Varia.


“Godlessness is the reason for mass shootings”. Nonsense.
“Abortion is the cause of mass shootings”. More nonsense.

Shooters quoting Trump is a known cause. The Trump insurrection is a continuing factor in mass violence.



“Ungodliness is the same as a decline in church going”. Still more nonsense.

Mandatory proper training and observation to safely handle guns reduces gun violence. A common sense no-brainer.



“Gun regulation reduces liberty.” Ridiculous.

Similar to the above is crazy Repub Rep Jordan claiming COVID-19 is a freedom and liberty issue. Dr. Faucci says nonsense, it's a public health issue.

(Interesting factoid - The supporters of opposing gun regulation and COVID-19 restrictions are supporters of the Trump insurrrection.)


“True liberty is living in peace with other people without fear” - a good practical definition of liberty.


The increase of violence in media and internet social connections and changes in mental health treatments go a long way to explain mass shootings, not lack of church attendance.


When existing laws are not getting the job done re guns, the solution is to add laws that work, NOT to discard laws.

You could try enforcing existing laws

You could try enforcing existing laws

If they're not being enforced, I agree.

Hard to enforce a law when the criminals are smarter than the cops. Or when the law is outdated and irrelevant, and lawmakers are incompetent.

Seems you have several problems there and the solution starts with firing the people at the top

We got the top critter. Next election 2022

Can't blame anyone but the current administration. The past demonrat administration was just as ineffective on this problem as Trump was. The rot starts at the top but there are a lot of advisors and sycophants, they need to be fired too

The main thing to consider is we are still a works in progress with much more to be done, even as we remain at the top of the food chain.

Oh and you need to get rid of that attitude

We all could probably stand an attitude adjustment every now and then.

Yes Praise the Lord

Sorry no quick fixes here, but you'll find out as you grow.

The Aussies have peaked . Great Britain was great and is taking the steps to be great again because they choose to be great again . God bless Albion .It starts with breaking free of the EU strait jacket . The Aussies choose to be vassals to a commonwealth. When they are a Republic then we can talk about Aussie greatness.

there were 41 mass shootings under the emperor totaling 236 dead and 257 injured .

The first mass shooting of note in the country occurred in August 1 , 1966 . A gunman climbed the tower at the University of Texas , killing 17 and wounding 30 . It would've been worse but LBJ was in town with his secret service contingent ;and civilians joined forces with campus police to storm the tower . It also helped that a radio broadcaster ;who son was shot and killed ,stayed on the job to warn people to stay away from the tower .

LBJ's administration the next day set the tone that has become the nonsense political response to the crime of murder
White House press secretary Bill Moyers read a statement by the president that said:
"What happened is not without a lesson: that we must press urgently for the legislation now pending in Congress to help prevent the wrong person from obtaining firearms." ...(the ) bill would not prevent all such tragedies. But it would help reduce the unrestricted sale of firearms to those who cannot be trusted in their use and possession."

That is the pabulum we hear have heard from every President since except Reagan and GW Bush who had the good sense to realize that a President's words bout this issue is mostly meaningless rhetoric .

The Aussies have peaked . Great Britain was great and is taking the steps to be great again because they choose to be great again . God bless Albion .It starts with breaking free of the EU strait jacket . The Aussies choose to be vassals to a commonwealth. When they are a Republic then we can talk about Aussie greatness.

Anything more than basic friendship between nations you see as "creeping socialism" which you equate to godless communism. Join the 21st century, Tom. All effective modern economies are a mix of socialism and capitalism. An excess of either is not desirable.

Freedom is never absolute. It needs to be properly overseen. That's why we have laws and regulations.

"What happened is not without a lesson: that we must press urgently for the legislation now pending in Congress to help prevent the wrong person from obtaining firearms." ...(the ) bill would not prevent all such tragedies. But it would help reduce the unrestricted sale of firearms to those who cannot be trusted in their use and possession."

