Gun violence

"two people getting married and raising children within the confines of that marriage."
My family consists of three children and various adults who have always looked out for all of them. The relationships of their parents changed when they were between one and five years old. The children to this day all consider themselves as brothers and sister and uncles and aunt to their families. They consider multiple adults to be their parents and their children see us all as grandparents.

All three children, now between 35 and 40, are incredibly successful people. Two of their partners come from families where the parents separated and none of them have a problem with it.

What destroys children from "broken" families are adults who use them as weapons against their former spouses.
 
What destroys children from "broken" families are adults who use them as weapons against their former spouses
Agreed that there are ways to handle breakups that either cause a lot more destruction or that do not cause near as much.
 
Don't confuse the suburban problem of broken homes with the inner city problem of out of wedlock births.
 
Don't confuse the suburban problem of broken homes with the inner city problem of out of wedlock births.
That's an excellent point. Two somewhat different problems that both need to be improved as much as possible.
I do feel like the government is actively encouraging the latter one to happen though. But that is always been the Democrats strategy, or one of the big ones. Make people as destitute and dependent on the government as possible which tons of out of wedlock births will do real easy! Then blame it all on "racism" in order to look like you're pandering to your voters.
 
As NG has said, I'll go and crawl back under a rock.
Perish the thought, this is actually good stuff...

And as some have said, the President is really just a bum. All he/she/it can do is send troops anywhere at anytime he/she/it sees fit - and even that is SUPPOSED to have limitations. Congress is where the real power lies and they have been asleep at the wheel for so long nobody realizes it anymore.
 
Last edited:
and waltz about like some modern day Wyatt Earp waving guns around.
I'm not sure if this is a legit thought or if you are winding us up, I have met a few foreigners we actually think all of us drive vintage cars and own guns so I will treat it as the former.

The right/authorization to "open carry" varies from state to state and within that state, they can vary from township to township. Here in Virginia, I can strap a gun on my hip (if I have LEGALLY purchased it) and walk into any establishment - unless the county prohibits it, it has been declared "gun free" (school, church), or if a PRIVATLY owned business prohibits it. And, just to muddy it the waters a bit, if you can a permit to conceal, there are a whole new set of laws that go along with that.

All that is a very over-simplification of the concept - which is why if don't open carry - that and I simply do not go about daily like in fear. If I have some distance to go and I am going someplace I am not familiar with, I will keep one in my vehicle but will not carry it out of my car. Lets just hope that if someone does seek to do me harm, I am still in my vehicle...
 
I'm not winding anyone up. Again, your foreigners think what many people in the UK think. Americans drive gas guzzling huge cars and carry guns, a stereotype maybe, but fact none the less.
When you call someone a 'bum' does that mean a tramp? A 'bum' in the UK usually refers to one's derriere.
By the way, I've always fancied a Lincoln Continental- I believe it was used in a TV detective series called 'Canon', or a Rambler Classic convertible. Do they still make those?
Col
 
A bum is a nobody, a vagabond who depends on others for everthing, a tramp as you say, but here in the US a tramp has taken on the meaning of a promiscuous woman.

I believe Lincolns are still around but they look nothing like the older ones you are referring to.

I myself drive a sporty, ultra-cool Subaru Forrester.
 
At the end of the day, 99% of gun violence in the US is done by metropolitan gang or gang-like folks who aren't paying any attention to the gun control "laws" and couldn't care less if they were implemented.

There needs to be cultural shifts to stop gun violence, there is where the problem lies, although I wouldn't be opposed to certain very limited additional gun controls - but I am very suspicious of "red flag" laws, since, similar to the idea of domestic violence convictions, they would often be the tool of the whim of a scorned ex-girlfriend....As we all know that "domestic violence" charges are virtually impossible to fight, (especially in the "MeToo era" where we just believe all women immediately and permanently, like idiots), so virtually all men accused of throwing a punch simply plead out - but not because they necessarily are guilty. Domestic violence charges are probably the #1 "misdiagnosed illness", if you actually looked into it. Virtually all "bad breakups" include them, which kind of tells you all you need to know, if you're thinking.
 
I am curious as to how gun control works in other countries where they used to be legal. While in Italy, I knew two guys who had guns and were all too eager to show the American "gun-nut" their hand guns. I knew better than to ask them so I just acted impressed and the subject changed to more important subjects like coffee and pizza.

But exactly how did they get taken from the people? Did a law get passed and everyone simply turned them in? Did troops go door-to-door and confiscate them? Was the process quick or did it take years?
 
A bum is a nobody, a vagabond who depends on others for everthing, a tramp as you say, but here in the US a tramp has taken on the meaning of a promiscuous woman.

I believe Lincolns are still around but they look nothing like the older ones you are referring to.

I myself drive a sporty, ultra-cool Subaru Forrester.
Nice car, but very expensive in the UK. Do many people drive the huge American cars of yesteryear?
Anyway, going back to the topic. It seems I was right with regard to the president being a figurehead on the world stage. So if Congress has the power, what does the president do?
Col
 
Do many people drive the huge American cars of yesteryear?
No, actually. They cost too much to operate and maintain - usually only see them at shows. But I guess it you were to go with a per capita thing, the US probably has more than most countries.

So if Congress has the power, what does the president do?
That is one for the other guys: Doc, Pat Hartman, SteveR. All I can offer is what they are SUPPOSED to and it is really simple.

When CON-gress initiates a law, the President is supposed to view it through binary specs; is it constitutional or not. If it is not, they are supposed to VETO it outright. If it is, they can either approve or VETO and send it on.

As the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, they can deploy troops without a declaration of war but are supposed to withdraw them after a period (60 days I think) unless CON-gress has declared war (something the idiot in the Whitehouse CANNOT do).

Again, a gross oversimplification but that is a succinct description of their job.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I prefer the simple explanation as (being a foreigner) I don't know the differences between republican and Democrats, or never heard of the people they refer to, the only one I know is some bloke called Biden.
Actually, I've got lots of rocks in my back garden! They're part of the landscaping of the estate.

Col
 
That's an excellent point. Two somewhat different problems that both need to be improved as much as possible.
I do feel like the government is actively encouraging the latter one to happen though. But that is always been the Democrats strategy, or one of the big ones. Make people as destitute and dependent on the government as possible which tons of out of wedlock births will do real easy! Then blame it all on "racism" in order to look like you're pandering to your voters.

The real problem is the Democratic party. Here is a video offering food for thought.


Dinesh D'Souza is not in favor of Democrats. He has a provocative take on the way the Democrats do things TODAY. You can more or less ignore the person doing the wrap-around commentary. Dinesh doesn't hold back. I'm not in favor of Trump for another term but we can surely do better than Papa Joe and his cronies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom