The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Hink]

Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.

Mike

I don't blame the object, I blame the human. That doesn't stop me from understanding that if the object wasn't readily available, the human might not have had the opportunity to fulfill their sick fantasy.

The inanimate object argument is the weakest of all anti-gun control arguments there are. "You don't blame the car when it hits someone...." You are right, but cars have a purpose that is beyond killing things. Guns are made for the sole purpose of shooting things. You can argue that some are to kill animals that are overpopulated. Some are to shoot at a range.

The inanimate object though is created to shoot at thing. The biggest difference between a gun and a spoon is that there is a primarily positive use for a spoon. No such use exists for a gun except for the pleasure it brings the shooter.

I would even argue that a hatchet (which can be used quite easily to kill) has a primarily positive use which is to cut wood. A knife? Cut food. Please tell me what the purpose or use of a gun is outside of shooting something? And then explain to me that if it is for "sport" or "enjoyment", why you shouldn't be regulated like many other things that people do for "sport" or "enjoyment".... like walk around downtown naked and have sex in public

My issue is that weak arguments like this continue to stop the reasonable regulations that need to be put in place. Many republicans understand this needs to happen. Unfortunately there is the Hannity/Limbaugh/Tea Party crowd that is either too partisan, or too uneducated to understand the need.

[giff57]

I sometimes wish I was still naive on the mental health issue. Prior to 1995, my niece was a very intelligent but quite strange teenager. Looking back one sees signs of things not being right, but in the huge scale of humanness there isn't really much difference between a little weird and mental illness. On the day that McVeigh was sentenced to death things changed. She began beating her head against the wall and acting out violently. Some time later she was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and a couple of other things. Ever since then she acts exactly like every one of these people that snap and do harm to others. She has be passed from one institution to another since 1995. My mother and I are her co-guardians. Thankfully she has not been turned out into society like many others, but only because of constant vigilance by us. This country needs to spend real money on solving this. When there is no profit to be made, the mentally ill get very poor care. If you are a doctor or a drug maker, there isn't much incentive to work for people that have no income and rely on medicaid.

Do we need 30 round magazines, no. Will banning them do anything but make us feel like we are doing something? also no. Giving a teacher a weapon will not make them a Navy Seal. Having trained armed professionals in the schools makes some sense. If we care about safety we need to just spend the money. Kicking around the pro-gun V anti-gun agenda does nothing to solve the problem.

[michaelskis]

I sometimes wish I was still naive on the mental health issue. Prior to 1995, my niece was a very intelligent but quite strange teenager. Looking back one sees signs of things not being right, but in the huge scale of humanness there isn't really much difference between a little weird and mental illness. On the day that McVeigh was sentenced to death things changed. She began beating her head against the wall and acting out violently. Some time later she was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and a couple of other things. Ever since then she acts exactly like every one of these people that snap and do harm to others. She has be passed from one institution to another since 1995. My mother and I are her co-guardians. Thankfully she has not been turned out into society like many others, but only because of constant vigilance by us. This country needs to spend real money on solving this. When there is no profit to be made, the mentally ill get very poor care. If you are a doctor or a drug maker, there isn't much incentive to work for people that have no income and rely on medicaid.

Do we need 30 round magazines, no. Will banning them do anything but make us feel like we are doing something? also no. Giving a teacher a weapon will not make them a Navy Seal. Having trained armed professionals in the schools makes some sense. If we care about safety we need to just spend the money. Kicking around the pro-gun V anti-gun agenda does nothing to solve the problem.

I agree 100%. I also think that in terms of mental health, we need to better understand what might be causing people with metal issues to act that way. In addition to a nursing degree, my wife has a degree in bio-psychology, and she said that there are several foods and medications these days that include chemicals that have been scientifically proven to cause nervous and brain disorders but the EPA says that they are safe in small doses for 'most' people. Many of these chemicals can also damage our DNA, so even if our kids are not exposed to some things, they might still have issues as if they were.

Then there is the whole environmental thing. Something might be safe today but might not be safe tomorrow. Just look at how they did x-rays years back.

[wahday]

Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.

Mike

I agree with Hink that this is a very weak argument. And I don't see how advocating for more stringent gun control laws blames the gun. Guns don't apply for permits, people do.

