Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

USA Shootings


randall146

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, caustic said:

Christ, I should just never open these threads. I've come to anticipate vile post-shooting takes, but am still floored at how low people will sink to defend and perpetuate our disgusting, tragic, broken status quo. 

None of this is going to change any time soon. The vast majority people support universal background checks and assault weapon bans, but who cares? Not congress. Over 20 elementary school kids were slaughtered in Sandy Hook. Nothing came of it. A guy shot 422 people from his hotel balcony in October, and after a week we moved on and forgot about it. Throwing 17 more bodies on the pile isn't going to move the needle one ####### bit, and I think we all know that. Its nauseating, and we can be confident there's no end in sight. What a nice, healthy country we live in.

At least it seems like there’s less resistance out there. This thread is essentially just one guy pushing the pro-gun agenda. Previous shootings, you had dozens defending it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, caustic said:

Christ, I should just never open these threads. I've come to anticipate vile post-shooting takes, but am still floored at how low people will sink to defend and perpetuate our disgusting, tragic, broken status quo. 

None of this is going to change any time soon. The vast majority people support universal background checks and assault weapon bans, but who cares? Not congress. Over 20 elementary school kids were slaughtered in Sandy Hook. Nothing came of it. A guy shot 422 people from his hotel balcony in October, and after a week we moved on and forgot about it. Throwing 17 more bodies on the pile isn't going to move the needle one ####### bit, and I think we all know that. Its nauseating, and we can be confident there's no end in sight. What a nice, healthy country we live in.

After Sandy Hook, it was clear nothing is going to change unless or until the politicians who take the NRA’s money die of old age or get voted out of office. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how either political party is responsible for mass school shootings. Blaming “the other guys” is just marching in step rhetoric. 

Facts are, mass school shootings have happened with both parties in full control. Neither has done anything constructive to fix it. 

Deleting any part of the Bill of Rights just ain’t going to happen. Go ahead and try to get Americans to give up their right to bear arms against tyranny. 

Please, if you have a brain, focus on tangible solutions to the problem. Put all ideas on the table, and let’s see what is feasible, with the highest likelihood for success, that isn’t banning guns. 

If banning guns is your only solution, you have given up. 

- quit making these killers legends. Their names/likeness should never be broadcast via media. 

- bring back parenting.  These shooters were raised poorly.  

- return civics class as mandatory in high school.  People used to understand what a civil society should be and acted accordingly.

- stiffen punishments.  School shooters hung in public squares.  Death by firing squad.  Real consequences. 

- give children huge financial rewards for turning in credible information about a classmate that has made threats, or anything that stops it before it happens 

- make mental health a requirement for buying a gun.

- put parents in prison who owned the guns used by their child in a mass shooting.

- make movies/tv with gun violence in it have a rating of NC17.  Quit glorifying violence and desensitizing children to it. 

Not all of these are winners. Maybe none are. But all are more of a solution than trying to change the Bill of Rights. Seriously, move on from that nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If the cold-blooded murder of 20 6/7 year old kids in school doesn’t change things, it’s time to just accept that these people don’t care. 

Sandy Hook was over five years ago. 

Sandy Hook was disgusting. We should have come up with a solution by now. Yet all we ever hear is “thoughts and prayers”, and take away rights. Neither of those are working or ever will. 

Just because people won’t give up their rights doesn’t mean they are ok with the violence. Your comment just isn’t true, and it sure isn’t helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caustic said:

Christ, I should just never open these threads. I've come to anticipate vile post-shooting takes, but am still floored at how low people will sink to defend and perpetuate our disgusting, tragic, broken status quo. 

None of this is going to change any time soon. The vast majority people support universal background checks and assault weapon bans, but who cares? Not congress. Over 20 elementary school kids were slaughtered in Sandy Hook. Nothing came of it. A guy shot 422 people from his hotel balcony in October, and after a week we moved on and forgot about it. Throwing 17 more bodies on the pile isn't going to move the needle one ####### bit, and I think we all know that. Its nauseating, and we can be confident there's no end in sight. What a nice, healthy country we live in.

"It's the best in the world, and that's a fact!!!"

