Off Topic · OT Florida shooting (page 4)

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

Juliano wrote:

fishmike wrote:
you are making my point. You are working under the assumption that its broken when half dont think it is. Also taking shots at the constitution isnt going to yield good discussion either.

Firearm homicides and drunk driving fatalities are about the same 3(ish)/per 100k

I am not "taking shots at the constitution", just pointing out that it was written long ago and that the circumstances that made some parts of it valid no longer are, and said parts are obviously obsolete. Do you defend electoral college when it has allowed presidents to be elected with less overall votes than their runner up? Isn't it outdated, and do you believe that's what the founders had in mind?

I indeed believe that no citizen should be allowed to bear firearms, they should be exclusive to state or federal law enforcement.

I also understand that this will not change, and the same discussion will pop up again in 6 months when the next mass shooting occurs.

You are allowed to have those beliefs. You are also allowed to live in an area where there are strict gun laws, no open carry and others feel like you do. That is what makes the country great.

Do I still believe in the electoral college? and do you believe that's what the founders had in mind?

What do YOU think the founders had in mind? The goal was to prevent a group from making policy based on population. America's constitution is there to protect the rights on the individual. While it may infuriate you when you dont agree with those individuals their rights are protected. The bureaucracy is there for exactly that reason. The electoral college is part of that. So yes... like it or not its exactly what the founders had in mind. Just because Cali has the most people doesnt mean they should get to make policy for the whole country.

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

fishmike wrote:The goal was to prevent a group from making policy based on population. America's constitution is there to protect the rights on the individual. While it may infuriate you when you dont agree with those individuals their rights are protected. The bureaucracy is there for exactly that reason. The electoral college is part of that. So yes... like it or not its exactly what the founders had in mind. Just because Cali has the most people doesnt mean they should get to make policy for the whole country.

It doesn't infuriate me as I am not a US citizen, it it just a subject of wonder. And I don't see how California, with just above 12% of the US population, could make policy for the whole country even with universal suffrage.

Gudris wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

Stupid is ignoring all the examples I cited. You are talking about pretending this country isnt flooded with guns already and telling people to just be victims. Thats real easy to do from a distance.

Asking someone who keeps a gun in their home to stop a mass shooting miles away is an argument I would expect from a child. Point to where I said that everyone should carry a gun.

Women, the elderly, people whose lives are at risk. have a right to defend themselves. They didnt create this problem. Until all guns are banned, people are going to defend themselves.

Gudris wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

your inability to grasp it is equally super retarded.

GustavBahler wrote:

Gudris wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

Stupid is ignoring all the examples I cited. You are talking about pretending this country isnt flooded with guns already and telling people to just be victims. Thats real easy to do from a distance.

Asking someone who keeps a gun in their home to stop a mass shooting miles away is an argument I would expect from a child. Point to where I said that everyone should carry a gun.

Women, the elderly, people whose lives are at risk. have a right to defend themselves. They didnt create this problem. Until all guns are banned, people are going to defend themselves.

well said. But this also shows the divide. People dont want to work together or listen. They want it the way THEY see it and everyone else is stupid. Then the dont understand why nothing gets done. Childlike is about right.

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

your inability to grasp it is equally super retarded.

Russia has double homicide rate comparing to US with a half of the population.
Very small amount of this murders commuted using guns.
The mass shootings and killings in general is the mirror of society mental health.
People are killed by murderous mind not by the guns.
Guns are just a tools which are more effective and more available in US.
Knifes, hummers, poison, and bare hands are more available in Russia that guns.
So they used by murderous minds to kill people.
Japan, Israel, Latvia, etc. have less killings because of the culture of valuing human life above all.
This culture is still not very high in US among many people.
We are valuing money, freedoms, equality, opportunity higher that life itself.
But right to live of every leaving thing should be the top right of them all.
And in US culture it is not.
Plus we have a bunch of taboo around how mentally sick mind should be be treated and who can be defined as mentally sick and had to be isolated from the society.
There is nothing simple about this issue.

Gudris wrote:Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.

Gudris, need you to change the way you are arguing and posting. Please do better, thanks.

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.

Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.

I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.

Juliano wrote:

fishmike wrote:The goal was to prevent a group from making policy based on population. America's constitution is there to protect the rights on the individual. While it may infuriate you when you dont agree with those individuals their rights are protected. The bureaucracy is there for exactly that reason. The electoral college is part of that. So yes... like it or not its exactly what the founders had in mind. Just because Cali has the most people doesnt mean they should get to make policy for the whole country.

It doesn't infuriate me as I am not a US citizen, it it just a subject of wonder. And I don't see how California, with just above 12% of the US population, could make policy for the whole country even with universal suffrage.

its a state with an overwhelmingly blue population. The point is that the electoral college provides balance. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesnt. But it is there to prevent large urban populations from controlling policy simply because they have the most people. Again its about the rights of the individual.

fishmike wrote:its a state with an overwhelmingly blue population. The point is that the electoral college provides balance. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesnt. But it is there to prevent large urban populations from controlling policy simply because they have the most people. Again its about the rights of the individual.

