Post New

Fully agree with the President, and I'm glad this executive order will be signed.

https://www.aol.com/news/biden-reinforce-backgroun...

"Reuters) - President Biden will announce an executive order on Tuesday that reinforces background checks for gun buyers in what the White House is promoting as the most comprehensive policy the president can enact without Congress."

While I fully support the Constitutional Right - there is absolutely nothing wrong with checking a background. If there is credible reason why one shouldn't buy a gun - by golly - good. America's culture is to a place, where yes - Americans need to be checked out before owning one. It was NOT always like that - but modernity and a cultural decay dictates this must be done.

So I'm glad for it.

Just like I was glad for the Patriot Act.

Some are consistent. Others - it has solely to do if its their guy in office.

Voted Trump 2016. Voted Biden 2020. Positives out of both votes.

From the link....

The order will also strengthen federal support for red flag laws intended to stop gun sales to people deemed dangerous that have been passed by 19 states and the District of Columbia. It follows previous executive action the Biden administration has taken with the intent to reduce gun violence.

-----------------

Fine but could this be the camels nose?

Domestic Abusers... sure
Stalkers... sure
Disturbed schoolkids.... sure
Demented street people.... sure

Anti Vaxers, MAGA hat wearers, NRA Members..... maybe later after citizens get used to the idea?

Domestic Abusers... sure
Stalkers... sure
Disturbed schoolkids.... sure
Demented street people.... sure

Anti Vaxers, MAGA hat wearers, NRA Members..... maybe later after citizens get used to the idea?
***

100% CORRECT. Right to Bear Arms - is just one more right Liberals want to take away and I agree with you - things like this are step towards such.

However when I look long term - I see this happening anyways. I remember back in the early 2000's on TMF when my Convervative friends were shouting "My ideals!" "My principles!!!!" I had said - drop opposition to gay marriage, and come out FOR it. Because even the Bush Twins were for it -- point being, that's the future. Since then - in 2012 with a soft economy - the incumbent still won partially because young voters didn't want the 'anti gay' Republicans. Now - it's a done deal. Republicans lost political capital all those years, for nothing.

Back to guns.

The culture, sucks. Liberals - via music, tech, teardown of societal norms have led to a messed up society. People walk around on meds, angry, wagging their fingers and bobbing their heads, getting violent over the wrong fast food order, or because their bullcrap relationship soured, or their co-worker bothered them. Lack of parenting also leads to gun violence in schools. Point being - THIS generation is growing up with gun horror. And while there are pockets who want guns ( single young women)..... tomorrow's leaders- raised with gun fear and indoctrinated in college will in fact take the guns. A REAL gun grab, not a bumper sticker AM radio hypothetical gun grab.

So for me - I'm fine with Americans submitting to this check. A screwed in the head people deserve a bit of oversight.

And if it cuts down on 'breaking news' incidents - it might help preserve the right, versus take it away totally.

I'm not thrilled about it.

But I'm tired of being worried about being shot because America's traditional institutions and values - are gone.

WiltonKnight: The culture, sucks. Liberals - via music, tech, teardown of societal norms have led to a messed up society...Lack of parenting also leads to gun violence in schools...tomorrow's leaders- raised with gun fear and indoctrinated in college will in fact take the guns. A REAL gun grab, not a bumper sticker AM radio hypothetical gun grab.

I thought Obama took all the guns.

Obama didn't take all the guns.

There were plenty of mass shootings then, and subsequently.

And then, arrogance and conceit and identity politics helped someone win in 2016 and that shaped the SCOTUS in a certain way -

Now back to background checks versus typical online whining.

I support the right to arms - but sadly, I have to support the background checks despite the real items mike brought up.

Some of us can take a break from "Obama! Trump!" and talk issues - even where it goes against my own side.

Some - can't ;)

WiltonKnight: <Liberals - via music, tech, teardown of societal norms have led to a messed up society...Lack of parenting also leads to gun violence in schools...tomorrow's leaders- raised with gun fear and indoctrinated in college will in fact take the guns.>

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

Boomer dismissed!

Evidence?

Google it.

The next time there's aa "breaking news" incident, and people who never even said hello to each other are trapping around with candles and ribbons... - wait 3 seconds before parading it for your politics and see just exactly why it happened - - - and why it didn't used to happen as promised.

In the meantime, let's hope for some head bobbing and finger wagging and 'events' over simple disagreements.

YouTube it - it's an every day thing now - all over America.

This involves kids - so it saddens me.

