The sad reality is that there are millions of adults in this country who suffer from mental illness and go completely undetected and undiagnosed. Obviously this is the root, but because of this unfortunate reality, I think it’s the height of irresponsibility to give them such easy paths to obtain high powered artillery. If you are in the group of people that wants to leave this path wide open for them to purchase one, then own it proud boys!
[Edited on 11/9/2019 by Skydog32103]
I proudly, proudly claim that I back the Constitution. No doubt about it.
How do you predict FUTURE mental illness? Do you just deny everyone the right to purchase firearms?
Do you back mental health checks for those running for political office?
Would you back legislation that would take armed protection details away from the politicians that would deny a law abiding American citizen the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family?
Would you vote for a politician whose concept of reality has him/her believe that it's easier to purchase an AR-15 than a cap gun?
https://twitter.com/CoreyBooker/status/1125891720632307715/photo/1
There is no easy path to own high powered artillery. You have to undergo a full FBI background check, local investigation, and quite a few other legal hoops to purchase artillery. It takes a long time (years) and costs a lot of money too.
Why bring in the subject of artillery in a discussion on AR-15 rifles?
Look up and see how many, never mind, you probably wouldn't, so here are the 2017 figures from the FBI.
Rifles (Note: no breakdown on what type used) 403 murders
blunt objects-Clubs, hammers, and such 467 murders
Personal (hands, feet, fist, etc.) 692 murders
Knives (Again no breakdown) 1,591 murdersThat’s about 3,000 murders...what about the other 30,000 plus that aren’t mentioned? Why mention only a small portion of murders? Maybe you ought to post a link. And it doesn’t even specify type of rifle! Good one Jerry!
Wow, why aren't you out campaigning for the banning of knives since they are used in almost 400% more murders than rifles?
Should we go about cutting off feet, hands, and fists off everyone since they are used in 170% more murders than rifles?
What about baseball bats, clubs, hammers, tire irons, iron pipe, and other heavy objects than can be used in a murder.Calm down. Show proof of your 400% bullsh*t, or stay at the kids table.
Their narrative doesn't fit anything, and their "facts" are quickly disproved, but---they keep using them, which is silly.
That makes me laugh at them.I posted an opinion, and you seem to have an issue with it. You’ve shown no stats, no links, nothing but your own narrative based on silly fictional stats. (I won’t hold my breath for a link to those stats).
If you think it’s smart to sell them, be my guest, no need to get so defensive.
Let's see 403 murders by rifles, 1,591 murders by knives. 403 goes into 1,591 almost 4 times (3.947890818858564 to be exact). That means there were almost an increase of 400% in murders with knives than rifles. Third grade math, and who was your third grade teacher?
All you have to do is look up FBI murder statistics for 2017
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
Reason other murder weapons weren't mentioned? We weren't discussing those, but I included ones that had a higher ratio than rifles to give you some idea of what else was used to murder people.
Your opinion is fine, and I'll defend your Constitutional right to voice it. Posting non-existent "facts" brings out the teacher in me and I try to inform posters how they are misinformed.
Ask anyone who has been here for a while.
Please don't become like these people:
I proudly, proudly claim that I back the Constitution. No doubt about it.
Making it harder to purchase AR-15s has nothing to do with the Constitution.
How do you predict FUTURE mental illness? Do you just deny everyone the right to purchase firearms?
What does this have to do with anything? We already know they are out there!
Do you back mental health checks for those running for political office?
Bizarre to compare AR-15s to politicians.
Would you back legislation that would take armed protection details away from the politicians that would deny a law abiding American citizen the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family?
Would you vote for a politician whose concept of reality has him/her believe that it's easier to purchase an AR-15 than a cap gun?
> https://twitter.com/CoreyBooker/status/1125891720632307715/photo/1This is irrelvant gibberish, that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing. If you have a point, I suggest you make it.
There is no easy path to own high powered artillery. You have to undergo a full FBI background check, local investigation, and quite a few other legal hoops to purchase artillery. It takes a long time (years) and costs a lot of money too.
Why bring in the subject of artillery in a discussion on AR-15 rifles?
Good, lets do the same for AR-15s. I think it's a good idea to make it harder to purchase an AR-15, and you don't.......good for you.
What, no response to your ridiculous 3,000 murders and 400% silliness?
[Edited on 11/9/2019 by Skydog32103]
Limiting access to any law abiding citizen to any firearm they wish to own IS against the Constitution, or don't you believe in "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" as a fundamental right given in the Constitution?
Politicians should be held to a higher standard than others. They are the ones who vote in the laws, as you well know.
