Is this website making America better?

Capitalism is FAILING We the People because it has BRIBED our "representatives" and CORRUPTED our government to the point where it does us more harm than good.

 

Why are you ignoring the FAILED CAPITALIST UTOPIA body count that INCLUDES the millions who SUFFERED and DIED because of the ABSENCE of affordable healthcare?

 

Right ... people can be bought. People run governments. That is my point. Why would i think it would be different under socialism? You can't trust government now, why would you give it even more control over our lives.

Take the $ out of government process. Remove private $ from elections. Remove the lobby industry. Remove the means of big business influence.

 

What happens? The 'punishment' become weaker and weaker... consequently, we have more of the 'crime'.... Example: 'death-row' is a joke -- and it usually takes at least 10 years or much more before a capital punishment is actually carried out. Or, in an armed-robbery conviction, the guy gets a ten year sentence, but serves 18 months and then is out on parole.... This happens WAY to often.

Prohibition gave rise to the Mafia!

The asinine War on Drugs has turned the nation into a drug dealer's shooting range.

Guess what will happen when you do the same thing with GUNS?

Not every problem is a NAIL and we have more than just a HAMMER to solve this problem.

 

Absolutely!

Make it a criminal offence for BOTH parties with a minimum sentence of 20 years for ANYONE trying to bribe an elected official AND the elected official. Place a 10 year ban on anyone leaving elected office from being employed by any industry in which they passed legislation that benefited that industry. Make it MANDATORY that anyone who worked in an industry prior to being elected to RECUSE themselves from voting on any bills pertaining to that industry.

 

Please pay no attention to my reply to your earlier post, Te. I don't know what happened but it got all messed up and nearly all of it just was 'lost' somehow. I'll reply later. I'm mad at myself, and I don't even know what I did wrong. I'll get back to you later.... I've asked the Moderator to delete my reply-post above. Never had exactly that happen before....

 

Not a problem. I think that there is something not quite right with the forum software because it seems both slower and a bit flaky. I suspect that they might have applied a patch and it needs to be rolled back until it can be stabilized but that is not our problem.

Whenever you get an opportunity we can resume.

 

Obama was a cry baby and vindictive. He hated the people in the press who didn't glorify him so he wiretapped them and sicked the FBI on them.

He did the same to members of Congress and the Supreme court.

Trump was right that Obama was illegally wiretapping his campaign. But a pathetic human being he was.

 

Update -- our excellent forum moderator, Lee S, has sent me a message saying that there has been a software glitch involving Windows 10. The problem is being corrected now. More later.

Meanwhile, I'll just say this...

I'll support wait-times for firearms purchases for as long as needed to do it RIGHT! That may be 30 minutes... or it may be 30 days! Just do it right!

I'm wholly against the idea of penalizing a legal firearm owner because some criminal -- particularly a robber or burglar -- steals a weapon from him. That's victimizing the victim! And the follow-on is that I do not approve at all of the idea that all gun owners have to have their unloaded weapons locked up in a "safe". If you're fortunate, you may never have to need a firearm even once in your life, Te -- but if you have a situation that suddenly pops up where you NEED it, then you NEED it -- right now, and you don't need to have to be trying to remember combination codes, or be hunting for a long-forgotten key, trying to cram ammuntion into the weapon while you're in a tense situation, or any of that nonsense.

Those with children or "crazies" in the house, SHOULD be required to keep the firearms completely sequestered in a dependable way, or (here it comes), face mandatory, draconian prison sentences. I'm using the word, "draconian" a lot, but it does have its uses, and its functions. We must move into the era of "zero-tolerance" for law-breaking of all kinds, Te, especially involving firearms -- because that is the only thing that the masses of the population will respond to in any way that is useful!

 

Good to hear that the staff is aware of the problem and sorting it out.

Judging from your response above we both AGREE that something needs to be done, Cy. We just differ on the MEANS to reach an effective outcome.

So how about a compromise?

Blue states implement INCENTIVE programs and Red states implement DRACONIAN measures and then we can compare results after a decade or so.

