Politics

[GoIrish41]

My mistake, I missed that one.

What does motivation have to do with it? Let's take Sandy Hook for example. They guy stole his mother's gun. What would background checks have done? The mother would have likely passed the background check and the situation would have been exactly the same. The Bushmaster he used *looks* like a military weapon but functions like a hunting rifle (one bullet per trigger pull not "pull-and-hold"), so an assault weapons band wouldn't have done anything either.

Background checks as they have been proposed wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. I would like to see background checks expanded to households, which may well have (I'm not sure if the shooter lived with his mother or not???). This expansion would help help to prevent troubled people from using guns of family members as if they were their own. When a crazy person gets it into his/her head that he is going to shoot someone, he's not going to say "I can't use mom's gun because I don't have a background check." They are going to pull it out of the gun cabinet and do their thing. I'd also like to see the expansion of armories where people stored their firearms instead of having them around their homes, where they could be used in crimes of passion. There are many things that could be done to help solve this problem, but there is always an all or nothing mentality when the issue of guns is discussed -- on both sides of the argument.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This is sensible. What is not sensible is the perceived line in the sand that somehow gets drawn (largely through NRA lobbying and misinformation campaigns) that "the government is trying to take away our guns" and "if we agree to more stringent background checks, we are giving up ground." Those arguments are just nonsense and they ensure the status quo that is simply not accepatable to a wide majority of the population. Nobody is advocating for outlawing guns altogether, but instead doing things that might help to make it more difficult for deranged people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons. The "forks and knives" argument is just silly. Tell me when the last time someone brought a fork into a movie theater and killed a bunch of teenagers. You are better than that Tommy.

But you miss the underlying point in my post. At what point does the government stop? I mean, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind needs a 50 cal machine gun. But the government has been so far reaching - or at least tried to be - that people fear they will go right past the 50 cal and now they want their 12 gauge shotgun too. There is middle ground here. And I think most lawful gun owners support that. But when the two radical sides get involved that's what you get.

For the record, most homicides occur between people that know each other and it occurs in the heat of things. Using incidents such as Columbine, Navy shipyard, Aurora, Newtown - while all tragic - to make the case is not appropriate. As well, most people who want to outlaw assault rifles fail to realize that only about 1-2% of all homicides are a result of using these type weapons. No wonder the far right NRA digs their heels in the ground on this issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obviously he was using hyperbole. What about airplanes? Cars? Pressure cookers? Fertilizer? Baseball bats?

Per the FBI, from 2007 tol 2011, there were 8,967 knife murders and 3,918 long gun murders.

How many of those knife murders were mass murders, where someone went into a public place and killed 10 or 20 people? I'm assuming a "long gun" murder is a rifle???? What about "short guns?"

 

[GoIrish41]

But you miss the underlying point in my post. At what point does the government stop? I mean, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind needs a 50 cal machine gun. But the government has been so far reaching - or at least tried to be - that people fear they will go right past the 50 cal and now they want their 12 gauge shotgun too. There is middle ground here. And I think most lawful gun owners support that. But when the two radical sides get involved that's what you get.

For the record, most homicides occur between people that know each other and it occurs in the heat of things. Using incidents such as Columbine, Navy shipyard, Aurora, Newtown - while all tragic - to make the case is not appropriate. As well, most people who want to outlaw assault rifles fail to realize that only about 1-2% of all homicides are a result of using these type weapons. No wonder the far right NRA digs their heels in the ground on this issue.

It sounds a bit paranoid to suggest that the government is aiming at taking away a hunter's shotgun. It is just not based in fact. And I agree, there is definately middle ground. I described a couple of ideas in my last post. I also agree that most lawful gun owners support doing sensible things to curb gun violence, but the politicians are in the pockets of the gun lobby and they completely ignore the will of the vast majority of the population (see background checks).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If it is that easy and effective, why are there sssoooo many more incidents involving guns? That is the point I'm trying to make. The weapon of choice is a gun because it is so easy to get them and half of the population rallies to the defense of continuing to make it easy to get them -- even crazy people who hear voices through hotel room walls. Is the argument against this that we should continue to make it easy for people to get guns because the people who want to kill will just make a bomb if they don't have access to a gun? Do you seriously believe that to be the case? I just don't see it.

There are sooooo many more involving guns we're talking about two different kinds of weapons with the same result. It's also a cultural thing. What we see every day on the news about a shooting is what a Middle East country sees every day with a bombing in a plaza or pizza parlor. What bothers you, the weapon used or the result (murder)???