/Gunnutgopper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BAT1man said:

Not sure how either political party is responsible for mass school shootings. Blaming “the other guys” is just marching in step rhetoric. 

Facts are, mass school shootings have happened with both parties in full control. Neither has done anything constructive to fix it. 

Deleting any part of the Bill of Rights just ain’t going to happen. Go ahead and try to get Americans to give up their right to bear arms against tyranny. 

Please, if you have a brain, focus on tangible solutions to the problem. Put all ideas on the table, and let’s see what is feasible, with the highest likelihood for success, that isn’t banning guns. 

If banning guns is your only solution, you have given up. 

- quit making these killers legends. Their names/likeness should never be broadcast via media. aka "It's the media's fault"

- bring back parenting.  These shooters were raised poorly.  aka "It's the parents' fault"

- return civics class as mandatory in high school.  People used to understand what a civil society should be and acted accordingly. aka "It's the schools' fault"

- stiffen punishments.  School shooters hung in public squares.  Death by firing squad.  Real consequences. aka "It's the judiciary's fault"

- give children huge financial rewards for turning in credible information about a classmate that has made threats, or anything that stops it before it happens aka "It's the childrens' fault"

- make mental health a requirement for buying a gun. aka "It's the politicians' fault"

- put parents in prison who owned the guns used by their child in a mass shooting. aka "It's the parents' fault"

- make movies/tv with gun violence in it have a rating of NC17.  Quit glorifying violence and desensitizing children to it. aka "It's the media's fault"

Not all of these are winners. Maybe none are. But all are more of a solution than trying to change the Bill of Rights. Seriously, move on from that nonsense. 

But it's not the guns at all, oh no.

Edited by msommer
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I saw this posted on Twitter in response to the terrible human being, Tomi Lahren. 

“Mental illness is global. Mass shootings are American. Signed, a licensed mental health clinician and bereaved parent.”

Other nations all do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BAT1man said:

Not all of these are winners. Maybe none are. But all are more of a solution than trying to change the Bill of Rights. Seriously, move on from that nonsense. 

You mean the AMENDMENTS to the Bill of Rights.

AMENDMENT: a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.

And secondly, just enforce what it already states:  A Well Regulated Militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

We need to reframe the battle.  This isn't really about the right to bear arms.  It's about the right to sell certain kinds of extremely lethal arms.

The NRA probably once was a reputable organization legitimately concerned with responsible gun use and safety.  But over the last 20 years, they have morphed into nothing more than a lobby for gun manufacturers, and too few civilians are paying attention to notice this has happened. 


Voters are 90% for more stringent background checks on people who want to buy guns and ammo.  

Republican voters are 70% for banning assault weapons.  (Democrats are about 90%.)  

The voters have spoken.  They want the AR-15 and its ilk out of civilians' hands.  But Republican leadership cares more about what the NRA thinks about them than writing the will of the people into law.    

Once again the donors are more powerful than the voters.  And on this issue it's causing a lot of completely preventable deaths, injuries, and fear. 

We can take a look at what the state of Connecticut did in response to Sandy Hook as a guide. 
Proposing a solution like what Australia did will freak out too many gun owners.  We're not ready for that yet.  Even if every other industrialized nation is, we're not ready for that yet.    

My Congressman has taken over $50K in NRA donations.  I called his office today and told his staff that we need more than thoughts and prayers from him.  That's what people who can't enact change themselves resort to.  He's talking as if the gun problem is someone else's to solve, yet he's capable of voting for legislation to ban assault rifles, he even has the power to write that kind of legislation himself.  And if he doesn't, his district will find someone who will and replace him in November.

  

2

Thanks for this. 

While most people seem more interested in taking jabs or making snarky points, talking about the issue this way is one of the few ways I see this having a chance to actually change. Thanks. I found this for NRA donations  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/?utm_term=.5e9e3e54538b  Is there another source that's better?

For 

Quote

Voters are 90% for more stringent background checks on people who want to buy guns and ammo.  

Republican voters are 70% for banning assault weapons.  (Democrats are about 90%.)  

Do you have a link? I'd like to use that in something else.

