Gun laws do they work

[AnthonyGerrard]

Yeah, that's where the battle lines are drawn right now. The liberals and progressives want to try to do something along that line, while the conservatives are adamantly opposed to any form of licensing or restrictions on a wide-spread level. And with the amount of money behind the NRA (EVERY gun manufacturer gives them wads of cash) they have enough congresscritters in their pocket that there will NEVER be further gun control while the NRA exists.

Commentator on UK TV said this, public wants some move on the issue, but both republican and democrats are paid off by gun lobby - so it wont happen.

Said you needed reform of political funding.

 

[Brianwarnock]

But maybe you Brits are right and it's the guns MAKING Americans kill each other.

They certainly make it easier and less personal.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Commentator on UK TV said this, public wants some move on the issue, but both republican and democrats are paid off by gun lobby - so it wont happen.

Said you needed reform of political funding.

The big problem is Citizens United. Before this decision, there was a legal limit to contribution size in elections, whether to candidates, parties, or third-person groups. What this decision did was legalize unlimited contributions to non-profit political action groups. So now the multi-billion-dollar-per-year corporations can just donate, say, a billion dollars to a PAC (political action committee), which then turns around and spends it on fundraisers and ad campaigns for their preferred candidate (who, this being big business and all, is usually Republican). And I'm not pulling these numbers out of a hat - the Koch brothers, who basically own the Republican party, have already announced that they'll be giving a billion to (extreme) right-wing PACs next year for the presidential election. (Basically, the judgement decided that since corporations are legally 'entities', and 'entities' are legally people, that corporations are people and have most of the rights thereof.)

So the first order of business is to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, but good luck with that with a GOP House, GOP Senate, and five GOP-nominated SCOTUS justices (even if Kennedy actually votes liberal on social issues, he NEVER does so on economic or political ones). It doesn't help that Democrats have always been traditionally disorganized, which is honestly one of the main reasons the GOP is still in power (the other being extensive and blatant gerrymandering).

Also, I love how the right never holds THIS decision up when whining about 'activist judges making their own laws'.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Good post, and thanks for the compliment, but I can't agree with your assessment of Col, inside he's a pretty good guy.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Over and above his irrational, deep, and abiding hatred of America for no rational reason, this is the man who gets off on spreading his misery by pissing people off and has admitted to hating and loathing his wife for daring to come down with a debilitating illness.

That is NOT what constitutes a 'good guy'. A 'good guy' would get help and stop blaming her for being ill.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Over and above his irrational, deep, and abiding hatred of America for no rational reason, this is the man who gets off on spreading his misery by pissing people off and has admitted to hating and loathing his wife for daring to come down with a debilitating illness.

That is NOT what constitutes a 'good guy'. A 'good guy' would get help and stop blaming her for being ill.

Its tough being a carer, with no kids to offer help.
Mostly dry jest, Col doesn't solely target the US btw. But he does get his biggest rise there.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Its tough being a carer, with no kids to offer help.
Mostly dry jest, Col doesn't solely target the US btw. But he does get his biggest rise there.

I took care of my father while he was being killed by cancer. My father took care of my step-mother when she spent years as an invalid due to HER cancer. No, it wasn't decades like it is with MS, but that didn't mean it was any easier. It's understandable to feel resentment in that situation, but that's why you get help.

It is quite possible to be a carer without hating the person for whom you're caring. What I really wish is that he'd go see a psychologist about it.

Edit: Guys, this derail isn't going to help anything here. If you want to keep this discussion going, let's take it to PMs.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I took care of my father while he was being killed by cancer. My father took care of my step-mother when she spent years as an invalid due to HER cancer. No, it wasn't decades like it is with MS, but that didn't mean it was any easier. It's understandable to feel resentment in that situation, but that's why you get help.

It is quite possible to be a carer without hating the person for whom you're caring. What I really wish is that he'd go see a psychologist about it.

Edit: Guys, this derail isn't going to help anything here. If you want to keep this discussion going, let's take it to PMs.

I've said all I want to say. I'm not going to talk about others on PM.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AnthonyGerrard

Commentator on UK TV said this, public wants some move on the issue, but both republican and democrats are paid off by gun lobby - so it wont happen.

Said you needed reform of political funding.

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but Republicans and Democrats in the current political climate cannot vote for stronger gun control. To do that, they would have to appear to agree on something, which the current climate of polar opposition will prevent. Besides that, the gun lobby doesn't actually pay off the politicians so much as they cower them by arousing public opposition regarding an "encroachment on our rights" such that no seated politician DARES to propose gun laws with teeth. (Not saying that the gun lobby doesn't make contributions, but they don't put all of their political "eggs" in one basket.)

Political funding reform has been tried but it fails because someone pointed out (correctly or not) that in the modern era, political free speech includes modern media, which means that political ads are covered by the definition of free speech. The "Free speech" amendment says congress and the states cannot abridge free speech, and there goes political funding reform out the window. Unless someone finds a way to break the logical chain between corporate contributions and free speech, we will forever be unable to reform our political funding. For what it's worth, I don't disagree with your TV commentator, but I don't see how we could control political speech contributions in our current legal position.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding Col's problems that cause him to be somewhat touchy sometimes...

