Well I for one have never seen any of those advantages, I sure would like to know where to get in line for that.
All Star Game To Coors Field
- Thread starter BigWillieCock
- Start date
You do realize that "gun reform laws" only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals and murderers can give a **** less about what additional laws are passed. They already do not follow the current laws.
More laws will not "end alot of the violence that we have in this country" as you stated.
It would actually increase crime because the deterrent will have been removed. People would be forced to depend upon the help of police who will arrive on the scene just in time to put up the yellow tape, and chalk an outline.
As a side note Proud Boys was founded to counteract the violence coming from AntiFa.
The problem with just writing off reparations with the “people who had nothing to do with it paying people who weren’t impacted” is that it isn’t really true nor is it consistent with US policy in other cases. The US government has paid reparations to slave owners, Native Americans, people impacted by Japanese Internment Camp, Native Hawaiians and unknowing victims of government medical experiments. Not all of these were paid directly to impacted people and some are still being administered today.
In terms of responsibility there are still descendants of slave owners and people who were descendants of slaves. In addition it’s not like when slavery was abolished the former slaves were just integrated into American society. Many of our parents and grandparents can tell you all kinds of stories about segregation and integration as they lived through it and were impacted both positively and negatively by it happening.
If you want to argue about the impacts of reparations and the ways it has been handled that is one thing. I think it’s pretty obvious from looking at life on many reservations that simply handing over land and money may not work but to dismiss the discussion as a whole probably isn’t the answer.
In terms of responsibility there are still descendants of slave owners and people who were descendants of slaves. In addition it’s not like when slavery was abolished the former slaves were just integrated into American society. Many of our parents and grandparents can tell you all kinds of stories about segregation and integration as they lived through it and were impacted both positively and negatively by it happening.
If you want to argue about the impacts of reparations and the ways it has been handled that is one thing. I think it’s pretty obvious from looking at life on many reservations that simply handing over land and money may not work but to dismiss the discussion as a whole probably isn’t the answer.
That’s not 100% accurate. Yes committing a crime with a gun is already illegal but you can’t simply say restricting access to guns won’t impact these crimes. This is based on the false narrative that all guns used in a crime are obtained illegally which isn’t the case. Guns used in crimes are often legally purchased from states with more relaxed gun laws and then transported across state lines. The assertion that criminals will commit crimes may well be correct but the level of those crimes could absolutely be debatable based on access.
So where does it end? All races have been enslaved at some point. No one alive today is hindered by what their ancestors did or had happen to them. No one.
Again that’s not true. The ending of slavery didn’t simply end the mistreatment of the former slaves and their descendants. Many still weren’t not able to buy land or get good jobs that would help them improve their circumstances. Even those that did find success didn’t find it easily nor were they allowed to keep benefiting from it. Do you not think the massacre in Tulsa in the 1920’s was a result of the mindset still left over from slavery or that there are people who were impacted that are still living today.
People who settled America came to build a new life and were given opportunities to integrate in and build better opportunities for their families. It is also true that as America grew almost every group of people who came faced adversity in some way. They Italians, the Irish and others were all mistreated upon their arrival here but there acceptance into the new world was always made easier by the fact that from a distance you couldn’t always tell where they were from. The discrimination they faced wasn’t near as bold or easy to feed because you could easily tell them by color. The fact that laws had to be passed within many people’s current life span to allow people of a certain color to join schools, visit a library or even eat at a lunch counter should tell you something about the levels of opportunities provided.
I get these are easy things to think about but ignoring them doesn’t mean they aren’t true or didn’t happen.
Not gonna get into a debate and go round and round. Yes, some law abiding gun owners decide to commit crimes with their firearms. I'd say the % relative to ones that do not commit crimes is infinitesimal.
I am not willing to give up my legal access to guns to keep those very few from doing bad with theirs. Criminals will not follow the law. You can pass 1000's of new laws and the criminals will not care. They actually will be happy because law followers are less protected.