I know it's probably wishful thinking, but please lets try to turn the discussion more to posts like Bruce's trying to address the problem. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know it's probably wishful thinking, but please lets try to turn the discussion more to posts like Bruce's trying to address the problem. 

I find it hard to turn the discussion to gun control when the pro gun crowd generally have the position of 1. "The cause is something, anything else" and/or 2. "(insert common sense proposal here) won't solve all of the problem so I'm opposed to that" and/or 3. "The solution is more guns".

Then there are a few fly by "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands, rah, rah" types

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, msommer said:

I find it hard to turn the discussion to gun control when the pro gun crowd generally have the position of 1. "The cause is something, anything else" and/or 2. "(insert common sense proposal here) won't solve all of the problem so I'm opposed to that" and/or 3. "The solution is more guns".

Then there are a few fly by "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands, rah, rah" types

I’m on your side with banning guns but the other side is “ban all guns”, “ you support murdering children”, “should have had more thoughts and prayers”.  It’s amazing you guys spend all day replying to those that aren’t going to change their stance as you said.  Focus on the reasons why we should have gun control like Bruce said and stop arguing with the 1% who are never going to say what you want them to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

Democracy is NOT for me, I oppose it in most every way. Thank God we don't live in one

No, we live in a Republic which is democratic....either way, it might be time to look for a new country.  It's clear you don't like the way this one works at all (except the parts that benefit you and keeps others down you deem worthy of being kept down).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I’m on your side with banning guns but the other side is “ban all guns”, “ you support murdering children”, “should have had more thoughts and prayers”.  It’s amazing you guys spend all day replying to those that aren’t going to change their stance as you said.  Focus on the reasons why we should have gun control like Bruce said and stop arguing with the 1% who are never going to say what you want them to say. 

This debate is a lot like the abortion one.  Each side has their nuts that go way too far either direction and that muddies any chance of productive dialogue.  So yeah, here we are.......again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

 

4 hours ago, BAT1man said:

Not all of these are winners. Maybe none are. But all are more of a solution than trying to change the Bill of Rights. Seriously, move on from that nonsense. 

You mean the AMENDMENTS to the Bill of Rights.

AMENDMENT: a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.

And secondly, just enforce what it already states:  A Well Regulated Militia.

 

To be fair, the "Bill of Rights" is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  There have been no amendments to the Bill of Rights.  Of course, there's no reason why that can't happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

No, we live in a Republic which is democratic....either way, it might be time to look for a new country.  It's clear you don't like the way this one works at all (except the parts that benefit you and keeps others down you deem worthy of being kept down).  

“Love it or leave it” hasn’t been a good argument when the righties historically make it, and it’s not a good argument now. 

Besides, the far righties should be the only ones happy with how things are going here right now

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

I consistently engage @Stealthycat because he offers honest responses IMO. I have never felt trolled by him. I have been frustrated by Stealthy, but that happens when two people on different pages debate ideas. 

His responses may be honest, but that in itself is frightening.  Hopping from topic to topic shoving goalposts around until he finally finds a situation where his argument works isn't simply "being on different pages".  It's much more like whack-a-mole.  We've certainly set some records playing this game, but I'm not really sure we've done much other than show the lengths people will go to in order to be right (though he hasn't quite gotten there yet).  I don't live in the country he does.  His is one of "what should be" (at best).  An opinionated position like that doesn't foster real discussion.  We have to be able to strip all that crap away, agree on the current state and work from there.  That will NEVER happen though because it requires knowledge of the current state and a willingness to admit when we're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, randall146 said:

Love it or leave it” hasn’t been a good argument when the righties historically make it, and it’s not a good argument now. 

Besides, the far righties should be the only ones happy with how things are going here right now

I'm not suggesting the bold.  It seems that he has an issue with the way our system works as a whole.  I could be wrong, but it seems to be fundamental (deeper than typical political :hophead: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for this. 

While most people seem more interested in taking jabs or making snarky points, talking about the issue this way is one of the few ways I see this having a chance to actually change. Thanks. I found this for NRA donations  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/?utm_term=.5e9e3e54538b  Is there another source that's better?

For 

Do you have a link? I'd like to use that in something else.

I know it's probably wishful thinking, but please lets try to turn the discussion more to posts like Bruce's trying to address the problem. 

