An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
Alex Jones is already claiming that the Parkland shooting was just another Sandy Hook false flag, with professional "crisis actors" playing the part of student survivors.
Florida Republicans are taking the bait --
The fact that you troll his site speaks volumes.....
Wez
DA
Alex Jones is already claiming that the Parkland shooting was just another Sandy Hook false flag, with professional "crisis actors" playing the part of student survivors.
Florida Republicans are taking the bait --
"I guess when you spend your days hanging out with gullible morons and conspiracy nuts who voted for Trump, you simply can't imagine intelligent, determined, articulate, and courageous young people."
Trump likes it. He thanked Alex Jones for helping him get elected. They play to idiots and they know if they rile them up enough they’ll get them out to vote...and there’s a lot of idiots in this failing nation...look at our education statistics compared to the rest of the world...and look at Trump’s own play to take advantage of the idiots with Trump U. Cost him $25 mil. for the fraud claim but he had them good for a while.
Wez
DA
Cost of doing business...
Sheriff Joe
DA
Age limit for buying AR-15 'on table'...
I guess we will need to change the age for joining the military and voting too.
I guess we will need to change the age for joining the military and voting too.
I agree with you.
We should raise the age limit of both.
Join the military to 21, and voting to 35.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Funny, the libs are now trying to make the voting age 16. Maybe that's the only people they can convince, other than the people who's votes they are buying.
Who?
Sheriff Joe
DA
You, I thought you weren't a lib?
Sheriff Joe
DA
TheBlaze
Gunman fires at homeowner and misses. Then homeowner pulls out his own gun — and aims much better.
15 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BYQQqUMINzAD&usg=AOvVaw3PMnhBAWNNWmwluFWH6VEj
Gunman fires at homeowner and misses. Then homeowner pulls out his own gun — and aims much better.
15 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BYQQqUMINzAD&usg=AOvVaw3PMnhBAWNNWmwluFWH6VEj
Bruddah IZ
DA
Now, "in your own words"
Bruddah IZ
DA
4 Reasons Congress Doesn’t "Act" on Gun Violence
The reality is Congress isn’t, and can’t be, responsible for anyone’s personal safety.
by James Davenport
After much is written to support such “common sense” reforms, politicians begin debating them, and then nothing seems to occur. Why? There are four basic reasons I believe there has not been greater action by Congress to address this issue.
Democracy
The most common answer is the National Rifle Association’s powerful lobbying efforts. The NRA is constantly vilified as favoring 2nd Amendment rights over the lives of children. But this is an overly simplistic explanation.
Who is the NRA? It is an organization of millions of gun owners across the country. It’s not some monolithic entity that operates outside of human will. It is a human institution, with people who are highly active and engaged on an issue of importance to them. So when we blame the NRA, or any other interest group with which we disagree, we are really saying that millions of our fellow citizens are advancing an agenda with which we disagree.
That’s fine. But in a democracy, that’s how things work. Democracy doesn’t require having a majority of the people supporting you, it requires having an active number of engaged citizens that support your cause and will vote, donate, and spend time in order to advance that cause.
The fact that those who support greater restrictions on gun ownership have not convinced a large enough number of their fellow citizens to take up their cause in a more participatory manner is not the fault of those who disagree with them.
The reality is Congress isn’t, and can’t be, responsible for anyone’s personal safety.
by James Davenport
After much is written to support such “common sense” reforms, politicians begin debating them, and then nothing seems to occur. Why? There are four basic reasons I believe there has not been greater action by Congress to address this issue.
Democracy
The most common answer is the National Rifle Association’s powerful lobbying efforts. The NRA is constantly vilified as favoring 2nd Amendment rights over the lives of children. But this is an overly simplistic explanation.
Who is the NRA? It is an organization of millions of gun owners across the country. It’s not some monolithic entity that operates outside of human will. It is a human institution, with people who are highly active and engaged on an issue of importance to them. So when we blame the NRA, or any other interest group with which we disagree, we are really saying that millions of our fellow citizens are advancing an agenda with which we disagree.
