America's Gun Violence

Spiritual_Chaos

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

And I could see that being justifiable.  With proper licensing and registration.

Yeah, not the sarcasm, but I can leave space for special allowances for landowners in boar territory...they are nasty fuckers.

First, eat vegetarian and respect living creatures. 

But, other than that Sweden have plenty of boar. And I doubt any has had to be taken down using an Assault rifle. 

Not sure, but they are definitely hunted with sound suppression in Sweden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOMc1UN_3AQ&feature=share

Does sound supression equal "automatic rifle"?

I've mostly used it on my PP7.

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

And I could see that being justifiable.  With proper licensing and registration.

Yeah, not the sarcasm, but I can leave space for special allowances for landowners in boar territory...they are nasty fuckers.

First, eat vegetarian and respect living creatures. 

But, other than that Sweden have plenty of boar. And I doubt any has had to be taken down using an Assault rifle. 

Not sure, but they are definitely hunted with sound suppression in Sweden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOMc1UN_3AQ&feature=share

Does sound supression equal "automatic rifle"?

I've mostly used it on my PP7.

Automatic rifles are hugely restricted here.  Did you mean semi-auto?
So you are cool with sound suppression being legal, because it is another attachment that is majorly restricted in the US.  Let’s try not to get into a US vs Sweden discussing again....please!

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

Gern Blansten

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

And I could see that being justifiable.  With proper licensing and registration.

Yeah, not the sarcasm, but I can leave space for special allowances for landowners in boar territory...they are nasty fuckers.

First, eat vegetarian and respect living creatures. 

But, other than that Sweden have plenty of boar. And I doubt any has had to be taken down using an Assault rifle. 

Not sure, but they are definitely hunted with sound suppression in Sweden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOMc1UN_3AQ&feature=share

Does sound supression equal "automatic rifle"?

I've mostly used it on my PP7.

that's a massive toilet

is that the James Bond game?

Meltdown99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSWKL6Li9ng

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

I don’t think you grasped what I was saying...The lobbying has to go.
Don’t you want the ones lobbying against Planned Parenthood to go away too?  The only fair way to do that would to end all lobbying, whether you support the group’s cause or not.
But you just created a great example as to why that is hard to accomplish.  

PJPOWER

Here is an interesting article.  It suggests red-flag laws, which I am only for as long as there are protections or consequences surrounding false reports to prevent things such as angry spouses, angry internet people, etc from abusing the system:
https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/press-releases/following-tragic-shootings-in-el-paso-and-dayton-new-report-recommends-wide-range-of-actionable-solutions-to-reduce-mass-violence/ 
Overall, though, I align with the suggestions.

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

And I could see that being justifiable.  With proper licensing and registration.

Yeah, not the sarcasm, but I can leave space for special allowances for landowners in boar territory...they are nasty fuckers.

First, eat vegetarian and respect living creatures. 

But, other than that Sweden have plenty of boar. And I doubt any has had to be taken down using an Assault rifle. 

You spelled BORE wrong

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

I don’t think you grasped what I was saying...The lobbying has to go.
Don’t you want the ones lobbying against Planned Parenthood to go away too?  The only fair way to do that would to end all lobbying, whether you support the group’s cause or not.
But you just created a great example as to why that is hard to accomplish.  

I grasped what you’re saying and I disagree that PP is a lobbying organization as the term would commonly be understood. 

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

I don’t think you grasped what I was saying...The lobbying has to go.
Don’t you want the ones lobbying against Planned Parenthood to go away too?  The only fair way to do that would to end all lobbying, whether you support the group’s cause or not.
But you just created a great example as to why that is hard to accomplish.  

I grasped what you’re saying and I disagree that PP is a lobbying organization as the term would commonly be understood. 

Well thanks for clearing that up there oftenreading.  Anything regarding the point I was trying to make that politicians being payed off by lobbying groups is generally a bad thing that needs to go away? If not, then bye.

jeffbr

PJPOWER said:

Here is an interesting article.  It suggests red-flag laws, which I am only for as long as there are protections or consequences surrounding false reports to prevent things such as angry spouses, angry internet people, etc from abusing the system:
https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/press-releases/following-tragic-shootings-in-el-paso-and-dayton-new-report-recommends-wide-range-of-actionable-solutions-to-reduce-mass-violence/ 
Overall, though, I align with the suggestions.

We have red flag laws on the books in a number of states already, including all states on the west coast. Agree that there should be penalties for abusing the law and making false reports. I see the a lot of common sense in those laws.