 

 

The gun control poll numbers I cited are from this NPR Ipsos poll from October 2017.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, apalmer said:

To be fair, the "Bill of Rights" is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  There have been no amendments to the Bill of Rights.  Of course, there's no reason why that can't happen.

Regulation of guns is required by the Second Amendment.  The pro gun crowd stance against that is ignorant and worthy of derision. The NRA and its supporters are a clear and present danger to the United States.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

This debate is a lot like the abortion one.  Each side has their nuts that go way too far either direction and that muddies any chance of productive dialogue.  So yeah, here we are.......again.

Agreed.  Anyone blaming the school or the kids for tragedies like this is really messed up, and to those who think stronger gun laws will stop these mass killings, I have to respectfully disagree.  Do I think there should be stronger gun laws?  Without a doubt.  Absolutely.  The NRA is beyond awful.  But I think it is naive to think stronger gun laws will make these kind of crimes go away, but the knee jerk reaction of the left now is "ban guns!", while the knee jerk reaction of the right is "leave my guns alone!" Both sides dig in as hard as they can, get more extreme with their views, while acting like theirs is the only one that makes sense, and what gets accomplished?  Nothing.  It's a damn shame. :no: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Agreed.  Anyone blaming the school or the kids for tragedies like this is really messed up, and to those who think stronger gun laws will stop these mass killings, I have to respectfully disagree.  Do I think there should be stronger gun laws?  Without a doubt.  Absolutely.  The NRA is beyond awful.  But I think it is naive to think stronger gun laws will make these kind of crimes go away, but the knee jerk reaction of the left now is "ban guns!", while the knee jerk reaction of the right is "leave my guns alone!" Both sides dig in as hard as they can, get more extreme with their views, while acting like theirs is the only one that makes sense, and what gets accomplished?  Nothing.  It's a damn shame. :no: 

After thinking about this over the past few days I think the one and only thing that would make a dent in this is if the media all agreed to never show the face of the shooter and to never reveal the name of the shooter.  Take away the exposure the notoriety that these guys crave.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, msommer said:

I find it hard to turn the discussion to gun control when the pro gun crowd generally have the position of 1. "The cause is something, anything else" and/or 2. "(insert common sense proposal here) won't solve all of the problem so I'm opposed to that" and/or 3. "The solution is more guns".

Then there are a few fly by "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands, rah, rah" types

There's no point in having the discussion. This thread is a great example of what happens when somebody has a pro gun stance. The crowd turns to name calling and placing blame on that one person. Do you think other people want to express their opinions and subject themselves to that? It's not worth it. 

It's been repeated numerous times that 70% of the population is for tighter gun laws. Yet nothing changes. Why do the anti-gun people feel the need to berate the 30% of the population that don't align with your beliefs? The political system will correct itself if those numbers are accurate. Why worry about a percentage of the population that can't effect the outcome. Unless you believe that the number is closer to 50%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

There's no point in having the discussion. This thread is a great example of what happens when somebody has a pro gun stance. The crowd turns to name calling and placing blame on that one person. Do you think other people want to express their opinions and subject themselves to that? It's not worth it. 

It's been repeated numerous times that 70% of the population is for tighter gun laws. Yet nothing changes. Why do the anti-gun people feel the need to berate the 30% of the population that don't align with your beliefs? The political system will correct itself if those numbers are accurate. Why worry about a percentage of the population that can't effect the outcome. Unless you believe that the number is closer to 50%?

The political system will not correct itself.  The donor class has hijacked it.  The party in power has made it abundantly clear they are using their power to cater to the wants of their big donors, not the voters they purport to represent.  It's up to voters to take actions to regain control, not sit back and let the system correct itself.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bruce Dickinson said:

The political system will not correct itself.  The donor class has hijacked it.  The party in power has made it abundantly clear they are using their power to cater to the wants of their big donors, not the voters they purport to represent.  It's up to voters to take actions to regain control, not sit back and let the system correct itself.  

This is the political system correcting itself. 

My point was, why attack the small percentage of the population that disagrees with tougher gun control laws? If in fact 70% of the population strongly believes that we need tougher laws, then they will vote for politicians that align with those beliefs. The only reason to argue and berate, is if you feel the numbers are not truly that high. I suspect the past election has left some people questioning the validity of those polls. 

