Reality Check - Page 5

You make things up. I never said no guns. I said no assault rifles for soccer moms with mental kids. No high capacity magazines for those assault rifles for soccer moms with mental kids. 

How many soccer moms are out there with "mental kids" who have assault rifles and how many "soccer moms with mental kids" have "high capacity magazines"? Seems like that's who should be restricted if they are the one's causing all the mayhem. That should be relatively easy to accomplish. Creeps with bombs, however, are more of a challenge to defeat.

Bee,

Are you saying you want only the wealthy who can afford to pay the taxes to own guns?

The NRA is a non-profit organization whose money comes from the dues of 4.5 million members.  This is not a big business lobby looking out for it's own profits.  The NRA does lobby for the interests of its members and that's why people join, to have some group to represent them.  Maybe other causes should organize the same kind of support.  There is really nothing inherently evil about it.

You sound like the kind of person who can take care of herself, not looking for or depending on help from others.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the mentality of many gun owners.  If someone threatens them or their family, they want to have some ability to defend themselves, and not have to sit there and "take it" until the authorities arrive.  It may not work out as planned.  But they have the option to believe having a gun will make them safer.  Sometimes it actually does.
As Moons said, self-protection is fundamental.  The 2nd Amendment allows individuals to make the personal decision to own a gun (or guns) or not.  It's about the government not making that decision for us.

I have a stupid question.  How come live security is needed 24 hours?  Can't cameras and motion detectors be used when no one is supposed to be in the building, monitored by some company like ADT.  If suspicious activity occurs after hours, no students can enter until the building is cleared.  Armed guards during the day would provide more immediate response.  Are we over-reacting?


 

It's interesting that statistics can be manipulated to support just about any position you can think of. If I wanted to "prove" that mass killings aren't any more common now than they were over the course of the last 100 years, I would point to a reputable source such as this one: http://http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common .. At the same time, any thinking person realizes that one statistic rarely, if ever, tells the whole story. One consensus on this forum however, is that people are capable of, and some in particular are prone, to committing some pretty awful acts of violence upon others, even our most innocent. It has been pointed out by some here, that this is not a new phenomenon in the human context, while some around the globe live with such senselessness to a much greater extent than we do. It is also a fact, that this one is a theme recurrent throughout history. While we could spend days straight dissecting the social, psychological, and material mechanisms contributing to our decidedly fallible behaviors, I'm confident no one needs convincing. If this is so, it seems obvious that we should tread very carefully when expanding the scope of what is mandated by popular opinion in the realm of civil government.

"I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy.

On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy." - C.S. Lewis

Please talk about creeps with Bombs on your own thread. That has nothing to do with this.

The point is, all it takes is one clueless soccer mom with one mentally unstable kid getting their hands on a military styled weapon purchased for their pleasure, and how a myopic, fringe population sees this as righteous reasoning to do nothing, but really they are threatened by common sense.

 

Bee - I need a lesson on how to create a link, such as the one in my post above. :)

Bull ! line up all the soccer moms and ransack their houses in search of guns. Confiscate the guns found and send them and their "mental kids" on their merry way (sarcasm). The only ones evidently threatened here are the ones who continually claim no one wants to prevent loonies from getting their hands on guns.

Micaho, 
This is reality too. The poorest people I know, particularly the ones on public assistance, find a way to pay the exhortative taxes on their smokes. I quit smoking when cigs were $2.55. Now they sell for what?... $7 bucks a pack... at least?  And it is the taxes in my state raising the cost. Not the cost to manufacture smokes.

Those who choose to want to engage in the passive recreation of weaponry should be funding the cops in schools, and they should be glad to do it. Where does it say people have a right to a gun even if they can't pay for it? There's an idea for you... a gun library where any one can check one out and bring it back in two weeks, that would be fair?

And really, it is the only way to reach the NRA. I am now convinced this is the pathway. Take their money to fight their causes. Brilliant.


(Carlin.... check your PM.... instructions sent...)
 

Wrong Joan. Oh well, rant away with inaccuracies, it is your right.

Mentally ill people used to be institutionalized....but one political party said they have "rights" and wanted them released...they got their wish...now that they are causing mayhem we must blame one particular type of gun or magazine?????