We'll ban guns AND muslims..

Whose with me!!!??? :D

Michale
211

I mean, Trump wants to ban muslims...

Left Wingers want to ban guns..

I fail to see the difference in the totally cracked-ness of the two...

Michale
210

Sheinkopf added that, at this point, “any rational person would worry about his legacy, and any rational Democrat would worry about the Democrats being injured in an electoral setting.”

The Democrat Party is toast in 2016...

Michale
204

Ok, so because of the second amendment, we cannot ban or seriously regulate guns. Fine. But the amendment says absolutely NOTHING about ammunition.

What if we severely restricted access to ammunition as a proposal? Comments? Good? Bad? Possible approach?

OK... So, here's a plan...

We'll open voting completely and utterly..

Anyone and everyone can vote.. No ID's required at all..

We just close all the voting stations... No voting stations at all...

:D

I am also constrained to point out that guns are ALREADY "seriously regulated"... Far beyond anything the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted..

Why don't ya'all just take the next, the ONLY logical step that's available and concede that nothing short of an outright ban will make the Left Wingery happy and satisfied??

Because THAT is exactly what the vast majority of the Left wants..

A gun ban.. That's why they ALWAYS mention the UK and Australia in their rants...

A gun ban... No less...

Michale
202

Ahhhhh

So, muslim is a RACE now, eh??

Who knew!?? :^/

But it proves my point perfectly..

To the Left Wingery, *EVERYTHING* is racism...

Of course, what the Lefties don't realize is that if EVERYTHING is racism, then NOTHING is racism...

And, just a little side note to Mrs Danger...

Syed Rizwan Farook and Tasheen Malik were also "proud muslims"....

Think about it....

Michale
201

Since both are Constitutional RIGHTS, tie gun ownership to voting...

If ya'all want registration, insurance, monthly training, forced socialization and all the rest for gun owners, then the EXACT same should be applied to voters..

I mean, if people REALLY want to own guns, then they will be HAPPY to jump thru all the hoops, right??

So, if people REALLY want to vote, then they will be HAPPY to jump thru all the hoops, right??

"Simple logic"
-Admiral Kirk, STAR TREK IV-The Voyage Home

:D

Michale
200 (taaa daaa!!)

The problem here is that what the Left Wingery defines as "reasonable" is either A> totally and completely unreasonable or 2> has absolutely nothing to do with incident that prompted the discussion...

Michale
198

Ok, so because of the second amendment, we cannot ban or seriously regulate guns. Fine. But the amendment says absolutely NOTHING about ammunition.

What if we severely restricted access to ammunition as a proposal? Comments? Good? Bad? Possible approach?

And for those who think that fear is the motivator for gun ownership, the same solution should apply, right? :D

Love to see Paula at an NRA meeting.. :D

Michale
196

That's a Left Wingery generated myth...

I can prove it to you, but only if you promise to publicly concede the point...

Michale
195

No way is he serious :)

I imagine he is just as serious as people were saying "BAN ALL JAPANESE TRAVEL TO THE US" exactly 74 years ago today..

Michale
194

Michale: Take two recent terrorist attacks, Leytonstone Tube Station and San Bernadino.

Well, if we're going to cherry pick individual incidents to support our respective points..

If the UK didn't ban handguns, then there might have been a ConcealCarry on the tube and NO ONE would have been injured seriously..

:D

Michale
193

Certainly some on the left might feel about guns as Michale accuses but the entire left?

Perhaps not the entire Left, but I would be willing to wager is a very VERY large percentage of the Left.. As evidenced by our own Weigantians..

As to the rest.. Well reasoned and quite logical..

Kudos...

Michale
192

"Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S."

No way is he serious :)

In London, the home grown crazy had a knife and caused one serious injury. In San Bernadino the home grown crazies had assault weapons and killed 14 people, and injured over 20 more.

What do you think the difference between London and San Bernadino is when it comes to easy access to high powered weapons?

If you had to choose between being in Leytonstone or San Bernadino, which would you have chosen?

Michale
191

Your assumption that gun owners own guns out of fear is 10000% wrong and is borne of ignorance of guns...

But you illustrate my point to Bashi PERFECTLY as to why his idea won't work..

Because it legitimizes guns and gun ownership instead of demonizing it..

And, as you aptly prove, the Left wants guns and gun owners demonized...

Michale
190

One of the interesting outcomes of your idea would be (could be) the separation of the "Gun Owners Because We Have a Right To Have Them And We Like Them" folks (sure, we're happy to be part of a well-regulated militia) from the "Gun Owners So We Can Overthrow Tyranny" bunch, who want their guns to be able to overthrow the government, not to assist the government.

Re: the notion that it is the "gun culture" that is the problem, not the sheer existence/ownership of guns -- promotion of fear when statistics don't support the fear -- is, I think, ALMOST right. I would argue that the fear is fed to the members of the gun culture and then they respond to it by wanting more guns, etc.

I would also argue that, while fear is a big feeder to the gun culture, of equal importance are economic factors. Wage stagnation, lack of a living wage, lack of opportunities for many etc. leads to "black markets" and many members of the gun culture make money buying and selling guns. I know people who do that. They make a lot of noise about Second Amendment rights and all the rest and stay mum about the dough, but the dough they make is every bit as, if not more, important to many of them. And fear creates customers for them too. So they use it.

I'm not sure how you'd factor that in to your proposal. My own view is that economics underlies 99% of what we all worry about/fuss about/fight about and that American's Gun Culture and Gun Violence are symptoms of the deeper problem: an economy that doesn't work for too many people.