Been there, done that. I was my mother's sole caregiver after she fell victim to Alzheimer's Disease back in the 1980's. I am an only child, Dad had already passed away, and Mom's other siblings were dead or dying - not to mention that they were 300+ miles away and my cousins were busy helping THEIR elderly parents.

I had no help except professional therapy, and even with that help it was a very dark time. We don't need to go into details, but I will say this: I try to avoid taking too much insult from Col's replies. I know he hurts inside and the bitterness comes through his messages clearly.

Now, nearly 30 years after Mom's death and after frequent visits to therapists, I still have tough times when I allow myself to remember. In fact, I still can't watch the film "Driving Miss Daisy" because that final scene in the nursing home reminds me of times that were nearly unbearable. I put my own life on hold for years to take care of her. When she finally passed, I was able to return to a social life of sorts, which is how I found my loving, caring, and VERY patient wife. She has helped me more than any other person to put away some of my demons. I can only hope for Col that he can find a way for his demons to come under his control.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Look, since my comment started this whole thing, let me put an end to it.

Yeah, I called him an ass, because he acts like an ass. He may have all the justification in the world - although I disagree that he does, as he apparently refuses to get help dealing with it, and I find his statement that he doesn't care what would happen to his wife if he dies to be contemptible - but the fact remains that when you act like an ass 100% of the time, people are going to think you're an ass. Until I see him regularly posting in a non-asinine manner, I am going to continue to hold that opinion.

(Much like how many of you, with a certain amount of cause, I admit, certainly consider me to be an ass, if for entirely different reasons. )

 

[Frothingslosh]

An interesting quote on America's gun problem, in this case, the massive failure of Stand Your Ground laws:

Because as horrific as it is, the fantasy about killing aggressive urban minorities in self-defense is a prevalent, deeply held narrative among certain sections of the American right. It's not a hidden fantasy, a secret and dark desire that dare not speak its name. No, this strain states its intentions and its desires loudly and proudly. Take, for instance, shock jock Neal Boortz, who had this to say about crime in Atlanta:

This town is starting to look like a garbage heap. And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. And let their -- let their mommas -- let their mommas say, "He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd." And then lock her ass up.

This isn't an isolated phenomenon. On far-right message board Free Republic, there have been threads where posters openly fantasize about killing black people who "invade" their communities subsequent to rioting or social unrest. In the minds of this strain of the American right, best represented by Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent, Trayvon Martin must have been violent, must have been a gangster, must have been a drug dealer or drug addict. Because were this not the case—were he simply, as he was, a teenager carrying a can of iced tea and a pack of Skittles minding his own business and on his way home—it would suggest that perhaps the vigilante fantasy that so pervades the conservative camp might be mistaken; that perhaps standing one's ground for so-called Second Amendment remedies could result in the death of an innocent teenager, rather than justified self-defense against one of Boortz' so-called "urban thugs."

There was also a woman in Florida (the same state where George Zimmerman used Stand Your Ground to get away with murdering Trayvon Martin) a couple years back who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot rather than killing the husband who was in the middle of actually attacking her. If she had just killed him, she would have been fine, but no, she didn't want to kill anyone and so she will spend the next decade or two in prison.

 

[Brianwarnock]

An interesting quote on America's gun problem, in this case, the massive failure of Stand Your Ground laws:



There was also a woman in Florida (the same state where George Zimmerman used Stand Your Ground to get away with murdering Trayvon Martin) a couple years back who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot rather than killing the husband who was in the middle of actually attacking her. If she had just killed him, she would have been fine, but no, she didn't want to kill anyone and so she will spend the next decade or two in prison.

You're kidding, right?
If not what on earth was she charged with?
Does this mean if you are a lousy shot and miss you will be charged instead of being let off?
Is America really that sick?

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

You're kidding, right?
If not what on earth was she charged with?
Does this mean if you are a lousy shot and miss you will be charged instead of being let off?
Is America really that sick?

Brian

Yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

 

[Brianwarnock]

Yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I take it that is in reply to my last question.
Of course it is not gun ownership that is the problem but that the family did not keep the gun safely locked away blah, blah ....

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

AnthonyGerrard



Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but Republicans and Democrats in the current political climate cannot vote for stronger gun control. To do that, they would have to appear to agree on something, which the current climate of polar opposition will prevent. Besides that, the gun lobby doesn't actually pay off the politicians so much as they cower them by arousing public opposition regarding an "encroachment on our rights" such that no seated politician DARES to propose gun laws with teeth. (Not saying that the gun lobby doesn't make contributions, but they don't put all of their political "eggs" in one basket.)

