Go

start

ding

Done

I do agree with drwho, you need to get rid of handguns and assault rifles, then licence firearms properly with background checks. It can be done and you will save lives, in the US it will be thousands of lives.I wish you all luck, but fear you are all so used to the killings you are not upset about innocent deaths to make the courageous decisions that are required.

Not exactly, Phil. I was actually drawing a line in the sand. The gun control measures Tuco and others are proposing would have little effect on the gun death statistics. Only a total ban has a chance of making a significant difference, but I would rather be free than safe.

I am even sceptical that a total ban would make us safer. The government and police would still possess guns, so there would be a black market which would supply criminals and mass murderers.

A total ban would no doubt reduce the gun death statistic, but that would be because 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides.

done

I really want to agree with you drwho but then you go and say gun control measures I and others are proposing. I never proposed a total ban. I want sensible gun control laws and have them enforced. Something on the lines of the SAFE act we have here in New York. And please stop with the "I would rather be free than safe" Free to do what? Go to a Vegas country music festival? Go to a nightclub in Orlando? Go to school in Connecticut? etc.. etc.. etc.. Saner gun laws will not take away your "freedom".

The Republican Congressman and Michael Moore who are proposing to repeal the 2nd Amendment are not calling for repeal so that it actually happens but starting a bargaining process. Knowing if they call for the most extreme measure they are more likely to get something closer to the middle. This is what compromise has come to in America.

The NRA who is now saying they would support a ban on bump stocks are doing the same thing. Knowing full well that there are more devices that work even better than a bump stock but not calling for the ban on those.

You want your personal freedom drwho. So do I. I have a daughter who is away at college. I work at a University. My daughter wants to work in music festival promotions. I get sick to my stomach when I get an emergency alert text from her school or my place of work. When will an "Active Shooter" find his mark on someone you or I love? Will you then be "free", will you be proud that you stood for the "right" of that shooter to blow away another human being when maybe, just maybe it could have been prevented?

Yes you will never stop all the attacks. But doing nothing in the name of "freedom" is ludicrous. If that were not the case then you should be calling for the complete ban of the TSA and the Patriot Act.

Phil said: " It can be done and you will save lives, in the US it will be thousands of lives." I am in total agreement. Banning alcohol and tabacco will save MILLIONS of lives as these are some of the most egregious violations of public policy every instituted in modern societies...

Oh...WAIT!!!

To take this to a different place. Using the 2nd Amendment to claim the right of personal ownership of guns ignores the history of the 2nd Amendments purpose in convincing the slave holding states to ratify the Constitution. They did not want to have to disarm their slave patrols.

Sorry...we were talking about the 30,000 people who die from guns but not the 500,000 from alcohol and tabacco...

never mind...

Not for some people to sit in their living rooms watching Duck Dynasty to stockpile weapons because they believe the government is coming after them.

ANNUALLY BY THE WAY....

JUST SAYING

http://www.carltbogus.com/edmund-a-blog/72-th\ne-hidden-history-of-the-second-amendment-redu\nx

Done

Ik911 - remember, it is not important that a person dies, it is only important HOW they die. If a drunk slaughters a family, it is because the drunk has a "disease." If a person with a gun slaughters a family it is because conservatives will not revoke the 2nd amendment. However, in both cases, the family is just as dead, it's just that the DUI death does not support the liberal narrative.

Tuco, let me be clear. I understand you don't want a total ban. That's what will not work! I agree with you that better background checks would help. We probably disagree how to improve that system.

Tuco, the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with armed slave patrols. Perhaps if you didn't get your history from Howard Zinn you would know that.

Read the article drwho. It had as much to do with slave patrols as Somerset v Stewart had with our declaring independence from England.

Just because you are unaware of history that isn't taught in schools doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Actually gun control was first introduced in this country to prevent blacks from owning guns.

I also don't remember reading anything from Zinn where he says anything about the 2nd Amendment and slavery.

So saying that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with armed slave patrols is a stretch. The same kind of stretch that says "a well regulated milita" refers to individual ownership.

It says "the peoples' right to keep and bear arms..." Could it be any clearer?

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.

Ik911 - and as long as we are talking about HOW people die, the madman in Vegas killed 58 people. In Chicago in September 58 people were killed by guns. So far in 2017 there have been 497 people killed by guns in Chicago. Yet, no news organization spent days talking about those deaths. Why? Because there is no political capital to be gained.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason

I still contend that if the left is really concerned about death of innocents, its focus is misplaced.

Yeah George Mason is mentioned in that article. He was calling for the arming of "militias" to protect his property.

KT, I'll second that!

The truth is the left is not concerned about the death of innocents or anyone but themselves. They are concerned only with the destruction of personal liberty and installation of a strong federal government where a group of bureaucrats determine what is right and wrong for the masses. Not just guns, but earnings, health, diet, even thought.

How many of those 497 people in Chicago were killed by 1 person? Aren't you outraged about this white on white murder in Vegas?

I am not "outraged" because that term has no meaning anymore. I am also intelligent enough to realize that no law would stop that madman from killing. Just like draconian guns laws have no affect on the murder rate in Chicago.

That is so ridiculous KnightTime. Back it up.

http://heyjackass.com/

There are no draconian gun laws in Wisconsin where most of the guns used in Chicago murders have come from.