Besides, the above can be said of explosives or cars or heavy machinery, including semi-trucks. And yet all of these require special training and licenses that are more onerous and require more time and education than guns. In fact, acquiring the materials necessary to create a bomb, for example, is highly regulated and very challenging to do in the wake of 9/11. Which is a good thing! Why such a contrast with guns and their acquisition?

The thing about guns in the schools. IMHO:

1) “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” (from a well known 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology article)

If this is the case, why would having a gun in a school be safer? This is a high stress job for the adults who work there and having a gun about, regardless of the precautions, seems like tempting fate. How would it be secured? Is it conceal/carry? Could a child conceivably take a gun from a teacher? Could a teacher take it off campus? If its locked, how easy would it be to access in the event of an attack? What if the person(s) authorized to handle to firearm is also distraught, mentally ill or otherwise unstable (or becomes so)? If its hard to tell if a mentally ill person in the public at large is a threat, would it be any easier to detect among teachers?

[ColoGI]

1) “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” (from a well known 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology article)

If this is the case, why would having a gun in a school be safer? ?

This isn't about the safety of children. This is about th' fraydum of scared white men to have their inane cowboy fantasy, and to force their weird view of the world on the majority.

Enough is enough with the gun fetishists. Time to take back our country.

[Linda_D]

This isn't about the safety of children. This is about th' fraydum of scared white men to have their inane cowboy fantasy, and to force their weird view of the world on the majority.

Enough is enough with the gun fetishists. Time to take back our country.

Sad but true. The number of households that have guns in them has dropped but the number of guns in society has increased, which means that fewer people are owning more guns. We've gone from households commonly having a hunting shotgun or rifle in the 1940s to many fewer households having arsenals of hunting guns, pistols, and semi-automatic rifles.

Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza, legally owned three guns which she claimed she needed for protection. Her son took two of those guns and used them to kill her in her sleep, 26 children and adults in the school, and then himself. Some protection.

[btrage]

How come the unions in Michigan aren't going crazy about this???

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

It could potentially result in more losses of union workers at the local government level than any RTW legislation.

[Planit]

Giving teachers a gun - oh my. I can see a future headline read 'Teacher waves gun & threatens students in class to get them to behave'

2nd Amendment, that's cool. BUT do we really need assualt weapons available to the public? NOPE. They are called assault weapons for a reason. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available for public purchase unless they are rendered unusable. That way people can show them off, but that's it.

A friend of mine asked a good question a couple of days ago -
Which is more dangerous, a joint or a gun? Which is illegal, a joint or a gun? Makes alot of sense don't it.

[michaelskis]

Giving teachers a gun - oh my. I can see a future headline read 'Teacher waves gun & threatens students in class to get them to behave'

If that is the case, they should not be a teacher in the first place. Most of the regulations (proposed and otherwise) that I have seen require anyone (teachers included) to have advanced training, which in many cases is also mental exams.

2nd Amendment, that's cool. BUT do we really need assualt weapons available to the public? NOPE. They are called assault weapons for a reason. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available for public purchase unless they are rendered unusable. That way people can show them off, but that's it.

Do we really need cars that will go 120 per hour in the the US... nope. But we do. Do we really need 54 inch tvs with 400 channels in the us... nope but we do. I know, neither of these have been used in mass killings, but what fraction of a percentage of weapons (any) are used in a crime? The several people who I know who have them don't 'show' them off. They tend to hide them and shoot them when no one is around or with close friends. Otherwise, they stay in gun safes.

A friend of mine asked a good question a couple of days ago -
Which is more dangerous, a joint or a gun? Which is illegal, a joint or a gun? Makes alot of sense don't it.

Hey, I think that pot should be legal.



I also wonder what would happen if guns are made illegal. I foresee organized crime having a field day with this one.

[otterpop]

If that is the case, they should not be a teacher in the first place. Most of the regulations (proposed and otherwise) that I have seen require anyone (teachers included) to have advanced training, which in many cases is also mental exams.


I also wonder what would happen if guns are made illegal. I foresee organized crime having a field day with this one.