That is the pabulum we hear have heard from every President since except Reagan and GW Bush who had the good sense to realize that a President's words bout this issue is mostly meaningless rhetoric .

You call it pabulum (sic). Most right thinking people would call it a very wise approach to the problem.

You're right about words not being enough. What is required is effective legislation that the Republicans have answered with words only.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3867517#post3867517)
The Aussies have peaked . Great Britain was great and is taking the steps to be great again because they choose to be great again . God bless Albion .It starts with breaking free of the EU strait jacket . The Aussies choose to be vassals to a commonwealth. When they are a Republic then we can talk about Aussie greatness.



Anything more than basic friendship between nations you see as "creeping socialism" which you equate to godless communism. Join the 21st century, Tom. All effective modern economies are a mix of socialism and capitalism. An excess of either is not desirable.

Freedom is never absolute. It needs to be properly overseen. That's why we have laws and regulations.

My comments had nothing to do with socialism . It has everything to do with nationalism .But ,as we know ; socialists are very capable at also being nationalists .

My comments had nothing to do with socialism . It has everything to do with nationalism .But ,as we know ; socialists are very capable at also being nationalists .

Nationalism doesn't have a very good record. Socialists are the opposite of nationalists - they promote good everywhere, not just in their own country. (Please don't use the Nazis as example of socialism. I don't expect that canard from someone as well-read as you).

There was a so called "assault rifle" ban during Bubba's reign .(The Senate vote was 95-4 ;so it was very much bi-partisan) not a matter of That did not prevent mass killings . In fact the percent of crimes committed using semi-automatic weapons dropped by a meager 17%.

Less than 1 percent of gun deaths are mass shootings. So to focus on them is demagoguery .If 10 people were killed by someone using an "assault weapon", and 10 other people were killed by someone using a standard 9mm pistol, is the first shooting somehow worse than the second?

Instead of the ineffective gun control which mostly punishes law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights , we should focus on underlying causes ....mental illness ...illegal drugs ... gang activity ...and the lack of economic and educational opportunities ;especially in Democrat controlled urban centers that could possibly lead someone into a life of crime .

Instead of the ineffective gun control which mostly punishes law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights , we should focus on underlying causes ....mental illness ...illegal drugs ... gang activity ...and the lack of economic and educational opportunities...
I totally agree! Thus, get counselors and social workers and other professionals involved in and even responding, sans police, to 911 calls, as appropriate.

There was a so called "assault rifle" ban during Bubba's reign .(The Senate vote was 95-4 ;so it was very much bi-partisan) not a matter of That did not prevent mass killings . In fact the percent of crimes committed using semi-automatic weapons dropped by a meager 17%.

I'll trust your figures are correct. But that does not determine that ALL laws/regulations in this area are ineffective. We need to keep trying in any way that may be workable.


Less than 1 percent of gun deaths are mass shootings. So to focus on them is demagoguery.

That's not what demagoguery means.


If 10 people were killed by someone using an "assault weapon", and 10 other people were killed by someone using a standard 9mm pistol is the first shooting somehow worse than the second?

The result is the same, but possibly preventing one is more effective than the other. E.g., to reduce it to a simplistic number killed omits any need for analysis of the problem.


Instead of the ineffective gun control which mostly punishes law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights , we should focus on underlying causes

I agree with that, other than citizens being "punished" - and constitutional rights which is debatable.


especially in Democrat controlled urban centers that could possibly lead someone into a life of crime .

Why in the world must you include "Democrat controlled urban centers" as though Democrats promote violence. How about "Republican controlled legislatures - state and federal - that refuse to discuss the issue.

Most Americans support closing "gun show" loopholes and stricter background checks and you may as well lose the punishing the abiding citizens argument unless you can explain how.