Your national debt - well that's a pick me up :) Oh, and your "sovereign" elections and subsequent SCOTUS.... :)

Also, do you disagree? I said that young people, who grew up with lockdown drills and mass shootings - especially those who end up at elite colleges - will be governing from a more anti gun stance in the future. You don't agree?

Gen X'er - giggling now.

Man o man... talk about "flooding the zone with sh!t" !

But I'm tired of being worried about xyzxyz because XYZ's traditional institutions and values - are gone.
....said people throughout history.

America's traditional institutions and values? What a crock.

Have another rock.

So, despite all the pearl clutching by our conservative friends, "Obama didn't take all the guns ?"

It's a miracle, I tell ya.

May I suggest that, instead of pearls, you clutch rosary beads going forward to prevent this Catholic POTUS from initiating the end to privately owned guns?

flooding the field: Some of us can take a break from "Obama! Trump!"

Have another rock.

Nice response to someone SUPPORTING background checks.

Yes, angry Americans.

I'd laugh - but I dont own a bulletproof.

"Duck!" the new national anthem

I don't pray the rosary.

I do believe in some sort of power - but I have little faith in organized religion.

But, your comment - will now be followed up by a similar comment - about ANOTHER more "motivated" faith --- and will be directed at a certain niche. BRB. thanks.

But before that 'insightful' idea - back to topic. I support Biden on background checks 100%.

Also really applauded, and still applaud Bill Clinton's assault weapon ban.

Again, Americans - are not to be trusted with such things. Not in this culture, no way.

Again, Americans - are not to be trusted with such things. Not in this culture, no way.

Sometimes your posts are confusing. But this was clear, and I agree. The refrain is "responsible gun owners...", but those aren't the people we're talking about. There are a LOT of people whom have no business owning firearms, but they do anyway.

I would favor much tighter controls on firearms. Much. The Swiss model is a good starting point. The current make-up of SCOTUS assures that won't happen, though.

Not familiar with the Swiss ways, but I'll relish the chance to just chat with you.

The refrain "responsible gun owners" - frankly, I empathize with. Disclosure - I do not own a gun. Many years back I took a safety course, owned a simple handgun, and subsequently decided I just don't like having it. I'm blessed in that my residences have always been in the lowest crime areas. I do worry about being out and about because I mean what I say: This culture is churning out nut jobs - doesn't matter their politics but that said - I grew up with parents who wouldn't let me have even a squirt gun, and got dirty looks if the Atari Cartridge I was playing had even a semblance of guns. (Luckily back then, most of my video games weren't;t about blood, killing, and stealing cars.......my music wasn't about anger and aggressiveness.....we didn't have lockdown drills, what a coincidence I guess).

I think there's plenty of people who just like guns. No different than one collects stamps or coins. And I feel for them. Heck - drunk driving kills people - why take wine away from responsible people? STDs kill people - why force the State Senator to place a condom on every man with a Tinder account?

So - I am not happy about it. Just like I was fine with "no fly lists" and the Patriot Act....I am in favor of background checks and I only wish there was a respectful way of conveying this to "responsible gun owners". Instead of mocking them - at least connect, truthfully tell them it's a neccesarry evil because if these tragedies keep going - one day, it won't just be checks - it will indeed be a new Amendment leading to confiscation. They should SUPPORT background checks. Get rid of the miscreants - giving responsible gun owners a bad name.

Furthermore, again - not proudly - I support the assault weapons ban that President Clinton had put in, and my man Bush who I did vote for twice -rolled back. If someone needs to honor their heritage, their ancestors or hunt for food or fun with military grade weapons - I think they're better off enlisting, and going where the man tells them to go be posted.

On SCOTUS......

All I ask is you ponder. Take out the true nuts who will be deranged no matter what.

When socioeconomic conditions and cultural trends are - fairly or not - portrayed as "they are out to get me" --- you get throngs of people who just wante to feel listened to. And Trump --- gives good, sloppy wet "ear-jobs" -- yes, he gives good ears. He has become their Al Sharpton - seriously. And they are terrified that they need one.

Point being, perceived or real condescension, couples with socioeconomic degradation - brings people out to vote.

And now, this is the SCOTUS we got - - technically, put in place NOT by a majority of voters.

Pitch. Tone. They matter.

Empathizing. Matters.

Maybe even seeing the other side's concerns - matters.