I went to a Catholic high school and many of my teachers were Christian Brothers. I really don't think they got much testing for mental health. Among them were child molesters, alcoholics, and many had serious anger issues (Brothers did hit students, and my brother told me he saw one of the brothers put a student in a headlock and held a lit cigarette inches from the student's face. I had a Christian Brother scream obscenities in my face while we were in church because he didn't like the way I was singing in chorus (sorry, I was 14 and my voice was subject to unintended and not always acoustical variations). So, I would have to say that teachers are not tested for mental stability. Nor are they any less prone to commit assaults, murders or other crimes than any of the rest of us.

Besides, I do not think more guns and more people with guns is any solution to improving safety of children in school. Any gun that is kept out of a school is 100 percent guaranteed not to harm a child there.

I don't think anyone seriously considers making guns illegal. What is and should be proposed is keeping them out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but the Newtown shooter's mom knew her son had problems, and yet she did not secure her weapons. She allowed a person who she believed to be mentally ill to have access to an assault weapon and semi-automatic handguns, and, if news reports are correct, at a time when she was considering having him involuntarily commited for mental health evaluation.

We already have a huge black market in illegal firearms, both stolen and smuggled. My dad was a lawyer and one of his clients turned over a gun to my dad that was smuggled into this country and the man bought off of a shrimp boat in Morgan City. Multiply that gun by thousands and you have a serious problem in this country. Lots of gang members and assorted thugs have guns either stolen from or sold by police from their evidence lockers.

[imaplanner]

We already have a huge black market in illegal firearms, both stolen and smuggled. .

Much of those are sold in gun shows through the gun show loophole. It amazes me that people are against closing the gun show loophole, that allows nearly 40% of our guns to be sold without background checks or licensing requirements. As far as I know nothing has really changed with regards to gun shows in the last 20 years when I was a youngster. When I was 14 my friend (who was the same age) and I went to a gun show and bought a sawed off shotgun and a .38. No questions asked. That kind of shit needs to not happen.

[btrage]

The idea put forth by the NRA that owning assault weapons is good for the country does just as much damage to our youth as violent movies and video games. It is all just part of the gun culture that grows within society.

I can accept that our society has become desensitized to violence due to a number of things, including those put forth by the NRA. But that does not mean that a society which glorifies the acceptance of assault weapons is not at fault.

[imaplanner]

I just found out one of our local high schools was cancelled today because some kid had made threats about shooting up the school today. So I guess quite a few other kids then tried to take guns to school to try to protect themselves. First thing in the morning I guess parents and teachers were freaking out, kids were showing up with guns in their backpacks, and they cancelled class. Wow.

[btrage]

Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?

[otterpop]

Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?

And since 9-11, considerable limitations on the 4th Amendment, as well.

[hilldweller]

This whole fiscal cliff thing is pretty fascinating. The GOP is completely unraveling and lost whatever leverage it had after Boehner's "Plan B" boondoggle. Obama could totally bring the hammer down at this point if he wanted to.

[imaplanner]

This whole fiscal cliff thing is pretty fascinating. The GOP is completely unraveling and lost whatever leverage it had after Boehner's "Plan B" boondoggle. Obama could totally bring the hammer down at this point if he wanted to.

Andrew Sulllivan has a good take on the modern GOP and he doesn't mince words.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....12/enough.html

[ColoGI]

Andrew Sulllivan has a good take on the modern GOP and he doesn't mince words.

Charlie Pierce is even more brutal to the fading GoOPers and the gun cult fetishizer enabler NRA. One has to think that POTUS gave the GOP enough rope for our entertainment.

Let us hope we had our tipping point and sane society can make these creepy gun fetishists go away. Maybe they can all Go Galt to Tejas after it secedes.

[Linda_D]

Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?

And since 9-11, considerable limitations on the 4th Amendment, as well.

QFT. My question is, how do the gun fetishers (thanks, Colo GI for that apt description) expect to protect themselves from the US government's drones and smart bombs with their mini-arsenals if they really do engage in armed rebellion? Talk about living in a sick fantasy world. These fools would literally be using bows and arrows against cannons if that contest ever came to pass -- and that's NOT even taking into account the fact that they wouldn't have much, if any support, among the general population. How much support did any of the militia groups pre-9/11 get from anybody who wasn't already in the tin-hat brigades? How much support did the anti-abortion bombers and snipers get from the general public? How much support did the violent anti-war/anti-establishment protesters (bombers, bank robbers, etc) get from the general public?