We need to deal with the symptoms, but we need to deal with the underlying problem too. And dealing with the underlying problem would reduce, I think, a lot of the symptoms.

Auxiliary military force would be more accurate. At least that is what a militia traditionally is. I guess they could be used to supplement the national guard in disaster duty...

That's actually not a bad idea...

So, basically you want to create a national police force....

And what exactly would the duties of this police force be??

I am all for the idea...

I don't think the Democrat Party will go for it..

Why??

Because it legitimizes gun ownership instead of demonizing it..

Democrats hate that...

But I like the idea...

You have the MICHALE S.O.P. :D

Michale
189

Obviously the US does not need a militia to protect the country anymore but I think it would go a long way to reducing both gun violence and mass shootings. I don’t think it’s the amount of guns owned by US citizens that is the problem but gun culture. A culture that promotes fear even though the statistics don’t bare that out. The single biggest threat to you as a gun owner is yourself, by a wide margin. Then it’s a family member or close friend, followed by someone you know and are having a dispute with. Way, way down the line is being shot by a random person you don’t know. I think a militia would link guns with civic duty, which in places like Switzerland and Israel seem to keep the gun violence down even though gun ownership is high. A militia would also show who in society is a gun owner for both law enforcement and fellow citizens to see. A lot of gun culture is white in nature. This might change the demographics of main stream gun culture. Lone wolfs would be required to socialize. No longer can you shun society while collecting an arsenal.

Of course, the bonus is you get to throw the 2nd amendment right back in to the gun nuts faces.

Chicago proves that...

And what do those prove? California has a lower homicide rate than many states with minimal gun control. New York City has a very low homicide rate and so far in 2015 has risen 9%. Even Chicago is not that a high gun homicide city and has only risen 20% whereas cities with little gun control like Milwaukee and St Louis have risen 76% and 60% respectively. I don't think the statistics back you up on this.

yea, they are the bastion of peace and love, right.. :^/

You can quote your stats all you want, Bashi..

But current events trump stats every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Gun Control doesn't work..

California proves that..

New York City proves that..

Chicago proves that...

Michale
188

Michale

Baltimore does not make the top 10 of homicide rate, the rest do not make the top 30. Plus have you looked at all the cities with strong gun control and lower rates or lower gun control and higher rates (I have) or only a cherry picked a few and yet are still wrong?

A new U.S. intelligence report on ISIS, commissioned by the White House, predicts that the self-proclaimed Islamic State will spread worldwide and grow in numbers, unless it suffers a significant loss of territory on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials told The Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/06/us-intel-to-obama-isis-is-not-contained.html

Obama is clueless, people..

Only those completely enslaved to Party ideology cannot see this...

Michale
186

Lynch recalibrates message on hateful speech
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/12/lynch-recalibrates-message-on-hateful-speech-216488

AG Lynch shys away from the gauntlet that she was slapped with and back-pedals on her intentions to prosecute 1st Amendment protected speech... :D

Michale
185

And ya'all NEVER address the salient point..

Towhit.

Will ANY of the Left Wingery's ideas on gun control prevent or help to prevent terrorist attacks or crowd-based mass shootings?

No, they will not..

Michale
184

Really? Can you back that up?

Chicago... New York City... Baltimore... Washington DC...

"Got any more ball-busters..."
-Billy Madison

:D

Comment #93??

Michale
183

When looking at gun violence I think it's best to follow homicide rates rather than gun deaths. Gun deaths include suicides, which account for almost two thirds of the deaths. The problem here is compared to the rest of the world, the US is in the higher end of the middle of the pack as far as suicides go. People who want to kill themselves, if they have a gun will use it. If they don't, generally find another method. Guns are more effective than many other methods, so our rates are higher by a tiny bit but nothing compared to homicide rates for (first world industrialized) countries with strong gun control.

I like the insurance idea but the gun lobbies will cry infringement. Even though the right to bare arms has been heavily infringed already and few seem to care, even the gun nuts.

A side note: as far as I can tell, Michale rarely reads the links he posts. Chances are slim he will read yours...

THAT is my point.. Well, one of many...

And I have proven time and time again that on this issue you do as well.

It's a statistical fact that an armed community is a polite community..

Really? Got anything to back that up? Love to see that study and just how they define "polite"...

Just as it's a statistical fact that cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country are a cesspool of gun violence, misery and death..

Really? Can you back that up?

My "solution" for criminal gun violence tends to be more punitive in nature...

For example, premeditated criminal gun violence where innocents are shot?? Death Penalty...

Michale
182

Can we agree that what you have proposed in this commentary and what Democrats have proposed ad nasuem will NOT prevent or help prevent mass shootings... And will DEFINITELY not prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks??

Because if we can't agree on that, then ONE of us is an alien.. :D

Michale
181

There are already laws that address those issues..

The biggest stumbling block to the mentally ill is the Democrat Party fighting for the privacy of the mentally ill..

2. Let's take California's situation. There are fewer gun deaths in CA in a per person basis than most other states, and there is a clear correlation between the strength of gun laws and gun deaths by state. An inconvenient fact that the gun lobby wants its minions to ignore. Do the research, it is all there. For example, CA has 7.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people (8th lowest). TX has 50% more deaths per 100,000, and AK and LA top out at almost three times the CA rate. Not that you care, but for anybody else out there the facts are at:

And yet, Santa Barbara happened.. San Ysidro happened.. San Bernardino happened..

You can't address the issue of gun deaths by SOLELY concentrating on the guns..