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

I don’t think you grasped what I was saying...The lobbying has to go.
Don’t you want the ones lobbying against Planned Parenthood to go away too?  The only fair way to do that would to end all lobbying, whether you support the group’s cause or not.
But you just created a great example as to why that is hard to accomplish.  

I grasped what you’re saying and I disagree that PP is a lobbying organization as the term would commonly be understood. 

Well thanks for clearing that up there oftenreading.  Anything regarding the point I was trying to make that politicians being payed off by lobbying groups is generally a bad thing that needs to go away? If not, then bye.

Cheerful as always, I see. 

I would be more than happy to see strict limits on lobbying and political donations, both from individuals and organizations. These exist in Canada, particularly in BC. Restricting donations across the board then obviated the need to define what is a lobbying organization and what isn’t, which was what my initial point was speaking to.
  

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.
  

“At this juncture”, I think the best approach to getting anything done in this country would be to get rid of all lobbyists $ or severely limit the amount politicians can be “paid off”.  It would have to be across the board, though (big pharma, oil, NRA as well as Planned Parenthood, etc.). You cannot pick and choose which special interest groups can donate and which ones cannot.  Then, without the fear of losing financial incentives, I think you would get a whole new set of politicians with different and better goals.  
But I’m not sure anything like that is remotely attainable “at this juncture” either.

Planned Parenthood is a service provider that makes reproductive health care available to millions of women, many of who wouldn’t be able to access reproductive health care in any other way. They are not at all in the same boat as the NRA or other lobbyist groups. 
 

I don’t think you grasped what I was saying...The lobbying has to go.
Don’t you want the ones lobbying against Planned Parenthood to go away too?  The only fair way to do that would to end all lobbying, whether you support the group’s cause or not.
But you just created a great example as to why that is hard to accomplish.  

I grasped what you’re saying and I disagree that PP is a lobbying organization as the term would commonly be understood. 

Well thanks for clearing that up there oftenreading.  Anything regarding the point I was trying to make that politicians being payed off by lobbying groups is generally a bad thing that needs to go away? If not, then bye.

Cheerful as always, I see. 

I would be more than happy to see strict limits on lobbying and political donations, both from individuals and organizations. These exist in Canada, particularly in BC. Restricting donations across the board then obviated the need to define what is a lobbying organization and what isn’t, which was what my initial point was speaking to.
  

Right on, got ya, that makes sense.

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

I grasped what you’re saying and I disagree that PP is a lobbying organization as the term would commonly be understood. 

Well thanks for clearing that up there oftenreading.  Anything regarding the point I was trying to make that politicians being payed off by lobbying groups is generally a bad thing that needs to go away? If not, then bye.

Cheerful as always, I see. 

I would be more than happy to see strict limits on lobbying and political donations, both from individuals and organizations. These exist in Canada, particularly in BC. Restricting donations across the board then obviated the need to define what is a lobbying organization and what isn’t, which was what my initial point was speaking to.
  

I had read that to become President or run even, that you need to be able to raise 500,000,000 dollars.

That is 500 Miliion.  Half a billion dollars.

Get rid of lobbying would be great that politicians can't be swayed.  Maybe.

Get rid of superpacts too.

rgambs

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

tempo_n_groove

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

Either that or they are tired of being ganged up on, lol.

rgambs

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

Either that or they are tired of being ganged up on, lol.

Good, take that shit to 8chan where it belongs...oops, I guess they got shut down lol

PJPOWER

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is an interesting article.  It suggests red-flag laws, which I am only for as long as there are protections or consequences surrounding false reports to prevent things such as angry spouses, angry internet people, etc from abusing the system:
https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/press-releases/following-tragic-shootings-in-el-paso-and-dayton-new-report-recommends-wide-range-of-actionable-solutions-to-reduce-mass-violence/ 
Overall, though, I align with the suggestions.

We have red flag laws on the books in a number of states already, including all states on the west coast. Agree that there should be penalties for abusing the law and making false reports. I see the a lot of common sense in those laws.

I see a lot of common sense in them as well as avenues for abuse.  Hopefully, if they get implemented, they get them right so that they don’t just create more issues.  It should be effective enough that it flags people needed and limited enough that it does not impose on the general public.

Gern Blansten

It does seem like we are needing to push the 1st amendment back a bit related to hate speech.  I don't see a way out of that.

tempo_n_groove

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

Either that or they are tired of being ganged up on, lol.

Good, take that shit to 8chan where it belongs...oops, I guess they got shut down lol

I completely forgot about 8chan.

What was the other whacky one, was it Q?