would see passive people like me stand up bitch as well.  Right now the gun lobby is trying to blame video games and movie violence for whats been going on, which is complete bullshit.  Given how many are played around the world and how many shootings there are, you could sooner say that french fries cause mass shootings.  Oh and hey sorry bout that business you mentioned.  I agree it is silly some of the things we consider worthy of losing our civil liberties over. 

The ironic thing is that gun violence as a whole has dropped by 50% in the last two decades without all of the laws that are trying to be put into place.  Why do we all of a sudden need more gun control?



© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service