Any more than you can address the issue of car deaths SOLELY by concentrating on the cars..

. You then point to increased gun violence as a need for more guns.

It's a statistical fact that an armed community is a polite community..

Just as it's a statistical fact that cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country are a cesspool of gun violence, misery and death..

, I'm the only one supplying facts and statistics to back up my points, y

And you ignore the facts and statistics that disprove your theories...

THAT is my point.. Well, one of many...

Re: Voting laws - if there are restrictions on the mentally ill voting as well as owning firearms, what will Donald Trump do when he gets no votes in the primaries?

Heh

I could make the same argument about Hillary Clinton.. Because I think ANYONE that could vote for such a rhymes with witch HAS to have a few screws loose... :D

Michale
180

;)

And while you may only hear about gun control after large scale shootings many of us are continually pressing for sensible gun policies day in and day out. As most polls show, restricting access to guns for the mentally ill is a winning proposition even in the U.S.

2. Let's take California's situation. There are fewer gun deaths in CA in a per person basis than most other states, and there is a clear correlation between the strength of gun laws and gun deaths by state. An inconvenient fact that the gun lobby wants its minions to ignore. Do the research, it is all there. For example, CA has 7.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people (8th lowest). TX has 50% more deaths per 100,000, and AK and LA top out at almost three times the CA rate. Not that you care, but for anybody else out there the facts are at:

content.njdc -dot- com/media/media/2015/12/04/guns-mainchart-1203.png

I still think that the rates (even in HI and MA that are under 3.0 gun deaths per 100,000) are too high and a move to a responsible ownership policy can be more effective, but you cannot claim that gun control laws do not work, unless you simply want to avoid reality.

3. You have fallen for the NRA's wet dream, that all gun control doesn't work and it is our right to buy any guns we want and take them everywhere. You then point to increased gun violence as a need for more guns. This circular argument only benefits the gun manufacturers, not dead 7-year-old girls who want to go to soccer practice without being shot, but what the hey, why let a few dead kids get in the way of profit when we can whip up the emotions of some low information types and get them to buy more guns. Remember the stat that we are buying more and more guns yet fewer households have a gun? They have you hook line and sinker Michale, and they are using partisan divides to make you stop thinking and just follow and do as you are told. In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one supplying facts and statistics to back up my points, you are supplying regurgitated knee-jerk opinions.

You want gun registration etc etc??

Fine..

We will mirror gun laws with voting laws...

Everything that you want to put an American thru to own a gun will be what that same American has to go thru to vote...

I am game if you are...

Registration with MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATION, insurance, background checks, training, tests, the whole shebang...

Both are Constitutional rights and both should have the same degree of difficulty to accomplish...

Let's make it happen, Cap'n!!

Michale
179

And that's fine.. More power to them..

But Americans have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns..

And there IS a gun ban on handguns in the UK...

Which was my point...

In fact my sister looks at our gun laws and, like most of the rest of the civilized world, wonders why we are so childish and have no restrictions on the mentally ill arming themselves to the teeth with impunity.

No disrespect to your sister intended, but she (or you for that matter) are hardly qualified to speak for the "entire" world..

Even if ya'all were, so what??

We have a constitutional right to own guns..

It's THAT simple...

Last time I checked, we don't poll the world to see which Constitutional Rights are "approved" and which are not...

Why registration and insurance will work. Basically we need an early warning system when somebody is starting to lost the plot. Take the guy yesterday who killed a 7-year-old girl at soccer practice then killed himself. People around him knew he was losing it and having paranoid delusions, however he was able to purchase a firearm and get a CWC license with ease months before. If an insurance company was on the hook for liability, do you think there might have been some more scrutiny than "Here you go then, sir"?

And such insurance, even if it did pass constitutional muster won't do diddley squat to curb crowd-based mass shootings.. Which is the *ONLY* time the discussion of gun control is ever raised...

That girl that was killed at the soccer field.. Where are the screams for GUN CONTROL in response to THAT!??

Where are the screams for gun control whenever anyone is shot and killed by a gun??

The ONLY time we hear about Gun Control from the Left Wingery is when there is enough death to push an unpopular agenda...

If Democrats are SINCERELY interested in gun control for Public Safety sake, why don't we hear from them with EVERY shooting???

I'll give you three guesses but you are only going to need one..

It's because the issue for Democrats is NOT public safety...

The issue is pushing an unpopular and unconstitutional useless agenda that won't do diddley squat for criminal gun violence but WILL make it harder and more expensive for middle class Americans to exercise their constitutional right...

. The flag issue - you fail to remember that the flag was a red herring thrown by the right to deflect the story from why the shooter had access to guns when he was obviously mentally ill. The whole thing was a right wing hand waving exercise. Granted both sides piled on, and the symbol is obviously very distasteful, however I'd have taken some real movement on addressing the mentally ill access to firearm issue before the flag issue, and I suspect so would most right thinking people.

But there WASN'T any "real movement"... There was ban the flag and that was that...

Another WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the shooting and won't do DIDDLEY SQUAT to prevent another one..

You said you were against that at the time.. Did you voice that opposition?? Did you comment, "Look morons!! This battleflag has NOTHING to do with shootings and such and it's frakin' ridiculous to fight THAT battle in response to THIS incident!!! Morons!!!"

No, you didn't.. Because that would have gone against Party orthodoxy and would have sounded too much like me! :D

But the point is, it was a USELESS and TOTALLY uncalled for response...

Just like your guy's Insurance idea... Just like "smart guns".. Just like every piece of legislation proposed by the Left... NONE of them will address the very issue that PROMPTED the proposal in the first place... They are nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws designed SOLELY and completely to further a partisan agenda..