It does not matter if guns are purchased from states with more relaxed gun laws and taken into states with stricter gun laws - you prove my point in that criminals will get them either way regardless of "laws." I doubt many people legally buying guns in Indiana are taking them into Chicago and committing like people want to say. If those legal gun buyers in Indiana sell to a criminal or felon in Chicago, they have now broken the law and are no longer law abiding and representative of the majority of gun owners.
I don’t advocate banning guns. I do think having consistent applications of laws from place to place could have an impact and is at least worth seeing what could happen. I do think that they studies have shown that the guns from Indiana used in Illinois aren’t used by the original owner but they also aren’t reported as stolen. So either gun owners aren’t properly reporting their stolen guns or people are buying and selling them with no reporting requirements.
It just seems to me that you don’t pick the most restrictive laws to implement but there should be a baseline approach to gun purchases.
why dont we just send out a letter to EVERYONE, in every Country and have them all turn in ALL their guns and we melt them down?? YES!! then we will all be safe. Also everyone turns in a gun, gets a unicorn and a Pot of Gold!!
You can legally sell a gun to a person without "reporting documents." However, you cannot sell a gun to someone that cannot legally have it (i.e. felon, domestic abuser, etc). If that happens, then a law has been broken and both parties to the sale are now criminals.
I would be in favor as I have said before that there should be a place to meet like at the sheriff's office to go sell a gun and have a background check performed. Again, this would be only for legal transactions because criminals are not going to go through the process or show up around law enforcement.
Once again, we are faced with the fact that criminals will get a gun by not following laws - steal it, illegal transfer, etc. Laws only affect people that follow them.
Great idea. Let’s make concealed carry universal to all 50 states as well as open carry.
This is where I personally go back and forth. I am a moderate. I have voted for reps and Dems. Just not a trump. There are things I don’t agree with like paying of college debt (I paid mine I don’t need to pay yours) or paying reparations (my family never owned a slave) and there are things I do like universal healthcare. If you want stop illegal immigration fine let’s start with 5 years in prison and a $5million fine for anyone hiring illegal immigrants. If they can’t get a job then that flow is gonna slow down. I mean seriously if I recall correctly SC has like a $5000 fine and that’s it. It’s cheaper to pay fine. I am good with better background checks on guns but not banning them. I like some things both parties put out there and hate some things both put out there. Can’t get everything so I go with the one I feel is the best which can change. I’ll never vote for Trump or a trumpie Republican though but i can’t say I won’t vote for another Republican
As a CWP holder I really don’t understand with all the checks that you go through why it isn’t reciprocal everywhere.
Reciprocity is more widespread now. But SC didn't recognize Georgia's permit due to they required no training only filling out a permit request at the sheriff's office I believe. I had a non-resident Utah permit that Georgia recognized so that was the work around.
So you oppose securing the border, reducing taxes, and treating everyone a equal under the law?
Open and concealed, long guns and hand guns.
2a makes no distinction.
Appreciate your perspective. I respect your opinion—just don’t get love for Biden and hate for Trump. I assume you voted for Biden - just don’t see How his policies are superior to Trump but millions like you obviously did so I have to accept and hope for best
They are told by CNN, MSDNC and Hollywood to hate Trump. I personally didnt approve of some of Trump's "rough around the edges" Ways but I Really appreciated his America First Policies. Biden has ZERO Clue what day it is, he is told what to say and think.. He seems like a Nice guy, BUT i dont need a POTUS to be a nice guy, i need a POTUS to do what is best for me and my Family, and putting America first is best for me and my Family. If your family is better off with climate Czars, Police being attacked, flooded open Borders, Iran telling US what to do, Constitution attacked. etc etc etc. I am happy for you..
Well Trump certainly didn’t go with the equal under the law position and securing the border is a waste of time if you don’t solve the root cause of people coming here for jobs. There going to keep coming regardless of wasting time and money on a wall unless you stop the jobs
I voted for Biden over Trump and would any day. I can’t stand Trump. To me he is a grifter. The type of guy who would trick his fans when they donate to his campaign. I disliked Hillary the same way. That election was the worst. Two I found despicable.