The fear may be that half the country doesn't align with your beliefs. Or even worse, you are in the minority when it comes to wanting tougher gun laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

After thinking about this over the past few days I think the one and only thing that would make a dent in this is if the media all agreed to never show the face of the shooter and to never reveal the name of the shooter.  Take away the exposure the notoriety that these guys crave.

While I agree that the media as a whole should stop listing the name of the shooter and flashing their face on TV non-stop (but good luck getting the media to ever do the right thing), I am not sure how much of a dent it would make.  I think these nutjobs go on mass shooting sprees because they are freaking crazy, not necessarily because they crave notoriety, although I am sure there are exceptions in both regards.  And really, it is impossible to get inside the head of someone like that and know what their real main motivation really was. 

Edited by Ghost Rider
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

The political system will not correct itself.  The donor class has hijacked it.  The party in power has made it abundantly clear they are using their power to cater to the wants of their big donors, not the voters they purport to represent.  It's up to voters to take actions to regain control, not sit back and let the system correct itself.  

It's not just the party of power.  That narrative might fit in terms of guns because of the NRA but both parties are in bed with outside money and lobbyists.  That's the real problem with most of DC regardless of the issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

but the knee jerk reaction of the left now is "ban guns!",

I’m not hearing this on the news or anywhere else. I am hearing a lot of people on the left say “ban AR-15s”, which I agree with, and I think would save lives in these mass shootings. Other ideas, which we’ve explored here, would be to remove all loopholes in background checks, extend background checks to the mentally ill and domestic violence misdemeanors, and make bump stocks and high volume bullet magazines illegal. And then instead of severely cutting spending on mental health issues as the Republicans are proposing, increase it. By a lot. 

Would these ideas prevent mass shootings? I think they would prevent at least some. I think they would save lives. I want to try. The Republicans are stopping everything, which is why I strongly disagree with the guy here who wrote that we shouldn’t blame either party: I do. I blame the Republicans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's not just the party of power.  That narrative might fit in terms of guns because of the NRA but both parties are in bed with outside money and lobbyists.  That's the real problem with most of DC regardless of the issue.

But even if this is true, how do we fix it? The only way is to elect Democrats, because Democrats are going to appoint judges who will overturn rulings like Citizens United. Once again this comes down to the Republican Party has put us in this mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

There's no point in having the discussion. This thread is a great example of what happens when somebody has a pro gun stance. The crowd turns to name calling and placing blame on that one person. Do you think other people want to express their opinions and subject themselves to that? It's not worth it. 

It's been repeated numerous times that 70% of the population is for tighter gun laws. Yet nothing changes. Why do the anti-gun people feel the need to berate the 30% of the population that don't align with your beliefs? The political system will correct itself if those numbers are accurate. Why worry about a percentage of the population that can't effect the outcome. Unless you believe that the number is closer to 50%?

It's not as simple as 'not aligning with their beliefs'. Our children are getting murdered.  Seemingly every day. The radical hard core gun fanatics are preventing any sort of solution to this issue. Anytime anyone tries to propose even the tiniest of measures to protect the public, it gets shot down. Remember after the Vegas shooting how they said they were going to make bump stocks illegal? It never happened. After Sandy Hook, they were going to make the screening process more rigid and look closer at mental issues. That never happened either. 'Privacy issues' was their lame excuse.  This guy who shot up Parkland High School had 39 episodes where the police were called to his house. Domestic disturbances, running around and shooting a BB gun outside his house at squirrels and cats. And despite being a known mental case, was able to purchase a gun 10 months ago. An AR15 yet!!  And there are people who won't let anyone change those laws. Because they have this crazy paranoia that the government is coming for their guns.  So yes. Expect this exact uproar every time this happens. The blood is on the hands of all of those idiots who think things are fine the way they are. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

But even if this is true, how do we fix it? The only way is to elect Democrats, because Democrats are going to appoint judges who will overturn rulings like Citizens United. Once again this comes down to the Republican Party has put us in this mess. 

You really think this is about one party?   