I'll say it again because you have obviously missed it the first 5 times...

California is Gun Control's wet dreams, as far as restrictive gun laws are concerned..

And the laws DID NOT prevent San Bernardino and Santa Barbara and a whole slew of other massacres, one of which I was present at (San Ysidro, 1984)...

If you have an idea for a law that will PREVENT or even help prevent these crowd based mass shootings, then I am all ears.. I'll help such ideas with every thing I can...

But if all you want to do is push an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda that the majority of Americans are against??

Sorry, my friend.. You are on your own for that..

However it is our military that is advising him,

Yes, it is our military who is advising him. And he is doing the EXACT opposite..

It's our military who is telling Obama that Daesch is NOT contained.. Yet Obama claimed it was...

Our military and intelligence is telling Obama that there is a threat of terrorist attacks on US Proper. Yet Obama is telling Americans there is no threat...

Obama's speech was exactly as I predicted it would be..

"We're doing the same things over and over, hoping for a different result."

The very definition of insanity...

We can always ask the 14 people in San Bernardino if Obama's policies are effective and working..

Oh no.. wait... we can't....

Michale
178

Never heard that term "gish galloping" :D

I bet the etomology of it is fascinating.. :D

Michale
177

2. Why registration and insurance will work. Basically we need an early warning system when somebody is starting to lost the plot. Take the guy yesterday who killed a 7-year-old girl at soccer practice then killed himself. People around him knew he was losing it and having paranoid delusions, however he was able to purchase a firearm and get a CWC license with ease months before. If an insurance company was on the hook for liability, do you think there might have been some more scrutiny than "Here you go then, sir"?

3. The flag issue - you fail to remember that the flag was a red herring thrown by the right to deflect the story from why the shooter had access to guns when he was obviously mentally ill. The whole thing was a right wing hand waving exercise. Granted both sides piled on, and the symbol is obviously very distasteful, however I'd have taken some real movement on addressing the mentally ill access to firearm issue before the flag issue, and I suspect so would most right thinking people.

4. Obama's speech: since he didn't say "your either with us or agin us" and throw a Trump-like hissy fit, I expected the reaction on the right to be childish. They didn't disappoint. However it is our military that is advising him, as he said in the address, and if you research the philosophy of ISIS you will see why a ground war is exactly what they want. Trump is too stupid to learn that of course, and he knows his followers want playground level boasting about whose butt he is going to kick next. But this isn't WWF wrestling*, this is the adult world, a sphere Trump has yet to grow up to participate in. This is why even staunch republicans are saying they will vote for Hillary over Trump.

*a sport he participated in - google "trump wrestling youtube" to see a video of him and another manager play fighting outside the ring, and this is the person leading the republican nomination race - wow!

Democrats are focused on their agenda of gun control... An agenda that A> Violates the 2nd Amendment and 2> The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT...

It's the Chattanooga church shooting all over again..

A scumbag walks into a church and guns down 9 people and Democrats want to ban a historical battle flag..

The BIGGEST terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and Democrats want to ban guns...

Am I the ONLY one here who sees the inanity of it all??

Michale
176

Sorry, that's the Democrat in me coming out.. :D

But it IS a valid point..

Michale
175

It wasn't much of a speech..

Just the same old "I am awesome and everything I am doing is the right thing to do and those that oppose me are evil monsters who should just shut up and let me do what I want."

I wonder if his teleprompter is stuck..

Michale

Michale
173

The biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11..

Republicans are focused on terrorism and protecting Americans....

Democrats are focused on their agenda of gun control... An agenda that A> Violates the 2nd Amendment and 2> The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT...

It boggles the mind..

Michale
172

Or you could make it easier and simply quote the part you are addressing..

Like that ^^ :D

. England - I have family who own farms in the UK and they have shotguns. It is gun control, not gun bans. My sister went trap shooting earlier this year, and a British athlete won a gold medal in shooting at the 2012 Olympics. He didn't do that without access to firearms.

How many handguns does your sister own?

None..

Why??

Because they are banned...

The whole "the people need guns to protect against the government" argument is rather silly.

I completely agree.. However, history HAS shown the effectiveness of tin plated dictators with delusions of godhood have had gun confiscations and such..

History may not repeat, but it does rhyme..

. We then drift into the role of the CDC.

Actually, it was YOU who brought up the CDC.. I was just addressing your own point...

No where in ANY of your comments do you address the ONLY salient point..

How does this guy's proposal help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

It doesn't..

No where.. No how..

Ergo, it's nothing but a WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law...

But I have to hand it to the guy.. Leave it to a Republican to take tragedy and misery and create an agency that can profit from it...

:D

Michale
171

Try numbering your points if you are going to list dozens. I'll start you off.

1. England - I have family who own farms in the UK and they have shotguns. It is gun control, not gun bans. My sister went trap shooting earlier this year, and a British athlete won a gold medal in shooting at the 2012 Olympics. He didn't do that without access to firearms.

2. All laws are 'government imposed', so your use of the term is a weak ploy that I assume appeals to the more paranoid in right wing circles, but holds no weight in a serious argument. However it brings up an earlier point you made about dictators and gun registries. The whole "the people need guns to protect against the government" argument is rather silly. Firstly, in case you hadn't noticed, the government has a military which has weapons like tanks, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers, etc. Secondly the government would have to convince the military to act against its own citizens wholesale, which would include the mothers, brothers, kids, spouses, etc. of the people in the military, which is not going to happen. Thus there is no way that a few good ole boys with a hideaway, some cans of tuna and an arsenal of AR15s are going to seriously stress the military for more than 10 minutes, or would ever be needed to do so. Also, just to remind you once again, the policy does not call for removal of guns from owners who are law abiding (and currently we have restrictions on felons access to guns that have been ruled constitutional) and pay their insurance.