I didn't say anything about "making it easy" for everyone to get guns. Don't know where you got that. What I am saying is that if we were to live in your utopia of no guns in the country at all, those who want to kill/ do harm will still do so with other means.

Comparison: NYC's nanny Bloomberg passed the bill saying no soda sales over 16 ounces or whatever. Does anyone really believe that will bring down obesity in NYC? Nooooo

 

[wizards8507]

Background checks as they have been proposed wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. I would like to see background checks expanded to households, which may well have (I'm not sure if the shooter lived with his mother or not???). This expansion would help help to prevent troubled people from using guns of family members as if they were their own.

I get what you're going for but that would be just a logistical nightmare. People move and you can't track every person and every firearm. If a dad legally owned a gun in New York and his criminal son lived in California, what do you do? What if the son sometimes gets mail at the dad's house? What if he visits for Christmas? What if he moves in temporarily while looking for a job in the area? It's a fine thought but would be impossible to carry out.

When a crazy person gets it into his/her head that he is going to shoot someone, he's not going to say "I can't use mom's gun because I don't have a background check." They are going to pull it out of the gun cabinet and do their thing.

EXACTLY! And if there wasn't a gun in the cabinet, they'd find some other way to kill a bunch of people. Their goal is not "mass shooting" when they snap like that. Their goal is "mass murder." The murder will be done even if the looney toon can't get a gun.

I'd also like to see the expansion of armories where people stored their firearms instead of having them around their homes, where they could be used in crimes of passion.

In armories where they would be unavailable for self-defense in the event of a home invasion.

How many of those knife murders were mass murders, where someone went into a public place and killed 10 or 20 people? I'm assuming a "long gun" murder is a rifle???? What about "short guns?"

Long guns are rifles and shotguns. I don't have handgun data lying around.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It sounds a bit paranoid to suggest that the government is aiming at taking away a hunter's shotgun. It is just not based in fact. And I agree, there is definately middle ground. I described a couple of ideas in my last post. I also agree that most lawful gun owners support doing sensible things to curb gun violence, but the politicians are in the pockets of the gun lobby and they completely ignore the will of the vast majority of the population (see background checks).

So you are saying that our current administration is not moving toward this? Quite the contrary. They have failed on their gun control issues so now what... they go after gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. Sorry... but your argument is the same used by this administration all the while they are doing what they can to eliminate gun ownership as we know it.

Furthermore, I guess the people of Colorado would disagree with you as well. They sure did their politicians who went too far in their zealous attempts to ban gun ownership. Most of them will now be looking for new employment outside of politics.

 

[GoIrish41]

I get what you're going for but that would be just a logistical nightmare. People move and you can't track every person and every firearm. If a dad legally owned a gun in New York and his criminal son lived in California, what do you do? What if the son sometimes gets mail at the dad's house? What if he visits for Christmas? What if he moves in temporarily while looking for a job in the area? It's a fine thought but would be impossible to carry out.

EXACTLY! And if there wasn't a gun in the cabinet, they'd find some other way to kill a bunch of people. Their goal is not "mass shooting" when they snap like that. Their goal is "mass murder." The murder will be done even if the looney toon can't get a gun.

In armories where they would be unavailable for self-defense in the event of a home invasion.

Long guns are rifles and shotguns. I don't have handgun data lying around.

We can find exceptions to any rule and not do it because of the exceptions. Many "illegal" guns are bought by family members of thugs or crazy people and end up in the hands of people who have no business having a gun. Sure it would be difficult to administer, but it would require responsibility of the owner of the gun to report when changes in the situation under which the background check was done. And yes, there would have to be penalties for not following the rules. Seems a very small price to pay for a safer society.

Understand your point on armories, but I know people who have 10-15-20 guns in their homes. What if, during your home invasion, all those guns are stolen? You've just armed a whole gang of criminals. Unless they are arming a security force, I don't think there is a issue. Keep your gun of choice at home and store the rest.

Finally, as I have said several times in this thread, I don't think that if someone doesn't have access to a gun to go shoot up a movie theater, he is going to build a bomb and use it instead. That is far more logistically complicated than grabbing a gun out of the family gun cabinet when you are feeling anxious and angry. Some might, but I don't think it is a natural progression from guns to bombs. I just don't.

 

[GoIrish41]

So you are saying that our current administration is not moving toward this? Quite the contrary. They have failed on their gun control issues so now what... they go after gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. Sorry... but your argument is the same used by this administration all the while they are doing what they can to eliminate gun ownership as we know it.