A mentally deranged politician can cause more potential devastation than any mass shooter.
You don't think it would be important that they have knowledge of what they are voting on, and have a good mental grasp of what is real and what is fantasy?
Shouldn't those who don't want the American citizen the right of "Equal Protection Under The Law" have to follow their own rules?
Who is WE, and how do they know who is going to have future mental illness?
I'd like to meet up with them and get the Powerball winning numbers for the next billion dollar jackpot.
Concerning the rest, see previous post.
Do you think people should undergo a psychiatric test before getting a drivers license? A car is a big dangerous item
This is beyond stupid. Most states require drivers ed, and all require a thorough written exam to get a license, followed by a physical demonstration with an instructor, followed by license renewal every 4 years, and involves public traffic laws that are heavily monitored by police, with regulated speed limits, etc. I could only HOPE that gun laws become as diligent as our autmotive laws - thank you for pointing that out.
BUT, how do you know that person isn't one of your unverified "millions" of adults who are undergoing undetected mental illness? How many people could one of your "undetected" maniacs kill on a downtown street in say NYC during New Years Eve?
ALSO, could you post a link that gives the number of "undetecteds", what region (Washington, DC when Congress is in session is a given) they live in, and age, description, race, gender, and income so those of us who are sane can stay away from those areas.
I would also like to see instruction in gun safety and marksmanship in every school. Too bad it isn't offered like it used to be with all those "liberal parents" not wanting their child touching a firearm that stopped even the Eddie Eagle program being offered in grade schools.
It doesn’t just apply to players
You can’t tell the field of Dem POTUS candidates w/out a scorecard either
Best of luck to the newest one, Mayor Bloomberg - if Alabamans vote for him it could give him momentum for the more familiar northern states
still think Hillary will throw her hat in the ring too at some point - as some of the ‘weaker sisters’ end their campaignsFor the umpteenth time, neither HC nor Michelle Obama will run for prez this cycle.
Bloomberg will come & go.
[Edited on 11/8/2019 by MartinD28]
On your mention of Michelle, yes, she has stated that she’s not a candidate (altho that was before her win in NH)
Hillary has not made that definitive statement
She could still be smarting from the last election &, seeing the nondescript candidates in her own party along with the low opinion of Trump - wouldn’t be surprising to see her take another try at it -
But you’re right, she’s 72 years old, might just decide to leave well enough alone & enjoy her retirement w/Bill
You never know - the public mood is fickle, fluctuating frequently
[Edited on 11/10/2019 by Stephen]
I have noticed Yang standing out from the Democratic herd. I like what I'm hearing there. It is a mystery to me that an upstart Republican or Independent, or has not leapt into the moderate breach - huge windfall opportunity there, could so easily.steal the field from the extremists.
For the umpteenth time, neither HC nor Michelle Obama will run for prez this cycle.
Worthy of a quote, because you never know.....
Why all the Hilary and Michelle campfire ghost tales? So what if they do run? Is this a cause for concern? You guys seem kinda spooked about it. Kinda like in horror movies at the end where you think the monster was dead but it comes back.
So yeah, Hilary Shmilary. Other than the prospect of the progressive novelty of a woman president, which I thought was great in terms of women's rights and a long overdue symbolic boost for young women - I really don't see how Hilary Clinton warranted so much attention, negative or positive. She was pretty bland and lackluster, standard middle of the road corporate US political issue. Not much to love or hate. Why you all hate her so much is beyond me. I even started a thread on it, page after page of not one articulate response. Had to draw the conclusion that it was simply some gut level anti-fem thing. A lot of guys just really dislike and distrust women deep down I've noticed.
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Bill Weld is not alone
Newest “officially declared Democratic 2020 POTUS candidate” is former Mass governor Deval Patrick - crazy - guessing more will declare - including, but not limited to, Hillary (not to creep you out brer, just sayin) - since I dislike & distrust women : 😛 - good laugh
Mayb Gov Patrick sees & is attempting to seize moderate-ground voters, someone mentioned that in a previous post - he seemed liked & respected as governor
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by Stephen]
Bill Weld is not alone
Newest “officially declared Democratic 2020 POTUS candidate” is former Mass governor Deval Patrick - crazy - guessing more will declare - including, but not limited to, Hillary (not to creep you out brer, just sayin) - since I dislike & distrust women : 😛 - good laughMayb Gov Patrick sees & is attempting to seize moderate-ground voters, someone mentioned that in a previous post - he seemed liked & respected as governor
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by Stephen]
I like Gov Patrick. Not sure what makes him think he can enter now, put together an organization, and actually challenge. He will come and go similar to de Blasio - puff of smoke, non-contender, and gone.