And guess what - maaaaaaybe by trying to compromise, one can look people in the eye and say 'dude, sir, madam, whatever,....put the gun down a second. Don't you want your kid to see a doctor that you can afford. Don't you want your Social Security to be ok...." - but now you have someone who listens, cause he isn't feeling ostracized or afraid.

Recently we have attempted to discuss -guns and borders. Both - will require compromise. You'd have to give on things to placate them. I'd have to give on things to make you happy.

If not, the only people winning are the extremes on both sides, their blogger morons, and their cable networks or choice.

Methinks - we have. 8 years for people of goodwill to be able to say "I am MAGA, I'm a Liberal, I'm a red hat, I'm a birkenstalk, I'm a pickup truck, I'm a hybrid driver......and you people can't divide and defeat us, you're going to be accountable, and we're gonna demand you make deals and give and take".

Otherwise.....Rome is gonna happen again, despite our vast gifts and head start.

Appreciate that chance to chat.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

Boomer dismissed!

Succint!

The whole point is to have chats. It gets frustrating when, after showing people their information is unreliable, they go right back to those same sources. Hard to resist the snark (though I try). I do agree it is important to see the concerns of others so you can see where they are coming from. Fear (of whatever), socio-economic, civil rights, etc. And we should be able to talk about it instead of scream at each other. I lose interest when the screaming starts.

The Swiss have a very high gun ownership rate. They also have mandatory safety courses, background checks, and -I think?- psych evals. This contributes to them having almost no shootings, and I don't remember the last time I heard of a mass-shooting there. They do it intelligently. We sell firearms at Walmart (or at least we used to). You can't keep the guns away from the "crazies" unless you identify the crazies, which requires more than a casual check of criminal history. I think most gun owners (and NRA members) agree with a lot of this, but the extremists among them seem to dictate policy.

I said that young people, who grew up with lockdown drills and mass shootings - especially those who end up at elite colleges - will be governing from a more anti gun stance in the future. You don't agree?

Nope. They'll support effective gun control. Effective gun control is not 'anti-gun'; it's anti-stupid.

The whole point is to have chats. It gets frustrating when, after showing people their information is unreliable, they go right back to those same sources. Hard to resist the snark (though I try). I do agree it is important to see the concerns of others so you can see where they are coming from. Fear (of whatever), socio-economic, civil rights, etc. And we should be able to talk about it instead of scream at each other. I lose interest when the screaming starts.

****

Thank you. Please know that I would like the same. My snark will be there, but only with a few throwbacks from the ol days.


I had NO idea about the gun ownership rate in Switzerland. But what you describe - I am 100% all for it....and I wish the noise could be blocked out, and a conversation could be had with those inclined to own guns about how this would preserve the right - not further the cause of taking it away. Because I truly believe - tomorrow's ruling class will have grown up in this gun violence environment and just like "young conservatives" of today are fine with gay marriage, "young conservatives" of tomorrow will be far less zealous about being anti gun control.

Trouble is, much of our country - is 100% politics all the time. Maybe not you. Maybe not I. But many -- it's not just a vote now - it's a lifestyle, almost a religion and tribe and caste. What we eat, drink, how we talk, what we pursue or study, or dont. How we worship , or don't. So when one side tells it's already ginned up flock "they're gone take the guns" - well then even the NRA people you speak of, who support more checks - are gonna oppose it. It's all about tribe.


Back in the day - before it descended into pure tribalism, reporting posts, etc - I used to say with all seriousness, I wish America had a foreign-exchange-student program, within America. I wish folk from Alabama could bunk with a family in Manhattan. I wish someone from San Fran would do the same in Crawford, TX. Maybe then people would see AMERICANS....versus a toothless nazi hick on one side, or a snobby commie liberal on the other side and yes, I'm guilty of this also. I wish students at elite business colleges - had a one semester requirement to work on a factory floor or do the menial work - seriously, full time, a semester. Maybe learn that cutting a few bucks in pay, or jacking up a co-pay truly rocks the world for people in a negative way.

This is why - regardless the issue: Putin, Entitlements, Budgets, Guns, Immigration = until Americans - start seeing and communicating with one another - all this stuff will be stymied and many times, the most special-interest infected stuff *might* pass.

All I know is - we have throngs of people whose socioeconomic life and future - is in pure peril. I feel SOME of it is indeed the fault of the Establishment in both parties. And until some of this segment is brought into the fold - -- things cannot move forward.

That doesn't mean blank check.

It means listening, and compromise.