That would be what the guy said that I responded to. He implied Trump treated people equal under the law. After I laughed hysterically I responded.
Defunding the military didn’t secure the border, taxes were permanently reduced for corporations and the top 1% while everyone else got a temporary tax break combined with a new definition of inflation which will result in a tax increase for some and I have zero idea what you could possibly be referring to as treating everyone a equal under the law.
This hits the nail right on the head. Until you address the fact that people are coming here for jobs that companies happily hand out because it is cheap labor you aren’t addressing anything. The problem is you’ll never see that because the people who would make the laws and their corporate donors are the ones really benefiting from the influx of immigrants. Sure there is lots of talk about it but when was the last bill introduced that would actually address the issue in a real way.
Exactly and the issue is neither the Dems or Reps are interested in solving the root cause because both get $$ from corporate donors. They would rather bs everyone with this let’s build a wall or let’s build a more modern security system than a wall. It’s all bs. They know the root cause is the US companies (donors) hire the immigrants for cheap labor and they just don’t won’t to address the issue
Well I did see him pepper spray protesters for a photo op but at the same time i guess he loved the insurrection rioters that stormed Congress with deaths.
That’s a load of BS. Those “protestors” were hurling bricks at Capital Police.
As opposed to say storming Congress and attacking police officers? What’s your point? He treated them differently. He peppered sprayed one group and loved the other. Shouldn’t he have rushed out with troops and shut down the insurrection?
Didnt he offer troops to those in charge of security, only to be turned down?
Just going off memory.
As others have said, reps and dems make money off it, so it wont stop.
The only bill I could think of that would make any real impact was the idea of the e-verify. Not clear if its eventual form was even half hearted, but the idea of cutting off the work at the source is what would be needed, imho.
Police weren’t attacked inside of Congress. Senators were harassed at the Kavanaugh hearing though. I guess since that was Democrats and since it was UpChuck Shumer who threatened SCOTUS that’s all ok.
The Pentagon rep stated they had no record of it and hence never gave any such direction to the capital police. What they said happened is Trump told his staff you’ll need 10,000 troops and it died there. Additionally, and what I believe the most damning part of it all is Pence ordered the troops in during the mess and not Trump
The problem with e-verify (at least in the states where it is supposed to be mandatory) is that it isn’t enforced. In Mississippi there have been multiple raids of meat packing plants resulting in 1000s of undocumented immigrants being arrested and yet the companies who were employing them had no penalty even though it was noted they weren’t bothering to do the e-verify.
So even e-verify is just used as a tool for politicians to sound tough. The states that have made it “mandatory” don’t enforce it or write the laws to exclude certain industries or employers.
It’s a shame we can’t get traction for a third or even forth party to provide some options. With the lock of the two parties it just provides the options to live off of lip service and fear of the other side.
Yeah, he was visiting the church that your "peaceful" protestors tried to burn the night before. They should have shot them like they did Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman.
And he immediately asked the people at the capital to stop. And they did. Democrats NEVER did that with the BLM and Antifa rioters. In fact, they encouraged it and made excuses for it.
When you include things that are well known not to be true it ruins the entire point you are trying to make.
I did a quick search that found trump "repeatedly offered 10,000 troops" and was "rebuked each time". And that he directly ordered the secdef to have 10,000 on standby.
I also looked for the Pence thing, but found nothing more than those "sources say" kind of anonymous articles.
It sounds a lot like the story changes based on which media is telling the story.
Agreed.
Not knowing the effectiveness of the e-verify is why I made the "half hearted" comment. It may have been a token effort to begin with, or it could have been an honest effort that was hamstrung by refusal to enforce.
Either way, you're right about the third party. I know one reason I have been reluctant to go full bore on the third party is the feeling that you'll be handing the nation to the party least like your preference for decades, since the closer aligned party would suffer the split.
But honestly, the only thing dems and reps agree on is making sure they stay in charge. Call it the uniparty, or some other name, but they will make sure they will stay in power.
