Why would anyone think that firearm manufacturers are extra-special delicate flowers that need unique legal protection from the government that other companies (including car companies) don’t get? What is so dangerous about “the public” that these companies need government protection from them that others don’t get?
To put this in even better perspective, 11,000 homicides = 30 per day…in a country of 350 million people! So yes, rare occurrences. Take away drug related shootings (which, ironically, the left is largely responsible for due to its formerly eager adoption of drug use as a lifestyle and past and current promotion of drug use as “cool”) and I’d wager the total would drop to less than half that amount.
It’s pretty obvious that most of the left’s objection to guns is part and parcel of their liberal ideology which hates power and authority (both of which guns bestow in abundance) rather than any real and rational concern for human health, safety and welfare. Mass shootings, etc. are merely rallying points in their attempt to achieve a goal they’ve been in favor of all along.
There are a lot of other things in this country that cause a far greater needless loss of life but they get totally ignored because they don’t hit liberal hotspots.
Trey Radel-R. Busted trying to buy cocaine from undercover DEA agent.
I think you mean, “to make these statistics less damaging to my position, we’ll pretend that the previous exchange didn’t happen.”
That really doesn’t mean anything. There are outliers and hypocrites in every segment of society. It’s been the left though which originally embraced drugs like manna from heaven and to this day considers drugs, drug use and those who engage in it as cool, and those who eschew it or try to battle against it are portrayed as square, uptight and out of it.
No, what I actually meant was that these statistics are even less significant than I originally pointed out when you break them down into real world terms.
Another mind-reader of liberals! The Dope has so many of these I’ve lost count. Who knew that all this time I thought I’ve been liberal, and yet I don’t hold any liberal views according to the Dope’s conservative psychics?
You mean such liberal party animals like Limbaugh and Ted Haggard?
Here is the stupid, stupid, stupid, nasty, worthless, evil shit Ms. Clinton wants enacted:
[ul]
[li]Universal federalbackground checks.Clinton saidshe supports the 2013 US Senate bill expanding background checks on gun purchases, which most Republicans argue will not prevent determined individuals from getting their hands on guns. Polls have found that backgroundchecks enjoy broad support among most Americans.[/li][li]Close various loopholes.Clinton’s proposal citedseveral laws that allow individuals to purchase guns without undergoing existing background checks thatlook to ensure that gun purchasers do not have a history of court-documented mental illness. The proposal would end the “Charleston loophole” — referring to a shooting earlier this year in South Carolina—a quirk that allows gun sales to go through if a check is not completed within three days.[/li][li]Repeal a law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits.The law is fairly complicated, but gun manufacturers have certain special protectionsthat prevent victims of gun violence from suing for negligence.[/li][li]Expand inspections of gun dealers.[/li][li]Criminalize purchasing guns on behalf of those barred from buying guns themselves.Clinton proposes criminalizing “straw purchases,” in which individuals buy guns and provide them to individuals who cannot pass background checks themselves.[/li][li]Block convicted domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns.[/li][li]Improve laws blocking individuals suffering from mental illness from obtaining weapons.This is possibly an area that she could find compromise — gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association have presented improvedgun-control databases as the solution to curbing mass shootings, though many Democrats say this alone does not go far enough.[/li][/ul]
Admittedly, it is a bandaid approach, but at least it is something. The RWers have only More Guns! An Armed Society is a Polite Society! So far, that has not turned out all that well. Because, you know, many of us would just as well prefer not to go around packing. I do sometimes have quite a temper.
[QUOTE=escherealAdmittedly, it is a bandaid approach, but at least it is something. [/QUOTE]
See, there’s the problem right there. It’s only a first step, a beginning, with undoubtedly more onerous restrictions to follow with outright banning the likely end game.
Plus it leads to a federal database of gun owners that could be used in the future in a confiscation scheme or to outlaw ownership of all guns not in the database.
The NSA already knows all of this.
I don’t think this is true - that “loser pays” is universal. Can you elaborate? The gist of this op ed is that it is not universal. This article says it is banned in Delaware.
If you want to start a debate thread on any one of these proposals I’d be glad to engage on why they are bad - except the last one. That one is good.
Is there a counter-argument that’s not “this will lead to confiscation”?
Is there an argument that’s not “we’ll settle for just this one little restriction, SCOUT’S HONOR”.
Quoted again, just because I can’t wrap my brain around this.
Whaaaaa…? Is this some naive view of early 60’s Americana? Some Ozzie & Harriet Try To Keep Ricky Nelson Away From Weed fantasy?
SA, would your brain explode if you met me? Eagle Scout, Asst. Minister, Teacher, Bible study leader, sports fan (& Serious Tailgater), Traditional Dad with many Traditional Values, who’s tried to keep himself and his kids away from hard drugs…
…and a Progressive Liberal. Who knows evil when he sees it, and most of it today wears a scarlet R.
If a government needed such a database today, all they need to do is seize the NRA membership rolls.
Someone, some day, may well propose additional laws or regulations. But they will be debated and voted on for their own merits. I’ll wait until that happens and form my opinions then. What I won’t do is fall for such a slippery slope, “expanded background checks will mean confiscation”.
Obviously, you’re not familiar with Starving Artist. The man thinks Leave It To Beaver was the ideal world and the hippies ruined everything by sledgehammering the good, logical social restrictions of the pre-1960ish world into rubble and dancing naked and having wild orgies in the ruins of society.
No, my brain wouldn’t explode. I’d simply peg you as an outlier. Not every liberal acts like every other liberal and not every conservative acts like every other conservative. But the fact remains that it’s been the left in the main who embraced drugs to begin with, who criticize and ridicule efforts to combat drugs and drug use, who seek to reduce penalties for it, and who treat drug use as cool and inside and people who don’t as uptight squares who are out of it.