Police Are Killing Fewer People In Big Cities, But More In Suburban And Rural America | FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/police-are-killing-fewer-people-in-big-cities-but-more-in-suburban-and-rural-america/)

Gun violence in the US kills more black people and urban dwellers (theconversation.com) (https://theconversation.com/gun-violence-in-the-us-kills-more-black-people-and-urban-dwellers-86825)


Why in the world must you include "Democrat controlled urban centers" as though Democrats promote violence. How about "Republican controlled legislatures - state and federal - that refuse to discuss the issue.

Good question. Partisan bias?

I totally agree! Thus, get counselors and social workers and other professionals involved in and even responding, sans police, to 911 calls, as appropriate.What do you do when a number of them start being killed due to being sent into dangerous situations?


we should focus on underlying causes ....mental illness ...illegal drugs ... gang activity ...and the lack of economic and educational opportunities ;especially in Democrat controlled urban centers that could possibly lead someone into a life of crime .Pretty good post except, sadly, you left out the most important factor which is the restoration of the family.

What do you do when a number of them start being killed due to being sent into dangerous situations?
They wouldn't go into dangerous situations. They'd go on calls complaining about the woman who's undressing in front of the sinks in the public library bathroom and the homeless guy who's sleeping on the bench in front of the grocery store.

(Please don't use the Nazis as example of socialism. I don't expect that canard from someone as well-read as you).
Depends on who's socialism you are talking about . Marx wanted the state eliminated . His contemporary Ferdinand Lassalle ;who was a big influence on Bismarck considered the state essential to achieve socialism . Bismarck of course instituted the first welfare state .

I don't even know why this is disputed . State socialism has been justified by the movement since it's inception either as a transitional means or as an end in itself .

Thanks for the compliment . I've read Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' . Nazi not socialist ? How about Fascism ? The Fascists developed the Italian social security system . They also nationalized institutions like banks and other key industries ;something modern socialist dictators are fond of doing today .

Read Wolfgang Schivelbusch’ 'Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939'. Roosevelt was considered the good socialist .But his collectivist domestic programs were very similar to what was happening in Germany and Italy ..... Large public works projects and nations led by charismatic populists . After his inauguration . NYT reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the mood in DC was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five‐​Year Plan" .

In retrospect everyone dismisses the similarities today given the horror of the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini . But in the 1930s the similarities were more prevalent . Schivelbusch illustrates the parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the 3 nations .All 3 were a rejection and repudiation of the classic liberal ideas of individual liberty, free markets, and decentralized power. Roosevelt praised the Bismarck welfare state model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people”. He called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.”
So what was FDR's policies ... socialist reforms or Fascist reforms ...and is there a difference except for the brutality of the nationalist socialists regimes ?
Would FDR accept becoming a dictator to accomplish his goals ? During his inauguration he said : “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
You decide


Pretty good post except, sadly, you left out the most important factor which is the restoration of the family. noted and agree

They wouldn't go into dangerous situations. They'd go on calls complaining about the woman who's undressing in front of the sinks in the public library bathroom and the homeless guy who's sleeping on the bench in front of the grocery store.And do what once they get there?

And do what once they get there?
They'd get the person to a safe place and explore with them what possibilities exist for a better life.

What if the person won't go with them? What if, as often happens, the situation is wildly different from what the phone caller described? The person is armed, or physically combative, or breaking the law? What then? Haven't you just placed one or two unarmed, defenseless, untrained "social workers" in danger of their lives?

What possibilities would they explore?

What if the person won't go with them?
We have our ways of convincing them.

What if, as often happens, the situation is wildly different from what the phone caller described?
Hasn't happened yet.

The person is armed, or physically combative, or breaking the law? What then? Haven't you just placed one or two unarmed, defenseless, untrained "social workers" in danger of their lives?
A cop can go with, but defers to the trained professional.

What possibilities would they explore?
Possibilities about what? Each situation has similarities but is also different in various ways.

1. Sure you do.

2. Happens all the time.

3. So how will all these additional personnel be paid for if cops are still having to go?

I don't think your idea is terrible, but I don't think it's workable. The money is not there to do it.