Back that up

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists\n/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-g\nlanton-20171003-story.html

So, since the people in Chicago cannot handle firearms responsibly you want to take away the gun rights of the good Wisconsin folks who can handle guns responsibly?

I was talking about backing up your claim about the Left.

I never said that drwho.

But that is what you inferred, is it not? If guns were not so readily available just over the border (Wisconsin, Chicago suburbs) then gun crime in Chicago would go down.

Listen to any speech by that intellectual genius Hilary Clinton or that pandering Bernie Sanders. Turn on MSNBC or CNN and listen to one of their "panels"

I was inferring that there are no draconian laws in Chicago to claim that draconian gun laws have no effect.

I find it difficult that you have actually listened to any speech by Clinton or Sanders without an inbred hatred of them. KnightTime. You believe as you do. You forcefully put your beliefs forward and for that I respect you. But you are usually very very radically right wing and misguided. And for that I oppose you.

To say that the Left is not concerned with personal liberty is to deny that with very few exceptions the liberties that we enjoy today were fought for by Liberal minded activists.

Like the "liberty" to murder babies in the womb. But they're not to concerned with the freedom of conscience of the owners of Hobby Lobby or some pizza parlor in Indiana are they?

The statement that Chicago has no draconian gun laws only makes sense in the context that the actual draconian laws they have are of no effect because guns are readily available just outside Chicago where gun laws are not so draconian.

For comparison I live in Arizona which extremely lax guns laws, thank goodness. There were 118 murders in Phoenix, pop = 1.62 million, there were 762 in Chicago, pop = 2.7 million or double the murder rate per capita. Now I know that all of that cannot be attributed to gun laws, lax or otherwise, but if one follows the liberal line of thought, one would infer that lax guns laws equal higher murder rate, but that is not the case at least with these two cities.

KT - I think you meant to say strict gun laws equals higher murder rate.

Also, I do not "hate" Hillary or Bernie. I do not know them other than when they are in the media. My guess is that if I did know them I still would not hate them, but probably would not socialize with them. I do not admire or respect the political views of either of them.

Yes DrWho, I mistyped.

I live and work in the Tucson area which is a liberal enclave in conservative Arizona. Many of the people with whom I work are liberal minded and quite vocal about it. If I know my heart, I do not "hate" any of them. I disagree with them but do not hate them.

Just like I don't hate you Tuco. I do not know you.

done ng,ng. finally made it to the 8,000 pts plateau... diving back into 2010...

But all conservatives are consumed with hate, homophobic, xenophibic, misanthropes. At least that's the message I get from the news.

I wonder if they hate us?

Yup, we're all "bitter clingers" and I forgot to mention racist!

That is the picture of conservatives you get from the media.

I wouldn't say hate drwho, I would say impatience.

And right now playing the victim, like you accuse the left of doing.

I doubt it, DrWho. "Inbred hate" - Tuco's words - yet he does not know me nor has ever met me.

Your rhetoric is why I said that. Your comments are full of invective and ridicule.

Not you personally Tuco, but there is a tendency of the left to claim the moral high ground and not just disagree with us but to label us as morally defective.

We don't care about the victims of mass murder. We want to destroy the planet. We want to poison the air you breath and the water you drink.

Just because we disagree with you.

okay, but yet the right's biggest cheerleader has labeled the left for how long now as mentally defective?

Who?

Limbaugh

Try Michael Savage.

Him too.

But he is not the biggest cheerleader.

And you have heard Rush say this?

I actually listen to Rush at least twice a week. I have to. Nothing else on the radio between work and home.

Yes. I have heard him say liberalism is a mental disease.

That was the title of a book by Savage.

I have also heard him say almost word for word everything you have posted below about how liberals think about conservatives.

I'm not surprised. My mother likes him.

So I hope you avoid the subject of politics when visiting your mother!

One thing about Savage. He is prescient. He is right. The Enemy is Within. Unfortunately he got the party wrong. :-)

Wrong party? I'm not too sure either party wants to claim him.

I am talking about his theory that the government is evil and coming to take away our liberty and freedoms.

It isn't the left who want to do that. Sheesh the ACLU defends Nazis.

I know. I don't trust either party.

The ACLU and Nazis are fellow travellers.

OMG!!! Really???

I wish you could hear me laughing. That is funny. You did mean that as a joke, right?

Let me just say I am not impressed with the record of the ACLU or leftists in general when it comes to defending freedom.

You do know that Nazis were anti-liberal, right???

And you believe conservatives/the right have a better record????

No, I do not. Unless you are using the term liberal in its classic sense.

I am using liberal in the sense of liberalism. Personal freedom. Freedom of speech, dissent, choice, sexual preference, etc..

Nazis, Fascists, Socialist and Communists all believe in big government. Meaning not so much the overall size of the government, but the power it has over us.

See you lose me there. What is Big Government. The Right increases the size of Government everytime they get in. If you are talking about the EPA, Nixon. If you are talking about Social Security Democrats. If you are talking about excessive regulations on business at one of lowest levels in decades. Why are you so afraid of your government? It is you.

I disagree with increasing the power of government whether it be done by right or left. Very few politicians in Washington really are conservative in that sense. They just want to keep increasing their power.

EZPZ. 14.

done