3. Next you created a hypothetical (the 'government' will decree that the only responsible owners are non-owners) and then argue against it. The only small point is that nowhere is it suggested that guns are confiscated. In fact if you had read the policy proposal it calls for a removal of currently ineffective laws based on gun types for freer access to guns.

4. Next, the insurance would be more expensive for different groups argument - well of course it would, that is how insurance works. Immigrants (and I speak from personal experience) pay higher auto rates when they first start driving over here. People who are irresponsible owners (e.g. their toddler shoots them with their gun), just like people who are poor drivers, would pay more. People without a history of ownership, just like young drivers would pay more. You then tried to turn this into a race issue, but I don't fall into race baiting traps. Sorry.

5. You now show a sudden concern for people who can't afford insurance. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and 99.99% of them are no menace to anybody, and in fact they can be beneficial in home protection. The cost of gun insurance for a responsible owner would be minimal, certainly with respect to the cost of the guns themselves, and the ammo for them. I would assume there would be lower rates for homes with a gun safe, use of trigger locks, people who go thru gun safety training, etc.

6. We then drift into the role of the CDC. Sorry, but I pointed you to a CDC website that gave advice on automobile safety based on research they have done and/or collected. Why are guns and automobiles different when they are both involved in significant numbers of deaths? The CDC do not do much research into earthquakes because there are very few people who die each year from earthquakes. One assumes this is also why they don't conduct research into asteroid impact deaths. You are also being over literal in the use of the term 'disease', the remit of the CDC extends beyond that, just as the Department of Defense is involved in a lot more than defending our borders from invasion.

I'll anxiously read the speech recap tomorrow morning..

:D

Michale
170

I am awesome.

Thank you.

Looks like Obama is going to STAND for his Oval Office speech..

https://www.instagram.com/p/-9tYwAtNOo/

Look how CLEAN his desk is!!!

Maybe he is RESIGNING!!!! :D

Michale
169

Why not have them investigate how many deaths occur in earthquakes and create information on building codes??

What's the justification for having a DISEASE CONTROL organization to have any input in ANY of that??

It makes a mockery of any claims the NRA has regarding responsible gun ownership that they make sure their bought politicians stifled this line of investigation.

It's utterly ridiculous and totally PARTISAN for the CDC to be involved in gun studies...

What part of CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL do you not understand???

Unless you can make the case for guns being a disease, it's utterly preposterous...

Michale
168

Considering the crime statistics available, you just HAVE to know that black people would pay more insurance for gun ownership than white people..

Do you REALLY want to open up THAT can of worms??

Michale
167

Nope.. Just that I have a whole lot of facts to support my case..

I'll try and slow down...

But feel free to pick one and refute it. :D

Basically gun control does work, take England or any advanced European country as an example.

That's not gun control..

That's a gun BAN...

And yes.. A gun ban DOES work... For EUROPE and ANY other country that DOESN'T have a 2nd Amendment and a Bill Of Rights..

So, I'll say it again...

Get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the Bill Of Rights and ya'all can have your gun "Control"...

Since we have the second amendment we can't have similar laws, so, no I don't support confiscation because that isn't a constitutional proposal.

Exactly...

I support responsible ownership.

No, you support GOVERNMENT IMPOSED "responsible" ownership whereas it's GOVERNMENT that defines what is "responsible"..

And the current government would define "responsible" as NOT OWNING GUNS...

If you read the proposal you'll see annual insurance will be required, and the free market, in the form of increased premiums for higher risk individuals will kick in.

How would you impose an insurance mandate?? You would impose a financial hardship on people who haven't committed any crimes.. Whose only offense is their constitutional right to own a gun??

Yea.. THAT's gonna fly..

Irregardless of all that, how would gun-owner insurance prevent gun violence and crowd-based mass shootings??

Answer: It wouldn't.. It's just another way to infringe on people's constitutional right to own a gun..

Ya'all want to make it so difficult to own a gun, to make so many gun owners jump thru so many hoops that no one would go thru all the hassle..

How high do you think the premiums would have been for the couple in San Bernadino when they bought their third and fourth guns, especially as one of the family members was a Saudi citizen?

WOW... So ethnicity or country of origin will be a determining factor??

What about sexual orientation or race?? Will white people pay more or less gun-owner insurance than black people??

Do you understand the can of worms you are opening??

This is free market capitalism coupled with free access to firearms. It is a right wing wet dream.

FREE access??

Oh... You mean, this gun owner's insurance is not going to COST anything!!???

Well, why didn't you say so!!!???

Sign me up!!! I have dozens of firearms I can insure!!! :D

Try not to gish gallop again, it makes you look like you are trying to avoid the key points.

I realize all these FACTS can be a bit overwhelming..

By all means.. Just pick one and we can concentrate on that.. :D

But, if it will help, let me re-iterate my original question...

What common sense laws can anyone come up with that will not violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and WILL PREVENT OR HELP PREVENT CROWD-BASED MASS SHOOTINGS.

That second part is kinda important, don'tcha think??

NOTHING that ANYONE has proposed would have ANY impact on preventing or helping to prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

Therefore they are nothing more than "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE" laws...