3. So how will all these additional personnel be paid for if cops are still having to go?
Cops who can't cut the mustard will be dismissed. Police departments will be made up of these trained professionals working alongside the police.

How are police paid now?

Cops who can't cut the mustard are already dismissed. But even then they must be replaced, or you must come up with a plan to get by with fewer cops.

You are advocating for adding more personnel to the payroll. I'm asking how you will pay for that?

Depends on who's socialism you are talking about

You got that right.

I'm not going to comment on everything you mentioned from Marx, Mussolini, the Nazis and the rest of that crowd. I'll stick to the good old USA. The socialism here is not the statist socialism of your commentary.

In effect what you're suggesting is something like this: Hitler loved his dog, so all dog lovers are Nazis. It's not a perfect analogy (what analogy is?), but it shows how those historical figures actually did some good things. It doesn't make sense to count those good things as bad because they committed other horrors.

The (partly socialist) USA has social security - a proven boon to old age. Medicare - extending the quality of life beyond previous life expectancies. Medicaid - health care for the poor. Unions - my father, a real estate executive in Manhattan, told me that before unions, corporate benefits were, "Here's two tickets to Yankee Stadium, take the wife".

Unions also gave us, or fought in the fight, a 40-hour work week with overtime after 40, a five-day work week, vacations for workers, elimination of child labor (fought against by corporatists for denying the child profitable exercise), and collective bargaining to even the stakes a bit against a regime that saw only profits in labor.

There's more but that's the general idea.

Today's "socialism" push is to guarantee a living wage to workers to help them out of poverty and the problems associated with poverty, starting with crime. The living wage is favored by a majority of Americans.

Even the Catholic Church, a bastion of the establishment for two thousand years (for spiritual reasons), has declared a "preferential option for the poor" and has embraced liberation theology - Marxism without the atheism.

Modern socialism is not Orwell's 1984 or Huxleys Brave New World. Nor is 18th century Laissez-faire capitalism the modern system. When the two combine to create a mixed economy, the result is an economic system that avoids poverty and plutocrats and works for everybody.


During his inauguration he said : “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Surely, you're not suggesting this man in a wheelchair was proposing himself as a dictator like Stalin, et al. Encouraging Americans during the Great Depression called for exceptional leadership.

Cops who can't cut the mustard are already dismissed. But even then they must be replaced, or you must come up with a plan to get by with fewer cops.

You are advocating for adding more personnel to the payroll. I'm asking how you will pay for that?
Yes, fewer cops!!! and more trained professionals!!!

You're a cop, JL. You answer a 911 call from the public library that reports a woman has stripped to the skin in the women's public bathroom. What would you say and do once you got to the library and connected with the staff on duty?

Yes, fewer cops!!! and more trained professionals!!!


Do you have a suggestion as to how to lower the crime rate. Universal income perhaps, all goods paid for by government, just take what you want, how about fewer laws

Do you have a suggestion as to how to lower the crime rate. Universal income perhaps, all goods paid for by government, just take what you want, how about fewer laws
Great question, 'Clete! Some ideas: Multi-cultural neighborhoods, better teacher training, revamped and more practical curricula in grade and high schools, hands-on vocational training beginning in middle school/junior high, improved selection and training (and supervision) of police who will regularly interact with people in the area they're assigned to.

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.


You are saying they get one now, it is dangerous to call a cop, a murderer might show up

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.
You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.

You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.

When Jl doesn't get his way, he hopes for bad things to happen to others.


If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.

You are saying they get one now, it is dangerous to call a cop, a murder might show upAnother completely ridiculous statement.


You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.And your point is?

Another completely ridiculous statement.

And your point is?

No it is not ridiculous, Children have been shot by cops, women have been shot by cops, blacks have been shot and otherwise killed by cops and many of these people have been unarmed

There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policy

There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policyNo there doesn't. That's why your statement is ridiculous. You are taking very isolated, very rare occurrences and trying to portray them as the norm. It's a completely foolish and wildly inaccurate approach. It's the same as if I met two dumb Aussies and then decided that all Aussies must be dumb.