I also doubt Bloomberg will make much inroads. Previously he was polling 2% in Iowa.
There's enough to choose from in the existing pool, and several poll over Russian Don.
But for those who clamor, there's always Hillary. The betting window is open for $100 bets that says she won't run. Anybody still posting that she will, back your posts. All winnings go to charity.
Odds are too long right now - she’s still got 2-3 mos. to decide - in the intemperate political climate, a lot can happen between now & then 😮
She has name recognition & already has her team of people from the 2016 campaign still in place - she made a good run at it then, if the field remains anonymous she might be urged to run yet - whether she would, who knows
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by Stephen]
I hope Nurse Ratchet doesn't run again. Getting sick of all these fossilized 20th century throwbacks. Would really like to see some young blood on deck, new ideas, new style. This oldschool kremlin hardline krap is beyond stale by now.
I hope Nurse Ratchet doesn't run again
Odds are too long right now - she’s still got 2-3 mos. to decide
But for those who clamor, there's always Hillary.
guessing more will declare - including, but not limited to, Hillary
Hillary has not made that definitive statement
This is a lot of Hillary talk for someone "Who will never run again"
This is a lot of Hillary talk for someone "Who will never run again"
Classic trolling.
We were responding to all the noise you and Goober were making. Whatever! And why do you guys even give a crap if she runs or not? So you can still have your one reason you like Trump? Who cares?
This is a lot of Hillary talk for someone "Who will never run again"
Classic trolling.
We were responding to all the noise you and Goober were making. Whatever! And why do you guys even give a crap if she runs or not? So you can still have your one reason you like Trump? Who cares?
Because I believe she will run, she can't help it. Classic "I must be in the news"....
Great! Whoopee!! You believe Hilary will run. So? Are you gonna take MartinD28's charity bet challenge? That would almost make the subject of Hilary interesting.
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by BrerRabbit]
They’re mostly mine, will stop beating that subject into the ground - didn’t wanna step up to the window just yet:D
Richard Nixon & Ronald Reagan succeeded in their second try at it - Hillary was quoted yesterday on Fox News that she’s “under enormous pressure to run”
All roads lead to NH in February, by way of the Iowa caucuses - then the campaigns heat up in anticipation of the DNC, while the fringe candidates throw in the towel - good Americans one & all
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by Stephen]
Great! Whoopee!! You believe Hilary will run. So? Are you gonna take MartinD28's charity bet challenge? That would almost make the subject of Hilary interesting.
Sure will and no charity here, I'll expect to be paid.
Great! Whoopee!! You believe Hilary will run. So? Are you gonna take MartinD28's charity bet challenge? That would almost make the subject of Hilary interesting.
Sure will and no charity here, I'll expect to be paid.
Nice. Now this is getting interesting. I'd like to wager but I have no idea what may happen. How much you stake?
Actually watched some of the debate tonight. I've heard the jokes about how often Biden brings up Obama's name even if it isn't related. It isn't a joke, he actually does that...a lot.
Actually watched some of the debate tonight. I've heard the jokes about how often Biden brings up Obama's name even if it isn't related. It isn't a joke, he actually does that...a lot.
Yeah, he is trying to ride that wave. He was pretty aggressive last night, not necessarily towards anyone, but in tone. He sounds as scatalogical as Trump at times, not sure where what he is saying is going and starts tripping over his own words. I don't think I could take a debate between Trump and Biden, none of it would make any sense.
It's definitely time for Gabbard to drop out. Wonder Woman didn't do herself any favors last night by trying to attack Pete and getting pie in her face. I'm not sure who is behind Klobuchar, but I'm surprised she is still hanging in there too - she speaks in platitudes and it's not enough.
Harris, Booker, Pete, Warren, all come out of these debates well as far as content and message, but name recognition will give Biden and Sanders a boost to casual voters early on.
Harris, Booker, Pete, Warren, all come out of these debates well as far as content and message, but name recognition will give Biden and Sanders a boost to casual voters early on.
Among elderly voters too - they count for a lot of votes, altho w/two of them, the votes would divide, helping neither - ‘debateable’ IMHO their long-term viability/voter value in the rigors of presidential race -
biggest ups to them too, Joe & Bernie are doing more than most regardless of age/politics/party affiliation, so-forth....
With Booker, says he is danger of not making the next debate, and some of the other candidates who can't make the debates but are still in the race, I feel like it's all being funneled down way ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. It's like the debate requirements are deciding who the choices are, why not just let the primaries in February determine who stays in moving forward?