I don't know how to fix it but I find this quite laughable considering the opponent last election was Mrs. Pay-to-Play on the Democrat side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

These shootings will have some impact on the 2018 midterms, and beyond, if GOP politicians continue the hypocrisy: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanie-ruhle-lists-gop-thoughts-and-prayers-tweets-alongside-nra-campaign-donations/amp/

Absolutely sickening.  If there is a God, these politicians are going to hell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m not hearing this on the news or anywhere else. I am hearing a lot of people on the left say “ban AR-15s”, which I agree with, and I think would save lives in these mass shootings. Other ideas, which we’ve explored here, would be to remove all loopholes in background checks, extend background checks to the mentally ill and domestic violence misdemeanors, and make bump stocks and high volume bullet magazines illegal. And then instead of severely cutting spending on mental health issues as the Republicans are proposing, increase it. By a lot. 

Would these ideas prevent mass shootings? I think they would prevent at least some. I think they would save lives. I want to try. The Republicans are stopping everything, which is why I strongly disagree with the guy here who wrote that we shouldn’t blame either party: I do. I blame the Republicans. 

The phrase I used for both sides was to convey the general sentiments the respective sides seem to have, not specific quotes verbatim, but it's not surprising that you picked out that one quote and took it literally as if I was saying that people were using those exact phrases.  Good grief.  Congrats on proving that what I said was true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

You really think this is about one party?   

I don't know how to fix it but I find this quite laughable considering the opponent last election was Mrs. Pay-to-Play on the Democrat side.

There’s no doubt she was part of the problem. But had she won, she would have put someone  on the Supreme Court that at some point might have helped overturn Citizens United. And that’s the difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

The phrase I used for both sides was to convey the general sentiments the respective sides seem to have, not specific quotes verbatim, but it's not surprising that you picked out that one quote and took it literally as if I was saying that people were using those exact phrases.  Good grief.  Congrats on proving that what I said was true. 

What you said is not true. Right now, on this issue, there is one side trying to find ways to make things better and one side devoted to stopping every idea. They’re not equal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

Absolutely sickening.  If there is a God, these politicians are going to hell.

If there was a God, all 17 kids killed in this latest shootings would belong to parents that are hard core pro-gun folks who stand in the way of any changes in gun control. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KCitons said:

This is the political system correcting itself. 

My point was, why attack the small percentage of the population that disagrees with tougher gun control laws? If in fact 70% of the population strongly believes that we need tougher laws, then they will vote for politicians that align with those beliefs. The only reason to argue and berate, is if you feel the numbers are not truly that high. I suspect the past election has left some people questioning the validity of those polls. 

The fear may be that half the country doesn't align with your beliefs. Or even worse, you are in the minority when it comes to wanting tougher gun laws. 

You were willing to go to the mat with me about how active or passive the voice of the sentence "the political system will correct itself" is. Perhaps that might offer some insight.

Disagreeing with someone isn't necessarily an attack.  I chose to vocalize my disagreement with those who don't want tougher gun laws because those on the other side are tacitly supporting a system where AR-15s are available for people to shoot up a school and kill children.  If we were split 50/50, 70/30, or 90/10 I would still disagree with them.  

If I don't engage those people in discussion, they are left to believe my opposition to assault-style weapons is actually a belief in the repeal of the Second Amendment, because if my voice isn't heard, the voice they do hear is fearmongers bankrolled by gun manufacturers.  

My fear isn't how many people agree or disagree with my beliefs.  My fear is that innocent children will keep getting ####### shot and killed by assault weapons if we don't change some minds and laws really ####### soon.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BAT1man said:

Sandy Hook was disgusting. We should have come up with a solution by now. Yet all we ever hear is “thoughts and prayers”, and take away rights. Neither of those are working or ever will. 

Just because people won’t give up their rights doesn’t mean they are ok with the violence. Your comment just isn’t true, and it sure isn’t helpful. 

Did that post say anything about taking away rights? Or any particular solution set?

The Republican Party has also not proposed any solutions to mental health care (in fact has slashed funding and tried to end Obamacare several times per year) not offered any legislation targeted at preventing another Sandy Hook, and failed to join into legislation Democrats have suggested would help preven another one. 