Michale

I'd like them to be able to investigate how many accidental gun deaths occur, and have information similar to their recommendations on child safety, etc.

It makes a mockery of any claims the NRA has regarding responsible gun ownership that they make sure their bought politicians stifled this line of investigation.

Basically gun control does work, take England or any advanced European country as an example. They have a small fraction of the mass shooting we have because they have very strict gun control laws.

Since we have the second amendment we can't have similar laws, so, no I don't support confiscation because that isn't a constitutional proposal. I support responsible ownership. If you read the proposal you'll see annual insurance will be required, and the free market, in the form of increased premiums for higher risk individuals will kick in. Also insurance will introduce the ability to hold somebody liable if their gun is used and they have been irresponsible owners.

How high do you think the premiums would have been for the couple in San Bernadino when they bought their third and fourth guns, especially as one of the family members was a Saudi citizen?

This is free market capitalism coupled with free access to firearms. It is a right wing wet dream.

Try not to gish gallop again, it makes you look like you are trying to avoid the key points.

The Left Wingery's solution to that was to ban a historical battle flag...

You simply HAVE to agree how completely and utterly ludicrous that is...

All the Left Wingery has when it comes to gun control is "Wouldn't It Be Nice" laws...

There are NO LAWS that can be passed that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

It's THAT simple...

Michale
165

Gun violence is not a new issue.. It's been an issue for decades, centuries even....

Do you HONESTLY believe that, if there WAS a law out there that would A> prevent gun violence and 2> is compatible with the 2nd Amendment that it would not have already been enacted??

Secondly, look at the locations that DO have strict gun laws... Massive gun violence and crime...

Look at the locations that have liberal gun laws...

Finally, crowd-based mass shootings OVERWHELMINGLY occur in "Gun Free Zones".... Next to guns themselves, GFZ is the CONSTANT common denominator...

Since it is clear that the gun aspect is unassailable due to the US 2nd Amendment and the US Bill Of Rights, then it is clear that the NEXT biggest common denominator should be addressed...

Simple logic....

Michale
164

I plan on taking tomorrow off. I will read your link and give you specifics as to why it won't work...

Fair??

Michale
163

Let me ask you...

Do you favor a gun ban and gun confiscation?

Michale
162

You mentioned "gun registry"...

That's all I needed to know to realize it wouldn't do anything to PREVENT gun violence..

California is a Gun Control's person's wet dream..

And it doesn't PREVENT gun violence..

These are the only relevant facts...

Michale
161

I wonder why - maybe you can explain that to us?

Because it's completely and utterly ridiculous to have an organization called the CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL have ANYTHING to do with gun death research...

In case, further explanation is required...

Guns are not a disease.... :D

Michale
160

I think you just can't figure out how to counter it so make wild claims that it won't work.

Not very impressive thinking on your part, I'm afraid.

A gun registry, huh??

How will that prevent crowd-based mass shootings?

How will it prevent gun violence??

Answer: It won't..

It will just make it possibly maybe could-be easier AFTER the crime has been committed..

I need not bother mention that every dictatorship in the history of the planet has insisted on a gun registry...

Also, when gun control laws in California can be circumvented by driving to Nevada, or attending a gun show, the laws are useless.

You have hit the nail on the head...

GUN LAWS ARE USELESS IF PEOPLE WILL CIRCUMVENT THEM...

So, if people will circumvent California laws (which the San Bernardino terrorists DID NOT, by the bi) what makes you think that people won't circumvent NATIONAL laws??

Also, there are already 300M guns in circulation, so it is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Exactly again!!!

The ONLY way gun control will have the desired effect is with a gun ban and confiscation...

And, like I said... ALL you have to do is get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the Bill Of Rights..

Why don't you read the argument from one of the better Republican thinkers and tell us why it won't work or is unconstitutional?

I may when I get time.. Closing up the shop right now...

But if the cornerstone of his idea is a gun registry (which will do ZILCH to prevent gun violence) then I wouldn't call him a "better thinker:"' Republican or otherwise...

Michale
159

The CDC collects fatality numbers from medical examiners, much as they do on all fatalities.

BTW, Congress passed a law restricting their collection of more detailed information (which is why researchers have to use the unreliable FBI numbers) and cut their budget for gun death research to zero.

I wonder why - maybe you can explain that to us?

Did you read the link? Basically (and this is all constitutional) a gun registry, with insurance similar to how we control automobiles. Freedom with responsibility - the cornerstone of Republican thinking.

In a society that allows access to guns we will never achieve the levels of gun violence that e.g. the United Kingdom achieves, but that is just a consequence of the 2nd amendment.

Also, when gun control laws in California can be circumvented by driving to Nevada, or attending a gun show, the laws are useless. Also, there are already 300M guns in circulation, so it is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Why don't you read the argument from one of the better Republican thinkers and tell us why it won't work or is unconstitutional?

The CDC is a health organization and, as such, it not a reliable clearing house for crime based statistics...

Sum it up for me..

Give me a common sense law that will help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and would not violate the 2nd Amendment...

There IS no such law possible... Because, if there was, it would have already been passed in California...

Michale
158

If that were true, then the amendment would read, THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The writers were obviously making the distinction between a militia and "the people"....

But it doesn't really matter what you or I think..

The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to "THE PEOPLE" and not to "A MILITIA"....

Michale

FBI stats are weak because they rely on voluntary reporting by police departments. That is why the total numbers from the CDC are more reliable. The FBI stats are used for primarily by researchers when they need more information about trends in types of gun violence, because the FBI collect more information about individual criminal acts.