At this point the debates are as much about TV ratings and selling advertising for the networks as anything else, but they are dictating the choices.
I know there is a need and a desire to let the real viable candidates have more air time - I just hate that actual voters aren't deciding who stays in or out moving forward.
It’s a real large field - guessing it’ll shake out as it usually does, w/midrange candidates dropping out after NH & the first few primaries - missed it last nite so don’t know but the debate format w/multiple candidates IMO aren’t much more than TV shows - not informative
With Booker, says he is danger of not making the next debate, and some of the other candidates who can't make the debates but are still in the race, I feel like it's all being funneled down way ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. It's like the debate requirements are deciding who the choices are, why not just let the primaries in February determine who stays in moving forward?
At this point the debates are as much about TV ratings and selling advertising for the networks as anything else, but they are dictating the choices.
I know there is a need and a desire to let the real viable candidates have more air time - I just hate that actual voters aren't deciding who stays in or out moving forward.
Why don't they have "rotational" debates? Have the top eight with two from the lower tier of the qualifications?
The debates also need to have an open forum section that allows questions from the audience, not just the prepared ones that the candidates have probably been given to prepare for the debate.
With Booker, says he is danger of not making the next debate, and some of the other candidates who can't make the debates but are still in the race, I feel like it's all being funneled down way ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. It's like the debate requirements are deciding who the choices are, why not just let the primaries in February determine who stays in moving forward?
At this point the debates are as much about TV ratings and selling advertising for the networks as anything else, but they are dictating the choices.
I know there is a need and a desire to let the real viable candidates have more air time - I just hate that actual voters aren't deciding who stays in or out moving forward.
This part of the process is not about voters, it’s about donors and voters who donate.
Cory Booker is close to dropping out not because voters aren’t feeling his vibe or his message isn’t resonating...he’s about out of cash. That simple.
There are the huge mega donors and then there are the millions of donors who give $200 or less. Presidential campaigns are ridiculously, extensively, stunningly, idiotically expensive.
Don’t ever let yourself think that any of this or any other campaign by either party is all about issues and message.
I’ve always been intrigued by what people do and don’t blame media for. The manipulative way that “Fake News” has been utilized has been pure mass media genius. Donald Trump and the media are in the most highly addictive co-enabling relationship in the history of modern American culture. Neither one of them can live without the other...mutually shared oxygen.
Red, white and blue ain’t got chit to do with green.
The most articulate explanation of our dysfunctional election process I've read, Bhawk....Well said.
A good example of Bhawk's explanation is Elize Stefanik, my representative. She has from day one of the election of Donald Trump walked a very fine line among the constituents of her district here in upstate, NY. She's careful to criticize him only when the polls favor such actions and supports him wholeheartedly when the polls suggest she should.
This district is very Republican and has been so forever. But Republican's who are of the traditional bent. Like myself and many traditional Republicans who reside in this district, she knows Trump is worthy of impeachment but chose in the past several weeks to sell her soul to his enablers and the Fox crowd. Her appearance this week on the tabloid news channel was purely self-serving.
Mostly to raise money from the Trumpies out there for her 2020 campaign and also to lay the ground work for a promising career as a very highly paid lobbyist and/or Fox news analyst should she lose in 2020 to Tedra Cobb.
Ms. Cobb incidentally raised over a million dollars last weekend alone after Stefanik made clear she's caste aside her soul to further her career. However, for Stefanik it's a win win as she either wins re-election or leaves politics for a brief time to make a fortune...Or serve in some capacity in the Trump administration given her obvious attempt to win the Presidents favor the past few weeks.
In the end, this behavior is pretty much what Bhawk described in his oh so eloquent post above....Stefanik's behavior during the hearings and on Fox News is her manipulation of the media and the media's manipulation of her. Sadly, the losers are once again the voters...
Kamala Harris might be in trouble
https://news.yahoo.com/kamala-harris-suffers-blow-aide-165844171.html
Her aide left with a scathing comment on how the staff has been treated and went to work for Bloomberg.
Kamala Harris might be in trouble
https://news.yahoo.com/kamala-harris-suffers-blow-aide-165844171.htmlHer aide left with a scathing comment on how the staff has been treated and went to work for Bloomberg.
No big deal. Her polling numbers have been poor for months. She had one bright moment in the first debate when she threw a rehearsed line at Biden, got a bit of polling & news cycle traction, and then settled back into the mid/ bottom of the pack. She will NOT be the nominee but maybe a VP candidate mention.
