[blackshoe]

I've lived where I live now for the last eight years. Some six years ago, a couple of my neighboring apartments had tenants who, well, lets just say several times I came home and found a cop car or two in the parking lot. Once it was four.

Those neighbors aren't around any more, and the current set seems much more peaceful. That's a good thing.

One problem with guns is that people think that merely owning one is enough. It's not. You have to know how to use it, you have to practice using it at a decent range, and you have to be willing to use it when necessary. You also have to have the good judgement to know when it's not necessary — yet.

Availability is another matter. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling citizens they can or cannot own guns. So did the Founding Fathers, or we wouldn't have a Second Amendment.

[PhantomSac]

Cruz is running a fantastic campaign, I actually think he's going to get the nomination which is not something I ever thought I'd say lol. He is just an incredibly savvy politician.

*And just to be clear I hate his political views obv

[Trinidad]

 Winstonm, on 2015-December-16, 09:30, said:

Not according to the NRA - they say that gun availability is what keeps us safe.

The mere fact that the bison knows that guns are available will make him think twice...

Rik

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2015-December-16, 23:27, said:

Availability is another matter. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling citizens they can or cannot own guns. So did the Founding Fathers, or we wouldn't have a Second Amendment.

Do you think it is ok for the government to tell citizens whether they can own a nuclear bomb or not? Or a bio-weapon? How about an RPG launcher? At what point does it become ok? A government has a duty to make its country as safe as possible for its citizens. Coming directly after a war of independence where the perceived enemy is a well armed and trained foreign army is perhaps a different time to one where the primary threat is internal from criminals, terrorists, attention seekers and, yes, normal citizens that misuse their weapons. The government has to make some judgment about this - the Founding Fathers may well have been right about what was safest for the fledgling America in the 18th century, in the 21st century the evidence supports a different position.

[cherdano]

Quiz: who said this?

Quote

We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!

[Winstonm]

 cherdano, on 2015-December-17, 07:38, said:

Quiz: who said this?

Thomas Jefferson?

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2015-December-16, 23:27, said:

Availability is another matter. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling citizens they can or cannot own guns. So did the Founding Fathers, or we wouldn't have a Second Amendment.

In fact, it wasn't until 2008 that the NRA's version of understanding the Second Amendment was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.

[barmar]

To the Founding Fathers, "arms" meant muskets and cannons.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2015-December-17, 10:12, said:

To the Founding Fathers, "arms" meant muskets and cannons.

And before that, stones and handmade spears.

[barmar]

And don't forget that the FF were men of their time, and not everything they did or wrote/said should be enshrined for all time. Many of them owned slaves, for instance, and the Constitution allowed this.

[Zelandakh]

 cherdano, on 2015-December-17, 07:38, said:

Quiz: who said this?

The next PotUSA?

[mike777]

Ok this thread seems to have turned into "the govt would make us much more safer if it would just confiscate guns".

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2015-December-17, 12:04, said:

Ok this thread seems to have turned into "the govt would make us much more safer if it would just confiscate guns".

It is up to you to get this thread on track. That will give you skin in this game.

[y66]

Good take here on the omnibus spending bill.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-December-21, 21:37, said:

Good take here on the omnibus spending bill.

I was particularly pleased by this paragraph:

Quote

The intransigence of the hard right empowers Democrats. Mr. McConnell and particularly Mr. Ryan were forced to work with Democrats to fashion the big year-end package because they couldn’t be certain of enough Republican support for the spending bill. As a result, Mr. Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, played outsize roles in writing the bill and, in cooperation with the White House, managed to keep out most policy changes sought by conservatives who were not going to vote for the legislation anyway. Republicans got to repeal a 40-year ban on oil exports, but Democrats got more.

The thought that the extremes could be told to go play with themselves while more reasonable people get something done is a development that I have been hoping for.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2015-December-22, 09:02, said:

I was particularly pleased by this paragraph:


The thought that the extremes could be told to go play with themselves while more reasonable people get something done is a development that I have been hoping for.

The sad oddity to me is that the hard right cannot see itself as equivalent to the Taliban, that the only people whom they consider "reasonable" are those who agree with them.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2015-December-16, 23:27, said:

One problem with guns is that people think that merely owning one is enough. It's not. You have to know how to use it, you have to practice using it at a decent range, and you have to be willing to use it when necessary. You also have to have the good judgement to know when it's not necessary — yet.

That seems like a good argument to limit gun availability to those who have the facilities and the skills, i.e. law enforcement and the military...

Rik

[Flem72]

 barmar, on 2015-December-14, 18:51, said:

If legislating for gun control worked, France would be one of the safest countries in the world. It clearly is not. What it is, is complicated.

[Flem72]

 cherdano, on 2015-December-17, 07:38, said:

Quiz: who said this?

The Donald.

[Flem72]

 Winstonm, on 2015-December-17, 09:13, said:

In fact, it wasn't until 2008 that the NRA's version of understanding the Second Amendment was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.

Which, while true in its essentials -- individual gun ownership -- is somewhat misleading. Heller was the first test of that particular "understanding," the first SCOTUS case to address a legislative act attempting to restrict individual gun ownership (not including say tommy guns or auto weapons or ownership by felons, the "mentally ill" etc.)