[michaelskis]

This whole fiscal cliff thing is pretty fascinating. The GOP is completely unraveling and lost whatever leverage it had after Boehner's "Plan B" boondoggle. Obama could totally bring the hammer down at this point if he wanted to.

All I know is that it would raise taxes on those making over a million dollars. Was there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?

The whole system is a problem and I don't see just raising taxes doing much good.

[ColoGI]

[Were] there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?

Surely you weren't paying attention. The GoOPers weren't satisfied with cuts to the takers 47% poor so they pouted and whined and stomped their widdle feet. IMHO they are close to ungovernable and irrelevant, especially in light of Friday's press conference with the head of their iconic organization. I mean, really, who is going to write off the gun purchases in every school in Murrica as advertising (but not school supplies) so we can be fully militarized like in their wet dream? If it weren't so weak and pathetic, it would be funny.

[Dan]

The pro-gun crowd seems to be enamored of making analogies between guns and cars lately. "Cars kill thousands of people every year. Why don't we get rid of cars, too?"

I thought the car analogies were flawed at first, but after considering it a bit more, I think it makes perfect sense.

* I have to be licensed to drive a car. To get that license, I need to show that I can safely drive a car on pubic roads, and that I am familiar with basic motor vehicle and traffic laws.
* Cars are subject to strict government rules regarding emissions, safety, and fuel consumption, among many other attributes.
* Cars are heavily taxed, and may be subject to import duties.
* Cars that are very large and/or powerful are subject to gas guzzler and/or luxury taxes.
* Gasoline is also heavily taxed and regulated.
* Cars must be individually registered with the state government.
* Cars must pass strict annual safety inspections in New York, and many other states as well.
* Cars and drivers require liability insurance. My insurance rate would be much higher if I drove a sports car.
* If I drive too fast and/or carelessly, or under the influence of alcohol and drugs, I'll be penalized with points on my driver's license, fines, higher insurance rates. If I get too many points, my license may be suspended or revoked, and I may face jail time.
* If my driving skills deteriorate from age, a physical disability, or mental illness, my driving privileges will be curtailed or revoked.

[imaplanner]

The pro-gun crowd

That's outdated terminology. Now we call them gun-nuts

Also, to be honest, there is no constitutional right to own or operate a car.

All I know is that it would raise taxes on those making over a million dollars. Was there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?

This is a good chart showing the offers. Plan B is the last one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-one-chart/

[ColoGI]

The pro-gun crowd seems to be enamored of making analogies between guns and cars lately. "Cars kill thousands of people every year. Why don't we get rid of cars, too?"

I thought the car analogies were flawed at first, but after considering it a bit more, I think it makes perfect sense.

* I have to be licensed to drive a car. To get that license, I need to show that I can safely drive a car on pubic roads, and that I am familiar with basic motor vehicle and traffic laws.
* Cars are subject to strict government rules regarding emissions, safety, and fuel consumption, among many other attributes.
* Cars are heavily taxed, and may be subject to import duties.
* Cars that are very large and/or powerful are subject to gas guzzler and/or luxury taxes.
* Gasoline is also heavily taxed and regulated.
* Cars must be individually registered with the state government.
* Cars must pass strict annual safety inspections in New York, and many other states as well.
* Cars and drivers require liability insurance. My insurance rate would be much higher if I drove a sports car.
* If I drive too fast and/or carelessly, or under the influence of alcohol and drugs, I'll be penalized with points on my driver's license, fines, higher insurance rates. If I get too many points, my license may be suspended or revoked, and I may face jail time.
* If my driving skills deteriorate from age, a physical disability, or mental illness, my driving privileges will be curtailed or revoked.

Don't forget: the lobbyists for the creepy little gun fetishizers mandated that the government funds to the total of

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

and then

"Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health."

Pretty much the exact opposite of cars, the other ultimate symbol of Murrican muscle, freedom, paynus compensation, and exceptionalism.

[michaelskis]

Today, a friend said that one of the GOP put out the idea to just let the D's pass what ever they want, and that the R's would vote present just so something would pass, but letting the people know they are in objection, but lost the political game at the tax payers expense.

Regardless what happens I still think that they are all idiots in Washington. None of them are doing what is best for the county, they are doing what is best for their special interest group.