Hence - despite "my side" maybe not being simpatico -I am fine saying -yes to more immigration, yes to more background checks. But that does no good. If the other wise is willing to compromise, and not bat down every proposal then guess what - deals happen. Country moves forward. If we don't - then, America will be a first world nation - but, as I predicted long ago - with permanent, visible, and normalized 3rd world traits.

FYI not that you asked but my votes:

92 Perot. 96 Perot 00 W. 04 W 08 - no vote. 12 - no vote. 16 Trump. 20 Biden.

Haven't seen any cable news in 3 years - only exception is CNBC during the daytime which is mostly not politics.

The sole radio voice for me is Michael Smerconish - who is even down the middle, lambasted by both sides on a regular basis.

Final thought: Austin. Raleigh. Atlanta. Northern VA. Blue Cities....within Red States, or in VA's case, Red until it got purply. My point: Maybe there's a reason. Maybe some Red combined with some blue - in EACH of those instances thrive. While extreme Red in Alabama, or extreme Blue in Detroit - has a few issues to deal with.

You can't keep the guns away from the "crazies" unless you identify the crazies, which requires more than a casual check of criminal history.

Even if 'crazies' are identified in connection with a purchase process, there are stupid friends and relatives willing to put firearms in the hands of another.

17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse' Smith & Wesson M&P 15 was purchased by an 18 yr old friend, Dominick Black. Black got off with a small fine.

Adam Lanza had access to his mother's gun safe. WTF! Adios, Mamacita.

Background checks alone won't prevent a toddler from shooting his teacher and thousands of firearms are stolen every years from homes without secure gun safes.

We're screwed by an extremist partisan SCOTUS that will assure lots of bloody 2A headlines for a long time.

It's all about tribe.

Tribes are manipulated by lobbyists, lawyers, and sophisticated campaigns.

Citizens United

Fairness in Broadcasting

Gerrymandering

Big conservative money knows control lies in these things because those things win electoral votes, House seats and judgeships. Having control of the SCOTUS and House means they can play both sides of the 'states rights/fed rights' coin however it strengthens their grip.

Libs sitting down at a big coffee shop table with Cons over plates of smothered mystery meat and avocado toast makes for nice, but forgettable, human interest stories. Meanwhile, the PR and Ad agencies are hard at work getting it done for the .01%

We're screwed by an extremist partisan SCOTUS that will assure lots of bloody 2A headlines for a long time.

I don't think SCOTUS is the body primarily responsible for lots of bloody 2A headlines.

SCOTUS' recent precedent does make it unlikely that any serious legislative efforts to control firearms would be found unconstitutional. But the federal government hasn't even attempted any serious legislative efforts to control firearms. At all. Whatever point you think was the furthest that federal legislation got towards addressing firearm deaths (maybe the assault weapons ban in the 1990's?), it was the merest moiety of a molehill relative to the causes of firearm deaths - the huge number of non-assault weapon firearms throughout the country, especially handguns.

The same is true of even state legislation. While a handful of cities went so far as to all-but-ban private ownership of handguns (New York, DC), no state has ever come close to adopting legislation that could meaningfully reduce gun deaths. Even some of the strictest regulations, like those of California, still allow guns to be obtained with ease and volume that is unthinkable in most other Western developed countries. Not even the most restrictive state wants to impose any real, serious obstacles in the path of law-abiding citizens buying as many handguns as they want. Which makes meaningfully reducing gun deaths all-but-impossible.

I don't think it's all that meaningful that SCOTUS has now blocked legislation that would never get adopted. The bottleneck was upstream from them. Some minor, marginal legislation might end up falling to their jurisprudence - limited to the point of inutility by its scope (assault weapon bans) and/or geography (municipal bans in Chicago or NYC, surrounded by thriving gun markets in Illinois and New York state).

We're awash in guns because of our political choices, not SCOTUS.

lol. Keep fighting the. good fight. So far so good. Another decade you will have the Supreme Court. That's noble work you're doing Joe.


Sadly - because of that - all you listed has happened, and will continue.

Some days I think I should be nicer to you, and you'll let me come to the next company picnic and introduce me to Rove and Bannon - you gotta be on their payroll, there's no other explanation.

At least an autograph from Rove? Please?

I don't think it's all that meaningful that SCOTUS has now blocked legislation that would never get adopted. The bottleneck was upstream from them.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

To stick with your analogy, I was trying to express that any trickle that makes it downstream is assured of being stemmed by a partisan SCOTUS that is tantamount to a dam.

Evidence?

Google it.