My bet is that prison populations will INCREASE in Red states while mass shootings and gun violence with continue to rise. In the Blue states prison populations will remain more or less the same while mass shootings and gun violence decreases.

 

LOL.. most of it came from Chicago... in Chicago and before; Obama wasn't Black .. he was (and is) a NE Ivy League Elitist..

He has since, used his skin color as a shield, and as a weapon.. Obama wasn't considered Black until he got on the national stage.. and then just among racist whites who wanted to vote for the guy based on his skin color to prove that they don't vote on people based on their skin color. You want to know how racist the President that ginned up racism in this country is? He married Michelle to up his "blackness" credibility.. and dumped the love of his life because she wasn't Black.

 

please supply proof for every point you claim here

 

Sorry, Te, but ever since Abraham Lincoln successfully pushed through his own version of "One Ring To Rule Them All", it is unlikely that it would ever be acceptable for 'Red' states to have dramatically different standards from "Blue" ones. Besides, although I know it is the epitome of indelicacy and political-INcorrectness to say it, in those countries where truly draconian punishments are meted out for breaking the law, crime drops to microscopic levels....

. "...yeh, but at least you can go into a Walmart now and not be killed!"

 

Allow me to assist.

Barack Obama is not "Black"... he's a "mulatto". White mother, Black father.

The Spanish root word, mulato, is used to mean "of mixed breed", specifically indicating a mixture of some other race and Black.

But, to my knowledge, his first publicly-elected position was in Chicago, not the Northeast.

 

Since I joined it has become a much better board, and good for America, land of the free and home of ...

Le Chef!

But seriously, very few of us here are ever persuaded out of our biased positions, so sometimes it seems pointless to debate

But ....

I think that change in the individual can be gradual and insidious, so that something a leftist says today may (and will) strike me as annoying, but it may combine with other things to change my views over time.

Taxation is one of them. I want to be Libertarian but the deficit and debt are getting way past ridiculous and I now believe that we need higher taxes. It's not a commie plot. Eisenhower would support higher taxes at this point. Yes it could cool the economy. I don't care. Fostering a booming economy is not the only purpose of government.

 

Removing EASY ACCESS to firearms all but eliminates mass shootings in those other nations.

That is what can be accomplished with INCENTIVES to get rid of that easy access by locking up those who sell them.

And yes, we can have BOTH Draconian and Incentive programs in the Law of the Land and we just allow the states to decide which aspects they want to enforce.

States without EASY ACCESS to firearms will emulate those other nations results while states that continue to allow easy access will continue their downward spiral of ever more mass murders.

 

Or maybe they just tire of outsiders, constantly preaching at us, what we should do with our rights...? Think about it...

 

Okay. Did that. 2A goes.

 

Or.....some smart Lawyer finds a way around it.

 

LOL, OK. Sure...Yawn

 

Well, hell, then let's make "EASY ACCESS" a great deal less easy! Like I said, let's have background checks that take as long as needed in order to make certain that nobody in the "criminals and crazies" category can just waltz into a gun store and buy ANYTHING.

But what always happens when serious dialogue gets started about solutions to mass-murders, etc., is that the Left starts letting its imagination run wild! They want to forbid the sale of some weapons altogether; they want to forbid the sale of ammuntion magazines that hold more than a few cartridges; they want to force everybody to unload their weapons and STICK THEM IN GUN SAFES; they want to slap all kinds of extra taxes, fees, and new 'programs' on people designed to make gun ownership very expensive and a regulatory pain in the ass!

That's when we on the Right get very stiff-necked and become very resistant to change -- because it is so obvious that the Left will just go on pushing, pushing, and pushing until they disarm us completely -- and then, as they say, "only criminals will have guns"....

Instead of turning the whole thing into a perpetually unresolvable nightmare, let's forge ahead with hard-core background checks -- much like the ones you go through for government security clearances! Let's focus on the actual PROBLEM -- which are the "criminals and crazies" themselves -- not mainstream, law-abiding American citizens! And, again, let the punishment be severe, Te -- or there will be no obedience! As we used to say when I was young, "To get a mule's attention, sometimes you have to hit the dumb son-of-a-bitch in the head with a two-by-four!"