Proposal for gun control from a GoP Republican precinct committeeman:

goplifer -dot- com/2015/08/27/gun-control-is-easy/

You should also read his book:

goplifer -dot- com/book-the-politics-of-crazy/

He perhaps could be one of the architects of the next generation Republican Party. The one I'd consider voting for.

You may also like "2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America" by Whit Ayres, another Republican.

FBI stats are weak because they rely on voluntary reporting by police departments. That is why the total numbers from the CDC are more reliable. The FBI stats are used for primarily by researchers when they need more information about trends in types of gun violence, because the FBI collect more information about individual criminal acts.

Proposal for gun control from a GoP Republican precinct committeeman:

http://goplifer.com/2015/08/27/gun-control-is-easy/

You should also read his book:

http://goplifer.com/book-the-politics-of-crazy/

He perhaps could be one of the architects of the next generation Republican Party. The one I'd consider voting for.

You may also like "2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America" by Whit Ayres, another Republican.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

the purpose of the right to bear arms is a well-regulated militia. the implication being that arms not necessary for a well-regulated militia are not necessarily covered by the second amendment.

JL

Just to make sure we are all on the same page.. :D

Michale
156

FBI and the Justice Department..

What am I doing about gun control? I'm pestering my politicians and donating monthly to gun control groups.

OK, what law would you enact to prevent crowd-based mass shootings that are not in violation of the 2nd Amendment...

You are King Obama the 1st.. You can make ANY decree you want, as long as it doesn't infringe a citizens right to keep and bear arms..

"Talk to me, Goose..."
-Maverick, TOP GUN

:D

Michale
155

You DO realize that, **BY LAW** christian Syrians take precedence over muslim Syrians, right??

So, why is Obama importing 99.9% muslim and .1% christian??

Because muslims are reliable Democrat Party voters and christians are reliable GOP voters....

Michale

Total criminal acts are down (mostly due to demographics), however gun violence is not decreasing on a per capita basis, and since our population is increasing, this means there are is an increase in total gun violence. (source - CDC).

Where do you get your statistics?

What am I doing about gun control? I'm pestering my politicians and donating monthly to gun control groups.

"If you like your Health Care Plan, you can keep your Health Care Plan..."

"I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance."

"We had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia"

"I did not send classified intelligence thru my homebrewed private insecure email server"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

I just thought I would mention that... :D

Michale
153

Good.. I hated playing the violin in 6th grade..

I was more of a trumpet guy.. :D

Would you have been among those who turned back the Jewish refugees when they came seeking refuge in the United States?

If there was evidence that terrorists were mixed in with Jewish refugees, my response would be the same..

Do you understand anything about how to defeat IS?

More than you know..

ONE of the ways we defeat them is not giving them an engraved invitation to come to this country and slaughter innocents...

The female terrorist was vetted with the EXACT same process that the Syrian refugees are being vetted..

Obama's own FBI director says they we do not have the capability to vet the refugees properly...

What's more important? The lives of innocent Americans??

Or more voters for the Democrat Party???

Michale
152

Do you understand anything about refugees, regardless of their faith?

Do you understand anything about how to defeat IS?

How long are we willing to do nothing about it?

Gun related violence is sharply declining...

Two questions.

WHY should anything be done about the legal arsenals?

WHAT exactly would you have done?

Michale
151

Is the United States the world's Housing Agency or Welfare Agency??

Where is all the concern for CHRISTIANS in the region??

It's NON-EXISTENT..

Over 2200 Syrians brought into the US... Less than a hundred of them are christian... ALL the rest are muslims. Democrat voting muslims...

I would be more inclined to have my heart strings tugged if I didn't know for a fact that the Left is simply trying to mint fresh new Democrat voters..

So spare me the violins..

Michale
150

I care for my fellow Americans first..

The violently deranged Islamist barbarians are counting on the fact that you are not the only American who believes that and, more importantly, all the implications that follow from it.

You don't say it explicitly but you certainly imply that you don't care about anyone else and that the ideals that America was founded upon are meaningless. And, that sort of attitude plays directly into the hands of the Islamist extremists and makes a critical part of the struggle to defeat them next to impossible to achieve.

Guns sold - still increasing (6M in 2002, 14M in 2013, and a record number of background checks issues on Black Friday - source: FBI)

Households with a gun - still dropping - source: General Social Survey

Simple math dictates that fewer people are buying more and more guns. Lots of people with mini-arsenals that include military style weaponry results in the carnage we are seeing at the moment.

How long are we willing to do nothing about it?

So, you would keep all the refugees in transit camps until the Syrian war is over and they can return to their homes which will, of course, be there waiting for them? Or, you would just rather they go somewhere else, perhaps to Jordan which has already taken in more refugees than the US could ever dream to accommodate, in its wildest nightmare? Ahem.

I'm afraid that what you don't know about refugees, Syrian and otherwise, is a lot. Ditto for how to defeat IS.

His willingness to lie and then bluster (e.g. thousands of Muslims celebrating in Jersey City) must test the devotion of even the most 'head in the sand' Trumpeters.

If this is performance art, perhaps the next stage will be a gradual adoption of extreme left wing viewpoints dressed up in Trumptease? Or a visit to Cuba to meet and greet Castro? Perhaps a strategy session with Jeremy Corbyn?

I would vote for him just on artistic grounds if he starts wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

Anybody got any other suggestions?

"Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh."

Well, apparently you do. Congratulations, all Weigantia salutes you!

http://www.thedarktide.com/music/imperial.mp3

As for the CNN poll, what do Orcs know about scientific polling...really, what kind of faith should you put in trends based sub-samples of just 250? CNN should farm the work out to The Elves! Heh.