Surely, you're not suggesting this man in a wheelchair was proposing himself as a dictator like Stalin, et al. Encouraging Americans during the Great Depression called for exceptional leadership.

No one knew he was disabled so that line of argument doesn't fly .The compliant press kept that under wraps .Thankfully before SCOTUS got cold feet after FDR threatened court packing ("The switch in time that saved nine") ;the court was able to gut most of Roosevelts worse tendencies . If there is any defense to his acts it is in that he did not believe they were ideological based . He like Bismarck believed that a partial implementation of socialism would sate the more radical socialists ,both international socialists and national socialists in the US .

His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life. It was a close to dictatorship as we can get because the leviathan he left us lives on .He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition. I think he believed he was benevolent and acting in our best interests . And maybe he would not call what he envisioned a dictatorship . But that is where his instincts were . Just like Woodrow Wilson before him.

As for his relationship with Stalin .... well he was much more comfortable dealing with him than Churchill. He gave away the farm at Yalta . FDR said that he admired the fact that the Soviet people “all seem really to want to do what is good for their society instead of(like us Americans ) wanting to do for themselves.” .He went on " We take care of ourselves and think about the welfare of society afterwards ."

In 1945, when he came back from the Yalta Conference, he told members of his cabinet that he found in Stalin’s nature “the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave.”

No one knew he was disabled so that line of argument doesn't fly

Your wheelchair/disabled part is true, but the rest of the statement stands as exerting leadership, not proclaiming a dictatorship.


His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life.

Virtually EVERY facet? Colossal expansion? Exaggerate much?


It was a close to dictatorship as we can get

Wrong. The closest we ever got was the amoral nutcase who was just defeated in 2020.


He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition.

Funny, it looks the same to me after Roosevelt.

The rest of your message is simply the now cliche'd right-wing book on Roosevelt. Yalta, Stalin, the New Deal, etc., - it's all been done before and continues in the minds of Roosevelt haters even unto 80 years later!

Geez Tom. If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack? You guys can't be THAT incompetent for That long can you?


No there doesn't. That's why your statement is ridiculous. You are taking very isolated, very rare occurrences and trying to portray them as the norm. It's a completely foolish and wildly inaccurate approach. It's the same as if I met two dumb Aussies and then decided that all Aussies must be dumb.

Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.

2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-more-gun-deaths-than-any-year-over-two-decades-2021-3)


But many experts say that defining mass shootings based on how many are shot rather than the number killed offers a fuller picture of the scale of gun violence in the US. It also helps highlight incidents that generally don't make headlines (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332649220948184) and disproportionately impact Black Americans (https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/mass-shootings-2020-gun-violence-black-neighborhoods/) and people of color. Public mass shootings also account for just a fraction (https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare) of total gun deaths in the US, and focusing on them can lead to myopic perspectives on gun violence.

If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack? Do I really have to explain to you how difficult it is to overturn SCOTUS decisions ? A slam dunk like Plessy took almost 60 years to overturn .

As I explained ;Roosevelt by threatening to pack the court accomplished his goals .The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional . Then when he got huge majorities in Congress after the 1938 election ;he was able to swing the court to a progressive liberal majority .

Once SCOTUS decides it then it is extremely difficult to over turn (the nonsense principle of 'stare decisis et non quieta movere' <to stand by decisions and not disturb settled matters > ) Stare decisis has little to no bearing in determining if a law is constitutional . But justices cling to the notion that once decided the issue is settled . It is a lazy logic .

The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional

Isn't that a matter of opinion?


But justices cling to the notion (stare decisis) that once decided the issue is settled

Not always. "Decided" issues have been overturned many times in the past.

Not always. "Decided" issue have been overturned many times in the past. yes not always . I explained in my opening paragraph to Tal that stare decisis makes it much more difficult because justices are almost loath to overturn the decision of previous courts .