OK. A bit about message board etiquette here. If you are making an assertion, it is not up to the reader to go find the evidence to support your argument. It's up to you, not me, and if you say airy or ridiculous things and end with 'If you don't believe me, look it up!' That's the tactic of the church and other pretenders. Don't do it.

And while I'm at it, your posts are sometimes a miasma of disjointed ramblings, and therefore difficult to read. (We all fall victim to it occasionally.) To avoid being ignored by me - and then everyone - one thing that would be helpful is if you would learn to use the HTML coding that can emphasize things, or segregate things (like quotations) or whatever. It's not hard.

You can produce italics by typing <i> to start and </i> to end. ('I' for Italics, get it?) You can also do the same with 'B' for bold by following the same convention: <b> to start and </b> to finish. This becomes even easier if you are on a tablet or have a macro app; I just use 3 i's in a row to 'start' italics or 3 b's to start bold, and 4 i's or 4 b's to 'end' using the iPad's 'keyboard substitution' ability. Since that combination of letters never comes up in ordinary writing, it's a real time saver. [Settings '> Keyboard -> Text Replacement].

Finally, brevity: People aren't here to read a book; in fact this post is already too long, so I'll stop. Ho ho ho. But expect more from Miss Manners Goofyhoofy if this keeps up. ;) You're welcome.

Just ignore my posts.

Especially ones like today: "LOL!!!! In all categories".

Disjointed.....look around :) It's glorious.

And it's gonna get better.

Sadly, the haughty sell outs from the 60's are mostly inoculated from it.

But - nevertheless, it's nice to see it all slowly taken apart - one institution at a time.

To stick with your analogy, I was trying to express that any trickle that makes it downstream is assured of being stemmed by a partisan SCOTUS that is tantamount to a dam.

I hear you. But I worry that progressives sometimes misdiagnose what the real problem is. In this case, I really don't think the problem is - or ever has been - the courts' (or the Court's) treatment of the 2A. Or at most, that such has been downstream of the real issue.

Instead, it's that the nearly overwhelming legislative consensus in this country has been that as a general matter law-abiding adult citizens should be legally allowed to buy nearly any type of firearm (other than automatic weapons) they want. Even after three or four decades of intense activism pushing for gun control (at least since the Reagan shooting), and even after all the mass shootings and school shootings, even the Bluest, most progressive states still pretty much let any adult citizen with a clean record buy nearly any type of firearm in whatever amount they want. Even before Heller and McDonald came down, no state was seriously trying to broadly limit access to firearms.

That stuff matters. When you have such a broad recognition that people should be allowed to have guns, it makes it much easier for the courts to interpret that ability as being protected by Constitutional language. It's part of what happened with Obergefell, actually - once states stopped differentiating between gay and straight people in disparate areas like adoption and inheritance rights and other matters, it became harder for the Court to argue that marital rights weren't covered within the broad liberty language of the 14th Amendment. I think similarly, because every state legislature generally recognized that people should be allowed to buy guns if they want, it became very easy for the Court to rationalize striking down the all-but-bans of the handful of cities that didn't - because they were targeting a legal entitlement that every other level of government was pretty uniform in saying ought to be available to people.

So-called "common sense" gun laws are both popular and largely irrelevant to the problem. Gun laws that would be very relevant to the problem (like those of DC or NYC) are sufficiently unpopular that they can never, ever be adopted in any state. And that's why we're where we are.

I agree there were some political choices, but I think a lot of gun regulation doesn't get done simply because it's a wasted effort if the SCOTUS will knock it down. So why go to the bother? Politicians sometimes look like fools trying to pass laws that even a novice like me can see are unconstitutional, and would only appeal to the more rabid extreme of the constituents.

Liberals - via music, tech, teardown of societal norms have led to a messed up society. People walk around on meds, angry, wagging their fingers and bobbing their heads, getting violent over the wrong fast food order, or because their bullcrap relationship soured, or their co-worker bothered them. Lack of parenting also leads to gun violence in schools. Point being - THIS generation is growing up with gun horror.

Many people think the first mass shooting was in 1966, with Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower. They are surprised to find out that there were mass shootings - and a lot of them - in the 75 years which preceded that one. For instance:

* On March 28, 1891 a man with a doubled barreled shotgun fired upon a crowd of students and faculty attending a school exhibition in Parson Hall School House in Liberty, Mississippi

* On April 9, 1891 James Foster went inside St. Mary's Parochial School in New York, and opened fire

* On August 14 of [1903] Gilbert Twigg, a war veteran, deliberately fired into a crowd of people in Winfield Kansas immediately killing 9 and wounding 25 unsuspecting others.