Trump doesn't have to win in order to wreck the GOP for the upcoming cycle...he just has to kill the brand. To the extent that Republicans are showing panic, I think that's the reason.

"Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh."

Well, apparently you do. Congratulations, all Weigentia salutes you!

http://www.thedarktide.com/music/imperial.mp3

As for the CNN poll, what do Orcs know about scientific polling...really, what kind of faith should you put in trends based sub-samples of just 250? CNN should farm the work out to The Elves! Heh.

Trump doesn't have to win in order to wreck the GOP for the upcoming cycle...he just has to kill the brand. To the extent that Republicans are showing panic, I think that's the reason.

The only thing anywhere near as pathetic would be your counterpart fools nominating the DINO neolibcon warmonger Hillary and actually giving your beloved fascist a chance at success.

@alto,

come on, don't hold back now, tell us how you REALLY feel! :)

i always found the DINO/RINO claims to be a bit silly, since neither party has ever wanted for members who were less committed to the ideals of the party (or the nation) than to themselves, their campaign coffers and their private agendas. that's why obama has been so disappointing to many, because he initially came off as one of the rare exceptions, and it turned out that he isn't.

i think that at some point, one has to get over the fact that not everyone can be a lincoln, and see candidates for the varied combinations of self-interest and public interest that they comprise.

JL

:D

Michale
149

@cw,

awwwww! sad puppies!

https://thatbeatjuice.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cute-puppy-sad.jpg

You wingnut troll.
How about admitting that the Trumpon isn't self-funding his campaign and that his donors represent interests who are super special too?
Or does your raging ignorance extend to that too?
You seem to have convinced yourself with you false claims, but all that money he's spending isn't coming out of his own pocket.

Your lies justifying your wingnuttery are pathetic just like everything you spew.
Layers of hypocrisy and head in the sand denial have you whistling past the graveyard while criticism from the Trumpons own party goes unanswered as if ignoring it is adequate or honorable... or anything remotely comparable to discussion or debate fit for an election.

The troll tactics you use to avoid presenting an honest defense are the only thing that is crystal clear.

The only thing anywhere near as pathetic would be your counterpart fools nominating the DINO neolibcon warmonger Hillary and actually giving your beloved fascist a chance at success.

And the worst part is that you think you're so different from them and they think they're so different from you, like a denial contagion has swept through.

"These aren't the drones we're looking for" should be the slogan for both their campaigns.

A

It's the choice between a candidate bought and paid for by corporate and special interests...

And a candidate who is beholden to NO ONE except the American people who voted him into office..

Like I said... It's a crystal clear choice...

Michale
148

Throughout his administration, Obama has failed to adequately communicate what he is doing and why he is doing it.

There's a reason for that...

As for the holiday pledge drive thing ... I'm still working on how that's going to work for me and, Michale isn't making it any easier, I might add ,,,

How so???

It's not my fault that the facts overwhelmingly support my positions... :D

OK, OK... Granted, I could be a little less 'arrogant plick' about it... :D

Michale
147

Michale

Because he is not beholden to ANYONE...

He is a man who has made it clear that he is going to do what is right for the COUNTRY, not what is right for the Democrat Party or Republican Party..

Establishment Republican politicians hate Trump as much as establishment Democrat politicians do...

THAT is the appeal of Trump... A person who will do what's right for the COUNTRY and tell BOTH Political Partys to go pound sand...

Michale
146

I understand that the people who are supporting Trump are very angry and very afraid. They are gravitating toward someone they perceive is strong enough to alleviate their anger and protect them from the sum of all their fears.

Ya gotta ask yourself..

*WHY* are people angry and afraid??

Once you answer that question honestly, you will begin your journey to enlightenment... :D

Michale
144

I'm afraid that it may be too late for a presidential address from the oval office.

Besides, President Obama may not be capable of delivering the kind of speech you and I are hoping for, anymore. Perhaps, he never was ...

It's all rather unfortunate as this administration has accomplished quite a lot over the years and resisted the temptation for easy answers to difficult problems. I think this is especially so when it comes to the effort to put US foreign policy back on track after watching it go largely off the rails in the years following the September 11 terror attacks.

Throughout his administration, Obama has failed to adequately communicate what he is doing and why he is doing it. There was time for this to be overcome but I really think that time has come and gone, regardless of how appropriate, if not always effective, his policies and strategies are. It feels like his opportunity to lead has been lost.

Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow night, after he speaks to the nation and beyond. I hope so ...

As for the holiday pledge drive thing ... I'm still working on how that's going to work for me and, Michale isn't making it any easier, I might add ,,,

“California has some of the toughest gun control laws of any state. And Nevada and Arizona are wide open, so that’s a gigantic back door through which any terrorist can walk.”
-Jerry Brown

Of course, what Moonbeam Brown *DOESN'T* tell you is that the weapons were purchased legally and lawfully *IN CALIFORNIA*!!

So, the ONLY conclusion that one can logically draw is that even with the TOUGHEST gun laws in the country, criminals and terrorists can STILL get guns...

So, the path forward is clear...

Eliminate the 2nd Amendment and gut the BOR...

Good luck with THAT, Moonbeam...

Michale
143

When business owners start having to pay for funeral expenses and medical bills of the people killed and wounded on their property because they forbade people from defending themselves??

Gun Free Zones (AKA Psychotic Shooting Galleries) will become a thing of the past..

That will go a long way in curtailing crowd-based mass shootings..

Michale
141