The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional



Isn't that a matter of opinion?

That is pretty much the conventional agreed historical record . I'll give you the name of the case and the justice that was so intimidated that he caved ....... West Coast Hotel v Parrish ; Associate justice Owen Roberts . He switched his vote during the debate in Congress about packing the court . I will agree that some revisionists have claimed he was planning on changing his vote before the controversy over court packing . Since Roberts burned his legal and judicial records, there is nothing definitive to determine that .

Chief Justice Hughes ;trying to save the court's rep said that in no way was the decision determined by political pressure . But clearly it was . The decision came down less than 2 months after Roosevelt announced his desire to pack the court .

Quid's threat will also work well on the weak spine John Roberts (maybe Kavanaugh also).....hmmm Roberts ...... I see a pattern here . John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .

yes not always . I explained in my opening paragraph to Tal that stare decisis makes it much more difficult because justices are almost loath to overturn the decision of previous courts .

I'm way out of my league here with the history of the SC. But here's a link where it says over 300 decisions of the Court have been subsequently overturned by the Court.


John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .

I don't know about last minute, but I did wonder about his reasoning for his vote. Frankly, I thought it was forced, but I was glad for it anyway.

Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.

2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-more-gun-deaths-than-any-year-over-two-decades-2021-3)

and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use?

You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston

and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use?

You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston
And why are males needing all those guns?

A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.

And why are males needing all those guns?

A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.

Who bakes a cake without preparation at 11 pm and goes to a neighbour at that time of night. Of course he would challenge some one but greeting them with a gun is bizarre.

Why do males need guns and honking great SUV, as a woman you should know it is compensation, but shusssss, you can't say that. Must be a lot of compensation going on over there

and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use? You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton HestonGuns are far less available now than fifty years above, and in many large cities handguns are prohibited. In addition, to say there is some sort of "relaxed attitude" toward gun sales is to say that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Many of your facts are not straight.

Two points. Leading the way in this supposed expansion were, of course, cities controlled by democrats. "In over a dozen cities across the U.S., homicides have increased 50 percent or more compared with years prior.
According to the nonprofit newsroom The Trace (https://www.thetrace.org/2020/12/shootings-data-philadelphia-cleveland-chicago-gun-violence/), homicides, specifically, reflected this statistic as Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Houston and Detroit, among other cities, saw increases compared to 2019."

https://www.newsweek.com/shootings-50-percent-more-12-us-cities-2020-1556763

The link above was to some outfit called the Gun Violence Archive. I think I'll wait for the FBI stats before I go crazy about it.

Ok JL so your answer is to outlaw demonrats in politics and this will solve the gun problem, a problem you pelicans caused by your lax attitudes to gun control

There are no lax attitudes towards gun control. Gun control is FAR stricter now than fifty years ago. If you are going to comment on the U.S., then spend some time learning the subject.

Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor. Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century

Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor. Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century

Gun control is not strict - that's the problem. It is, however, extremely ineffective. When Democrats are blamed for the gun violence because they are the political party in urban centers, you know the Republicans are lacking any serious analysis of the problem. Every piece of legislation the Dems originate is shut down immediately by the NRA controlled Republican party. The Second Amendment is nothing but a smokescreen for public consumption.

Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor.That is more accurate.


Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth centuryJust more nonsense. No one has suggested times con't change. And if your eighteenth century comment is aimed at the Constitution, then yes I do believe in the rule of law.

the law of the ancients, it is nothing more than ancestor worship

it is nothing more than ancestor worshipIf you don't understand the rule of law, and you clearly don't, it would be better to simply say so.

I understand the rule of law, I live under just laws that don't allow gun massacres, you don't have the rule of law, you have anarchy and it is because you have an eighteenth century mentality where guns are concerned. How long is it since the last Indian massacre? when did the British in Canada last invade? when did Mexico invade? Had to deal with any rattlers or grizzly's lately? When was the militia last called to defend the nation?