With this system, a voter in Wyoming has more than twice the vote power of a Californian. How are individual rights protected then, if your vote counts less because you happen to live in a densely populated area?

And how should the fact that California is "overwhelmingly blue" be of any relevance?

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.

Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.

I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.

did anyone try talking to the intruders? Did anyone offer hugs? Maybe coffee? Perhaps some warm words of encouragement to help straighten out their lives? I am sure there are other options than using a firearm to defend yourself.

Juliano wrote:

fishmike wrote:its a state with an overwhelmingly blue population. The point is that the electoral college provides balance. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesnt. But it is there to prevent large urban populations from controlling policy simply because they have the most people. Again its about the rights of the individual.

With this system, a voter in Wyoming has more than twice the vote power of a Californian. How are individual rights protected then, if your vote counts less because you happen to live in a densely populated area?

And how should the fact that California is "overwhelmingly blue" be of any relevance?

because its a huge population that votes a certain way. Thats the point. The ability for people in California to impact policy in Wyoming because of sheer numbers (votes) is hampered. There are wildly different cultures happily living in many different areas. The bureaucracy is there to ensure that just because a group is large and therefore has more votes that they cant impose their will on others because of that. They can in California, but not across all the states.

Sadly Democrat/Republican has been smashed into some very specific agendas and ideals. What they are supposed to be is about the strength of the federal gov vs. the states.
Democrats push for a stronger central gov while Republicans favored a weaker central gov with stronger states rights.

There are plenty of problems with this 2 party system, especially when both parties essentially suck, but that genesis of it. Where are you a citizen?

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.

Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.

I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.

Holy crap man! Be safe!

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.

Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.

I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.

did anyone try talking to the intruders? Did anyone offer hugs? Maybe coffee? Perhaps some warm words of encouragement to help straighten out their lives? I am sure there are other options than using a firearm to defend yourself.

Fish, you forgot about Thoughts and Prayers

fishmike wrote:

Juliano wrote:

fishmike wrote:its a state with an overwhelmingly blue population. The point is that the electoral college provides balance. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesnt. But it is there to prevent large urban populations from controlling policy simply because they have the most people. Again its about the rights of the individual.

With this system, a voter in Wyoming has more than twice the vote power of a Californian. How are individual rights protected then, if your vote counts less because you happen to live in a densely populated area?

And how should the fact that California is "overwhelmingly blue" be of any relevance?

because its a huge population that votes a certain way. Thats the point. The ability for people in California to impact policy in Wyoming because of sheer numbers (votes) is hampered. There are wildly different cultures happily living in many different areas. The bureaucracy is there to ensure that just because a group is large and therefore has more votes that they cant impose their will on others because of that. They can in California, but not across all the states.

Sadly Democrat/Republican has been smashed into some very specific agendas and ideals. What they are supposed to be is about the strength of the federal gov vs. the states.
Democrats push for a stronger central gov while Republicans favored a weaker central gov with stronger states rights.

There are plenty of problems with this 2 party system, especially when both parties essentially suck, but that genesis of it. Where are you a citizen?

France. And we have issues of our own, for example with press freedom. 10 billionaires own almost all of the french media, which can't be a good situation. They had a big hand in Macron's election, his face was allover the magazines the year prior to the election. No other candidate had such exposure, but as the campaign hadn't started it didn't count (there has to be fair exposure in the media between candidates when the campaign officialy starts)

Another antiquated law, considered one of the last exception to private property : my family own a house with 5 hectares of land in the middle of nowhere, southwest France. Well, we cannot ban hunters from crossing our land when they hunt, they have the right to trespass. The only way to prevent it would be to affiliate with the local hunting association and get a hunting permit, in which case we could plant boards allover the property saying "reserved hunt", or to pay a fee to said hunting association for their contribution to regulating wildlife.

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!

this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000

Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?

"But we gotta try!"

Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.

Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.

Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.

Big cost to that one also.

Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.

Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.

Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.

who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.

Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.

Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.

What you wrote is a facebook rant.

Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.

Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high mountain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own bullshit. (Quoting a 2012 study. Stating that because a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)

Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you missed the part that I put it in CAPS and said was my main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.

Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchased by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?

Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......

Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.

fishmike wrote:

JesseDark wrote:What is so maddening about this is OUR elected officials are running around with their heads in the sand. Banning certain assault rifles is what will eliminate the problem. Too many cowards in our congress.

12 killed, 21 injured in the Columbine attack. No assault rifles. Shotgun and handguns.

By the way there have been between 5-10 million AR-15 rifles sold in the US. What will banning sale of those do? What is your logistical approach to address that cache of weapons laying around?

BTW... AR-15 is EASIER to buy than a handgun.

Is this a problem? Thought AR-15 are not the problem?

Do you know what an AR-15 is? Have you ever shot one? Shot a handgun?

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!

this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000

Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?

"But we gotta try!"

Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.

Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.

Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.

Big cost to that one also.

Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.

Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.

Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.

who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.

Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.

Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.

What you wrote is a facebook rant.

Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.

Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)

Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.

Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?

Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......

Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.

You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.