. "No guns for "criminals and crazies"!"

 

I have no problem whatsoever with requiring that EVERYONE go through the same stringent government security checks in order to own firearms.

But it will be your own side that whines about their precious "freedoms" being infringed if we implemented that. However that is a great starting point so the whiners are just going to have to deal with the consequences of enabling mass shootings.

Make the case for anyone needing MORE than a 10 round clip, Cy. If anyone can't hit what they are shooting at least once out of ten attempts do we really want to give them another 20 chances to MISS and hit innocent bystanders instead? Remember that we are talking about CIVILIAN gun ownership here. They are not entering a war zone. There is no legitimate justification for those magazines but feel free to prove me wrong.

The concept of RESTRICTING the ownership of ammunition actually makes sense because a gun without bullets is just a club. If a perp buys a gun on the street but can't obtain any bullets for it then he would be better off without it. But I have a better idea. Make purchasing any ammunition require the presentation of a valid state issued id and keep a REGISTER of all purchased ammunition. Furthermore REQUIRE that ALL ammunition MUST contain taggants so that the ammunition register can be used to trace who purchased the ammunition used in committing a crime. This must apply to all loose powder purchases for those who want to reload their own ammunition. Just imagine how much easier it will be to solve a crime when the taggants at the scene match those found on the clothes of the perp?

We are getting somewhere at last.

 

I hope to pleasantly surprise you by saying that I agree with everything you said in the post above except for the part about magazine capacities. When you are suddenly confronted with an armed assailant, Te, you ARE in "a war zone". But I do agree that background checks and presentation of rock-solid ID credentials should be required for all purchases of ammuntion, as well as weapons.

Moreover, because the kinds of background checks I'm thinking of involve personnel, equipment, and related expense, there should be a fee charged by the government for the processing of these background checks. Believe me, Te, if we start using even low-level security clearance criteria for firearm and ammo purchases, a LOT of people will be unable to make the buys. (I've held two different TS clearances during my 'work' life and you wouldn't believe what that entailed.... )

But, please, don't require people to buy "gun safes". Think: so 'da boyz in da 'hood' start kicking in your front door in a home-invasion! Now you're supposed to try to remember the combination for your gun safe, get it open, find the ammo, load the weapon, and then try to stop the criminals? To use your description, with which I agree, an unloaded gun is nothing but a club, or, a 'rock'....

 

We agree on the background checks and the ammo registration.

Let's just discuss turning your own home into "war zone" with a hypothetical scenario.

It is 3 am and you are woken by the sound of breaking glass so you grab your firearm with it's 30 round magazine and before you can even reach for your glasses you hear footsteps outside your bedroom door so you use your "stand your ground" protocol and open fire letting lose the entire magazine because you know you have a spare under your pillow. The bullet riddled door swings open and your inebriated grandson collapses on to your bedroom floor with dead eyes staring at you with a look you will never forget.

Afterwards you discover that he just broke a glass as he was getting himself a drink of water prior to heading past your bedroom to the guest room where he is staying over.

If you only had 6 or 10 rounds you would have waited until you had a clear shot but with 30 rounds you turned your own home into BOTH a war zone and a killing ground because you could afford to pump all that lead "downrange" and ensure that you and your spouse were safe. In your half asleep state you forgot that your grandson had come for a visit and had gone out to have a couple of drinks with his buddies.

Just the very concept of turning your own home into a "war zone" is WRONG, Cy! What if a police cruiser was coming down the street when you opened fire? Wouldn't the cops be justified in killing you as soon as they burst into that "war zone" of yours since you are armed and dangerous and have already killed someone?

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario but it is closer to reality than you might think. It even has it's own name now. It is called Family-Fire!

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

https://www.bradyunited.org/program/end-family-fire

I asked you to justify the need for large capacity magazines and you brought up "war zones". How many family members die in those "war zones" of yours?

 

"You have a GUN in your SHOWER?"
"You don't?"