That’s fine. But in a democracy, that’s how things work. Democracy doesn’t require having a majority of the people supporting you, it requires having an active number of engaged citizens that support your cause and will vote, donate, and spend time in order to advance that cause.
The fact that those who support greater restrictions on gun ownership have not convinced a large enough number of their fellow citizens to take up their cause in a more participatory manner is not the fault of those who disagree with them.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Federalism
Despite the name, we really aren’t the “United States.” The people of each state have a unique culture, history, and perspective on the role of government. These differences are what give rise to different laws on a wide range of issues. Just as we have seen states take different approaches to marijuana laws and immigration enforcement, we should expect that they would also take different approaches to gun laws.
We refer to the state governments as “laboratories of democracy” for a reason. It’s time to recognize that in the gun control debate there doesn’t have to be a “one-size-fits-all” solution imposed by Congress. Each state should be free to enact the gun laws it feels will be most effective in protecting its citizens while remaining consistent with the Supreme Court’s protection of gun ownership as expressed in its Heller decision.
Similar to marijuana legalization and immigration, gun control is a perfect test case for federalism. Allowing states to experiment with their gun laws and comparing the results is the appropriate solution to this issue. Attempting to force the people of North Dakota to accept the demands of citizens from California, on the other hand, is simply counterproductive.
Despite the name, we really aren’t the “United States.” The people of each state have a unique culture, history, and perspective on the role of government. These differences are what give rise to different laws on a wide range of issues. Just as we have seen states take different approaches to marijuana laws and immigration enforcement, we should expect that they would also take different approaches to gun laws.
We refer to the state governments as “laboratories of democracy” for a reason. It’s time to recognize that in the gun control debate there doesn’t have to be a “one-size-fits-all” solution imposed by Congress. Each state should be free to enact the gun laws it feels will be most effective in protecting its citizens while remaining consistent with the Supreme Court’s protection of gun ownership as expressed in its Heller decision.
Similar to marijuana legalization and immigration, gun control is a perfect test case for federalism. Allowing states to experiment with their gun laws and comparing the results is the appropriate solution to this issue. Attempting to force the people of North Dakota to accept the demands of citizens from California, on the other hand, is simply counterproductive.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Important Terms Do Not Have Agreed Upon Definitions
Just as we have differences in culture and histories, we also have significant differences in how we define certain concepts.
What constitutes an “assault weapon”? What event qualifies as a “school shooting”? These are just two of the important concepts that people use and assume that others agree with their definitions. For example, one prominent gun control group produced information that supposedly showed there have been 18 school shootings in the U.S. in 2018 alone.
However, it counted events such as a suicide on a closed school building, the accidental discharge of a security officer’s firearm in which no one was hurt, and a criminal who ran on school property to flee police as school shootings. These are clearly not the same types of events as a mass school shooting such as occurred in Parkland, Florida, or at Columbine High School in Colorado. Yet many media outletsreported the claim without bothering to note the distinctions.
Until we can all get on the same page regarding how we define important terms, it will continue to be virtually impossible to reach an agreed upon solution. Significant disagreement exists on these and other terms. Because of this, a “national” approach to this issue is likely to remain elusive.
Just as we have differences in culture and histories, we also have significant differences in how we define certain concepts.
What constitutes an “assault weapon”? What event qualifies as a “school shooting”? These are just two of the important concepts that people use and assume that others agree with their definitions. For example, one prominent gun control group produced information that supposedly showed there have been 18 school shootings in the U.S. in 2018 alone.
However, it counted events such as a suicide on a closed school building, the accidental discharge of a security officer’s firearm in which no one was hurt, and a criminal who ran on school property to flee police as school shootings. These are clearly not the same types of events as a mass school shooting such as occurred in Parkland, Florida, or at Columbine High School in Colorado. Yet many media outletsreported the claim without bothering to note the distinctions.
Until we can all get on the same page regarding how we define important terms, it will continue to be virtually impossible to reach an agreed upon solution. Significant disagreement exists on these and other terms. Because of this, a “national” approach to this issue is likely to remain elusive.