Furthermore, I guess the people of Colorado would disagree with you as well. They sure did their politicians who went too far in their zealous attempts to ban gun ownership. Most of them will now be looking for new employment outside of politics.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Outside of a couple on the fringe of the Democratic party, nobody is suggesting taking away people's hunting rifles. There certainly hasn't been any legislation with any such ban. You are making the slippery slope argument and there is simply zero evidence to support it -- only NRA propoganda. At the height of the gun control debate following the Newtown shooting, greater than 90 percent of the population polled wanted an expansion of universal background checks and the politicians (primarily the Republican party members) blocked this legislation. If there is a conspiracy to manipulate the laws surrounding gun ownership, one needs to look no further than the GOP and the NRA lobbiests who line their pockets with campaign contributions. I have heard the president, vice president and many democratic lawmakers repeatedly say they are not looking to take hunters' guns away from them.

 

[T Town Tommy]

That is exactly what I'm saying. Outside of a couple on the fringe of the Democratic party, nobody is suggesting taking away people's hunting rifles. There certainly hasn't been any legislation with any such ban. You are making the slippery slope argument and there is simply zero evidence to support it -- only NRA propoganda. At the height of the gun control debate following the Newtown shooting, greater than 90 percent of the population polled wanted an expansion of universal background checks and the politicians (primarily the Republican party members) blocked this legislation. If there is a conspiracy to manipulate the laws surrounding gun ownership, one needs to look no further than the GOP and the NRA lobbiests who line their pockets with campaign contributions. I have heard the president, vice president and many democratic lawmakers repeatedly say they are not looking to take hunters' guns away from them.

I would suggest that you go back and read the bill. Then you will find out why the bill - as it was written - was not supported. Now... you are repeating the same old tireless arguments that one would expect from the MSNBC's of the country. But hey, at least you and I are talking about it. And we are probably not that far off in the solution. Good conversation. But I do have a game to go to. Good luck to your Irish and beat those Sparties.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would suggest that you go back and read the bill. Then you will find out why the bill - as it was written - was not supported. Now... you are repeating the same old tireless arguments that one would expect from the MSNBC's of the country. But hey, at least you and I are talking about it. And we are probably not that far off in the solution. Good conversation. But I do have a game to go to. Good luck to your Irish and beat those Sparties.

even when the legislation got broken up the GOP blocked each bill individually. Agree though, it sounds like we aren't far apart on what the solutiion should be. In fact, I think the country isn't far apart either. The representatives in Congress, however, are clearly a different story ... which is disturbing and sad.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Why did House republicans vote to cut $40 Billion in food stamp aid? I thought they were good Christians. Why would they try to take food away from the poor?

 

[GoIrish41]

Why did House republicans vote to cut $40 Billion in food stamp aid? I thought they were good Christians. Why would they try to take food away from the poor?

I think it is because they are terrible people. I was going to put a smily face here, but then people might think I was joking. I really do think they are aweful.

 

[connor_in]

I think it is because they are terrible people. I was going to put a smily face here, but then people might think I was joking. I really do think they are aweful.

Everyone surprised by this statement from GoIrish41 stand on your head

 

[wizards8507]

Why did House republicans vote to cut $40 Billion in food stamp aid? I thought they were good Christians. Why would they try to take food away from the poor?

If you want to get "Christian" about it...

II Thessalonians 3:10

 

[GoIrish41]

If you want to get "Christian" about it...

II Thessalonians 3:10

Well if all those people aren't going to be able to eat, we should make sure they have healthcare because they are going to deteriorate pretty quickly otherwise.

 

[wizards8507]

Well if all those people aren't going to be able to eat, we should make sure they have healthcare because they are going to deteriorate pretty quickly otherwise.

When you're hungry, your motivation to get a job kicks in pretty quickly. And if they deteriorate quickly because they still don't bother, let them.

Help those who cannot help themselves but do not subsidize laziness. It's very simple. I'm fine with the welfare programs we have in place because some people really need them, but I'm NOT fine with those programs being abused by drug abusers and just plain leeches. If you CANNOT work, you should be helped. If you WILL NOT work, it's your own damn problem.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

If you want to get "Christian" about it...

II Thessalonians 3:10

What does it say? Is there a part where Jesus says to let the poor starve?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

When you're hungry, your motivation to get a job kicks in pretty quickly. And if they deteriorate quickly because they still don't bother, let them.

Help those who cannot help themselves but do not subsidize laziness. It's very simple. I'm fine with the welfare programs we have in place because some people really need them, but I'm NOT fine with those programs being abused by drug abusers and just plain leeches.

If a person gets a 40hr a week job at McDonalds, they still probably need the food stamps to feed their family. Has nothing to do with being "lazy."

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Well if all those people aren't going to be able to eat, we should make sure they have healthcare because they are going to deteriorate pretty quickly otherwise.