Political funding reform has been tried but it fails because someone pointed out (correctly or not) that in the modern era, political free speech includes modern media, which means that political ads are covered by the definition of free speech. The "Free speech" amendment says congress and the states cannot abridge free speech, and there goes political funding reform out the window. Unless someone finds a way to break the logical chain between corporate contributions and free speech, we will forever be unable to reform our political funding. For what it's worth, I don't disagree with your TV commentator, but I don't see how we could control political speech contributions in our current legal position.

Free speech surely must allow for those with less money to be heard with a similar volume too. Cant imagine that the original intention was to make those who could pay, have the loudest voice.

Seems the US is lost in more literal translations of its constitution, which are no longer as relevant as they were.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I take it that is in reply to my last question.
Of course it is not gun ownership that is the problem but that the family did not keep the gun safely locked away blah, blah ....

Brian

I suppose it was a reply, there's something sick about allowing this time after time after time. Yes there's individual negligence here, there's also collective negligence in allowing the circumstances to arise.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I suppose I should have put a smiley after my second sentence, I was merely spouting the usual crap that the gun lobby does, a gun locked away and made secure is hardly useful as a defence against an intruder, which is their argument for having one. They argue all ways depending on what suits them.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I suppose I should have put a smiley after my second sentence, I was merely spouting the usual crap that the gun lobby does, a gun locked away and made secure is hardly useful as a defence against an intruder, which is their argument for having one. They argue all ways depending on what suits them.

Brian

I know you were being facetious.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Let's get one thing straight for the local America-haters, even if they've not spoken up yet: with the murder AG linked to, a LOT of Americans are pissed and, between that and the Oregon mass shooting, are demanding an overhaul of and tightening of gun control laws. Unfortunately, the Right is once again arguing that, with the murder of the little girl, it was due to negligence on the part of the parents (sorta true - you don't leave shotguns just lying around), and with the college shooting, that if everyone were armed this just wouldn't happen.

Of course, since the Right has made 'guns for EVERYONE' part of their official stance for decades now, you can rest assured that no progress will be made.

You're kidding, right?
If not what on earth was she charged with?
Does this mean if you are a lousy shot and miss you will be charged instead of being let off?
Is America really that sick?

Oh, and Brian, for the woman who went to jail for the warning shot? She was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 12 minutes. Twenty years is the legal minimum for the charge, apparently.

Her conviction was apparently overturned the first time due to the judge illegally shifting the burden of proof to the defense during jury instruction, so the prosecutor then charged her with THREE counts of the same charge for the encore. She apparently wound up pleading out and getting 3 years served and two years house arrest, which is still bullshit.

Also, there have been allegations of racism on the part of the white prosecutor, as the defendant is black. The prosecutor denies that, and denies that the woman was in fear of her life, instead insisting that the woman was threatening her husband and endangering his children, thus the three charges instead of one at the retrial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AnthonyGerrard

Free speech surely must allow for those with less money to be heard with a similar volume too. Cant imagine that the original intention was to make those who could pay, have the loudest voice.

I can't imagine that intention either. And free speech is so absolutely protected when it is politically oriented that it would take an act of God to enact a miracle that revokes free will in an isolated fashion. Those of you who have seen my posts elsewhere on this forum know that I do not consider such an event to be likely at all. Even the Religious Right would say it couldn't happen because they will claim that God will not interfere with our free will. I have other reasons to doubt such an event, of course, but we need not overly cross-pollute this topic. (Pardon the pun...)

Seems the US is lost in more literal translations of its constitution, which are no longer as relevant as they were.

Most of them are still more relevant than not. Conceptually, they are all fine. It is that humans tried to anticipate the unpredictable directions of technology by putting very generalized principles in place. Now we find that the general principles have to some degree caused issues to become apparent.

For instance, gun control in 1785 was not a big issue. A person could carry maybe one rifle and one or two pistols ready to fire, then it would take him 30 seconds minimum to reload the rifle and maybe 20 seconds per pistol. During that time, it would be easy to tackle the person to stop him.

Now, with assault weapons that fire 100 rounds per minute easily, tackling the shooter to stop him becomes an issue. In such cases, the only fast solution is for the victims to be armed and to return lethal fire. Slow solutions result in more deaths. At some point, you have to ask how many lives you want to sacrifice - one shooter or many victims. Yes, not much of a choice - but it is a clear-cut case for which not choosing is choosing to sacrifice the victims.

Our equal-rights amendments are a sign of the times. As we study the problem more and more, we begin to realize that discrimination against homosexuals is akin to discrimination against people based on country of birth or on their skin color. They had no choices for any of those issues. The national trend is slowly heading for equality for homosexuals. Because of this trend, one of my step-daughters was finally able to marry her lover to be her wife. Yes, parse that out carefully and you will recognize why I have been so vehement about gay rights in other threads.

The ideas of the U S Constitution are still not wrong, but they almost certainly need some form of tweaking. Unfortunately, in this contentious atmosphere, there will be no chance of serious adjustment efforts. Gun laws and campaign reform are both unlikely given the polarized nature of USA politics.