Where America is headed...

I have not why is that oh sage of the human race?

 

First you argue against it. Then you deny arguing against it.

Which is it? Do you believe that people tend to become more conservative with age or do you believe they do not become more conservative with age? i.e. Will a man who is twenty in 1969 be more conservative when he is seventy in 2019?

 

I am a boomer and used to be a liberal but I grew up.

 

You inability to comprehend what has already been explained in multiple prior posts is NOT my problem.

 

No adult supports the petulant hissyfit tantrum throwing man-child infesting the Oval playpen.

 

Which is it: Do you believe that people tend to become more conservative with age or do you believe they do not become more conservative with age? i.e. Will a man who is twenty in 1969 be more conservative when he is seventy in 2019?

Not a difficult question. After all of our back and forth I cannot figure out what you believe.

 

Lib...triggered! Fantastic!

 

Which part of this statement needs to be explained?

You inability to comprehend what has already been explained in multiple prior posts is NOT my problem.

 

Where America is headed is California, then Detroit, then ultimately, Venezuela.

 

Puerile attempt to hide your embarrassment at supporting your infantile BLOTUS duly noted for the record.

 

After sitting through numerous courses on public speaking, I was taught when the audience does not understand what you are saying, it more likely the speaker's fault than the audience's fault. But I get it. You do not want to answer the question

 

Dems should be embarrassed but we all know dems play politics instead of standing for Americans like Trump does.

 

Endlessly repeating the something over and over and over again to the same individual that no one else has a problem understanding that means that it is the individual that has the comprehension problem. This is evidenced by BLOTUS supporters demonstrating Cognitive Dissonance when it comes to his racist comments. It also applies to NRA supporters who refuse to deal with the FACTUAL REALITY of the carnage committed by the mentally unstable having access to lethal firearms.

 

I am not an NRA member. However, they have also advocated keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

It appears that neither of us has a good solution. You have one that you cannot prove works and which I don't believe will work and I have one that is nearly impossible to implement.

 

Yet another MASSIVE LOAD of bovine excrement!

NRA Director Chris Cox has advocated the EXACT OPPOSITE on behalf of the NRA!

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too

Your credibility suffers when you post such ABSURDITIES!

 

https://www.economist.com/lexington...talking-about-mental-illness-rather-than-guns
"The message discipline of the National Rifle Association and congressional allies has been impressive. After an initial period of silence, the NRA came out with a consistent narrative about mass shootings. The problem, said such spokesmen as Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice-president, was that criminals and the dangerously ill can get their hands on guns."

"He talks of improving mental-health treatment, but then uses the harshest possible language to describe the mentally ill, telling NBC:

We have no national database of these lunatics... We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets."
tps://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2013/03/13/why-the-nra-keeps-talking-about-mental-illness-rather-than-guns

 

"NRA: The mentally ill have gun rights, too
BY CHRIS W. COX

Chris W. Cox is the executive director for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action."

That is a one of the problems. Mentally ill people also have gun rights. It takes more than just saying they are mentally ill to take away their guns. They have to prove that mental illness makes them a threat which most likely would have to proved in a court of law.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/new-survey-young-staying-liberal-conservatives-dying-off.html

 

That load of bovine excrement is WAY out of date!

 

No, it does NOT require that at all as I demonstrated with the CONSENT CHECKBOX!

 

I googled and found this:
"The NRA wants us to talk about mental health over guns. Here's why ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...nra...mental-health.../a857b42e-e39a-11e8-b759-3d...
Nov 8, 2018 - “Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence, the NRA's ..."

Unfortunately, the Washington Post wants me to subscribe to their paper before they will let me post their article. "
Is Nov 8, 2018 recent enough for you?

 

Anything BEHIND a paywall is not allowed by PF Rules.

 

Right. But read what it does say. "Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence, the NRA's ..." An article written on November 8, 2018 which refers all the way back to 1966.

 

And we have the WRITTEN ARTICLE by the NRA DIRECTOR proving that to be utterly FALLACIOUS.

 

No. Only that there are problems with doing something about it. Which is what I said from the beginning.