* Thomas Jones a few years later also went on a murderous shooting spree on January 1913 in Houston, Texas as did Wesley Crow, a professor, who on June 4, 1936 shot and killed 5 in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

* Other mass shootings happened particularly those within school settings such as the mass shootings that occurred on Pasadena Public School on May 9, 1940 when 30 year old Verlin Spencer opened fire on school property killing 4.

* November 6, 1948 was witness to Melvin Collins's tragic shootings. Collins went inside the boarding house he had been living in, and decided to shoot people walking outside from inside his hiding spot inside the boarding house. Collins killed eight people and injured countless more.

* In a similar fashion an ex-military man, Howard Unruh, shot thirteen people and wounded at least five others in Camden, New Jersey on September 1949

I could keep going, but if you need to see more, you can go here:

http://behindthetower.org/a-brief-history-of-mass-...

My point is: maybe it's not 'libruls' as much as it is other things. First and foremost, I think, is the easy availability of weapons, particularly assault weapons and others which allow multiple shots to be fired at will. There is also a striking correlation between 'number of people killed' and the end of the assault weapons ban during the Bush administration. As tempted as I am to just say 'Google it', I will help with a chart that shows it:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Number-of-mass...

There are certainly other factors; I would put social media on the list for the ease of showing copycats how to make a splash, and yes, the pressures of our hurry-up, get everything done, go to college or else, overscheduled, buy a bigger TV culture. I don't know how much influence to put on media; certainly the wanton killing in movies doesn't help, but then the number of black mass shooters is strikingly low in spite of the thug culture of rap and hip hop lyrics (certainly they have they problems with gangs and other homicides, but I'm focusing here on the topic: mass killings).

What is the solution? I don't have it, but have two suggestions: 1) Mental health. We need more of it and seem to be providing less. And 2) outlaw assault and similar weapons. No sportsman needs one to go duck hunting, nor afraid homeowner to protect their property rights. OK, one more 3) tone down the culture wars, which mostly began with Newt Gingrich and is amplified and endorsed by Fox and the other *highly partisan* channels, to the detriment of the country. There is a little bit of that on the Left, but there is nothing close to the weight and vituperation coming from the Right.

Just ignore my posts.

Especially ones like today: "LOL!!!! In all categories".

Disjointed.....look around :) It's glorious.

And it's gonna get better.

Sadly, the haughty sell outs from the 60's are mostly inoculated from it.

But - nevertheless, it's nice to see it all slowly taken apart - one institution at a time.<\i >

So it IS performance art!

I'm not impressed.

The best piece of performance art I ever encountered was a burning man camp where the bartender was hawking private, exclusive, fully catered camp 'properties' for the next annual burning man (including a full colored brochure of the proposed camp). It was located in close proximity to an actual private, exclusive, and fully catered billionaire camp. Irony abounded.

JMHO, but you do better when you engage seriously on a topic. Like you did with me earlier. Less cryptic, more meat, better discussion. FWIW.

And just to follow-up the Swiss, I saw a documentary on how they handled firearms possession. Don't remember where now. Could have been PBS (Frontline?), or VICE News, or something similar. I was impressed by how they had such a high ownership rate, but managed to control it. Obviously Switzerland is not the USA, and there are numerous differences (cultural, economic, legal). But it showed me that it certainly can be done better than we're doing it.

....it became very easy for the Court to rationalize striking down the all-but-bans of the handful of cities that didn't

Aw geez, I'm a little bit 'over' firearms/2a debates since nothing changes. I waste a lot of money on 12 gauge shells and clay at ranges where there as many assault weapon fanatics..if not more... than skeet/trap shooters.

The discussions are always dead ends while the body counts climb.

Yes, it's an unfortunate reality that cities counties and states know that fighting courts is a losing proposition.

So I'll just say this and be done with it because 'we' all know the rebuttal: I'm not the only person who believes that the SCOTUS ignoring those first four words, and interpreting the word 'people' to mean individuals, as opposed to people being the state, is a gross misinterpretation that does not serve the nation well.

Second Amendment

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.

Agree with your suggestions 100% with one request.

Keep the culture, the music, the video games, 100% STATUS QUO.

Please.

<k>JMHO, but you do better when you engage seriously on a topic. Like you did with me earlier. Less cryptic, more meat, better discussion. FWIW.

Ditto!!

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.