If it was called Reagancare, the republicans would be all for it. Named after a saint and all.

 

[wizards8507]

What does it say? Is there a part where Jesus says to let the poor starve?

Saint Paul said it, actually, and he was talking about the lazy, not the poor.

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

Please see my post directly prior to this one. CANNOT work deserves help. WILL NOT work by choice deserves none.

 

[wizards8507]

If a person gets a 40hr a week job at McDonalds, they still probably need the food stamps to feed their family. Has nothing to do with being "lazy."

Bullshit. My father was a high school dropout but he busted his *** his whole life, including time in the Navy. He NEVER had to resort to at "40 hour a week job at McDonalds" because he was a hard worker. He now makes over $60,000 as a factory worker and he never got a dime that he didn't earn himself. We were never rich but he raised four children and we all had full bellies and healthcare.

 

[connor_in]

If a person gets a 40hr a week job at McDonalds, they still probably need the food stamps to feed their family. Has nothing to do with being "lazy."

It was already rare to get a McD's employee with 40 hrs...with Obamacare nearly impossible

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Saint Paul said it, actually, and he was talking about the lazy, not the poor.

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

Please see my post directly prior to this one. CANNOT work deserves help. WILL NOT work by choice deserves none.

I don't disagree with that, but how does the House know how many people won't work by choice? Maybe if they passed Obama's Jobs Act, we wouldn't have as many unemployed.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't disagree with that, but how does the House know how many people won't work by choice? Maybe if they passed Obama's Jobs Act, we wouldn't have as many unemployed.

It's not the House's job to know. There's plenty of room to eliminate waste, and by reducing funding the hope is that the people who run these programs will say "oh ****, we better cut down on fraud by maybe not giving food stamps to people who sell them for meth or not giving unemployment checks to a guy who died six months ago."

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Bullshit. My father was a high school dropout but he busted his *** his whole life, including time in the Navy. He NEVER had to resort to at "40 hour a week job at McDonalds" because he was a hard worker. He now makes over $60,000 as a factory worker and he never got a dime that he didn't earn himself. We were never rich but he raised four children and we all had full bellies and healthcare.

Good to hear. Not everybody is as lucky as you. There are a ton of people struggling in this country. If your dad's factory job got outsourced, you would probably understand more about how others have it.

 

[connor_in]

I don't disagree with that, but how does the House know how many people won't work by choice? Maybe if they passed Obama's Jobs Act, we wouldn't have as many unemployed.

So let me get this straight...basically if we agree to pass all of Obama's programs exactly as he wants them we can achieve a perfect society?

 

[GoIrish41]

Bullshit. My father was a high school dropout but he busted his *** his whole life, including time in the Navy. He NEVER had to resort to at "40 hour a week job at McDonalds" because he was a hard worker. He now makes over $60,000 as a factory worker and he never got a dime that he didn't earn himself. We were never rich but he raised four children and we all had full bellies and healthcare.

Your father grew up during a different time. Today, the minimum wage is worth about a quarter of what it was when I started working 30+ years ago. Your dad did what most every other American parent did when it was financially possible to do so. Wages haven't even come close to keeping up with prices and if you make the same as you made 5 years ago (like those who make minimum wage) you are actually now making less. Lay that over how many years ago it was, say, when he joined the Navy and you will realize that a guy working at a McDonalds in 1980 was making a hell of a lot more than a guy who works there today.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

It's not the House's job to know. There's plenty of room to eliminate waste, and by reducing funding the hope is that the people who run these programs will say "oh ****, we better cut down on fraud by maybe not giving food stamps to people who sell them for meth or not giving unemployment checks to a guy who died six months ago."

So just cut the program by $40 Billion and hope it works for everybody? The people who run it don't just turn a blind eye to fraud. If they knew who was dealing meth, I'm sure they would report it to the authorities. Please.

 

[wizards8507]

Good to hear. Not everybody is as lucky as you. There are a ton of people struggling in this country. If your dad's factory job got outsourced, you would probably understand more about how others have it.

It has been. Twice. Each time he picked himself up and got back to it, including a stint he spent managing a Wendy's. No work was beneath him because there is honor and integrity in work itself. People who sit around waiting for Obama to fix their lives (or those who sit around crying for Obama to be impeached so the Republicans will fix their lives) will never have much of a live whatsoever. Folks get hired, promoted, start business during "tough economic times" and those folks are the ones that put an END to the "tough economic times." The country needs an attitude adjustment because everyone is just sitting around waiting for someone else to fix their problems and the politicians are happy to play Santa Claus because it gets them reelected.