 It’s not that they’re not doing what I want them to do.  It’s that they have both houses of Congress and haven’t done anything.  

So show me how they care. Any example. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Did that post say anything about taking away rights? Or any particular solution set?

The Republican Party has also not proposed any solutions to mental health care (in fact has slashed funding and tried to end Obamacare several times per year) not offered any legislation targeted at preventing another Sandy Hook, and failed to join into legislation Democrats have suggested would help preven another one. 

 It’s not that they’re not doing what I want them to do.  It’s that they have both houses of Congress and haven’t done anything.  

So show me how they care. Any example. 

This.

And that's why I am rejecting all of these conservatives coming into this thread this morning and saying that it's the fault of both sides. It isn't, and I'm sick of hearing it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's not just the party of power.  That narrative might fit in terms of guns because of the NRA but both parties are in bed with outside money and lobbyists.  That's the real problem with most of DC regardless of the issue.

The majority of voters support Obamacare.  Yet Obamacare is getting stripped away by the party in power.
The majority of voters support DACA.  Yet DACA got repealed and the status of those people's lives are currently pawns by the party in power.
The majority of voters oppose cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy.  Yet an unfunded trillion in tax cuts was just given to those classes by the party in power.  
The majority of voters oppose assault-style weapons and tighter restrictions on gun acquisition.  Yet the only gun legislation passed this session made it easier for those with mental health problems to buy guns by the party in power.  The party in power can't even get a bill to the floor to get rid of bump stocks or restricting the gun-buying rights of those on the no-fly list.  
  

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

You were willing to go to the mat with me about how active or passive the voice of the sentence "the political system will correct itself" is. Perhaps that might offer some insight.

Disagreeing with someone isn't necessarily an attack.  I chose to vocalize my disagreement with those who don't want tougher gun laws because those on the other side are tacitly supporting a system where AR-15s are available for people to shoot up a school and kill children.  If we were split 50/50, 70/30, or 90/10 I would still disagree with them.  

If I don't engage those people in discussion, they are left to believe my opposition to assault-style weapons is actually a belief in the repeal of the Second Amendment, because if my voice isn't heard, the voice they do hear is fearmongers bankrolled by gun manufacturers.  

My fear isn't how many people agree or disagree with my beliefs.  My fear is that innocent children will keep getting ####### shot and killed by assault weapons if we don't change some minds and laws really ####### soon.     

 

 

I wasn't pointing you out for having a discussion. Some, like yourself, can have a civil conversation. Others have moved toward blaming the deaths on anyone that doesn't align with there opinion on gun control. Those on the other side will choose to stay out of these discussions. They have nothing to gain from engaging in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You really think this is about one party?   

I don't know how to fix it but I find this quite laughable considering the opponent last election was Mrs. Pay-to-Play on the Democrat side.

Boy, I knew it was Hillary’s fault. Great work RW.  Just because she hasn’t held an office that could possibly have anything to do with this issue in nine years and when she did she introduced a bill to close the background check private sale loophole shouldn’t deter you.  You do you. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Boy, I knew it was Hillary’s fault. Great work RW.  Just because she hasn’t held an office that could possibly have anything to do with this issue in nine years and when she did she introduced a bill to close the background check private sale loophole shouldn’t deter you.  You do you. 

:lmao:

Way to follow along and get that from the conversation.  Great work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

I wasn't pointing you out for having a discussion. Some, like yourself, can have a civil conversation. Others have moved toward blaming the deaths on anyone that doesn't align with there opinion on gun control. Those on the other side will choose to stay out of these discussions. They have nothing to gain from engaging in it. 

KCitons, I'm not blaming those deaths on people who oppose all gun control ideas. But I AM blaming you guys for the resulting inaction. You're not causing the deaths, but you're not helping us to try and make things better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Hunting deer with a .22 is unethical because most idiots in the woods either can't hit a deer in the head at more than 25 yds and/or would try to shoot it somewhere in it's body.

Fwiw, it's illegal to hunt deer with anything except centerfire rds in my state

That was and is my belief which is why I was taken aback when Stealthycat postulated that more whitetail have been taken by .22 than any other round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...