Perhaps if you called out the militia to deal with gun violence, drugs and other undesirable elements there might be a point, but you have a standing military, you have police forces up the wahzoo and you still have massacres, so the whole concept must exist on a false premise

so the whole concept must exist on a false premise

You have hit the nail on the head.

The continued gun control problem is caused by none of those things you mentioned. It IS based on a false premise. The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens. Gun ownership is believed to be the best defense against our own government if the left gained power and influence.

This idea took root in the red scare of the 1900s and was strengthened by the Bolshevik takeover of Czarist Russia. It reared its ugly head in the McCarthy era of the post war 1940s and resulted in blacklisting by the thought police in Congress of several Hollywood actors and directors who made movies supporting our WW2 ally Russia. The takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union and the fall of Nationalist China to Mao solidified the notion that Communism was on the rise. The loss in Vietnam further exacerbated the problem.

Fear of anarchy and godless Communism ruled the day for those of a certain persuasion that developed into the fringe of the Republican Party which has further developed today into a general takeover of the Party by this fringe group.

Oddly, the idea of a Fascist takeover never bothered the anti-communist people. In fact, as recently as Trump, the autocratic governments of the right have all too frequently been favored by Republican foreign policy.

The fact that citizens armed with pistols and rifles would be no match for the government's military does not seem to have mollified the gun lobby. The combination of narrow history, wishful thinking, and peer pressure is the glue holding the movement together.

The Second Amendment is cited as the main reason for gun ownership, but that's simply a smokescreen to give a shimmer of patriotism to the movement. Any ordinary reading of the Amendment clearly reserves guns to a militia, but that has repeatedly been discarded as untrue due to the financial power and influence of the gun lobby.

Meanwhile the mass shootings continue to slaughter the innocent including children.

And why are males needing all those guns? 25% of women own guns in the US . Of first time ownership in the US in 2020 ;40% were women


A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.
strange behavior don't you think ? I would not answer the door that time of night unless I was certain who was knocking.

The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens Having lived in a nation this last year where liberties were routinely violated under the guise of public health and welfare ; I have to question your premise .


Oddly, the idea of a Fascist takeover never bothered the anti-communist people. In fact, as recently as Trump, the autocratic governments of the right have all too frequently been favored by Republican foreign policy.
The most extreme curbs on liberties in the US in the last year occurred in states controlled by Democratic autocrat Governors .


. Any ordinary reading of the Amendment clearly reserves guns to a militia, but that has repeatedly been discarded as untrue due to the financial power and influence of the gun lobby. The role of the militia in the time of the framing has been explained plenty of times . It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .

A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.How do you "almost" shoot someone?


The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens


Having lived in a nation this last year where liberties were routinely violated under the guise of public health and welfare ; I have to question your premise .Exactly correct.

The current working false premise is that all the killings are the result of the availability of guns. But if that was the case, then wouldn't everyone who owned a gun be shooting someone? The vast, vast majority of gun-owners don't shoot people. Why is that? Why does this very, very small minority of gun owners shoot people when the vast majority do not? When you think that through, you will have a legitimate premise to work from.

Everything else is just a smoke screen. All the talk about eighteenth century thinking, militias, anarchy, and indian massacres has nothing to do with it.

How do you "almost" shoot someone?
He was standing in the entryway at the as-yet-unopened door, had cocked the hammer, and was ready to shoot the "intruder" in the head after opening the door.

Having lived in a nation this last year where liberties were routinely violated under the guise of public health and welfare ; I have to question your premise .

It's ok to question my premise, but I don't think a public health crisis with over 500,000 dead Americans is a "guise". Crazy Rep Jordan (R) shouted at Dr. Faucci that it was an attack on liberty. Faucci calmly replied it was a matter of public health, not an attack on liberty. That is about as obvious as anything. Jordan proves my thesis.


The most extreme curbs on liberties in the US in the last year occurred in states controlled by Democratic autocrat Governors .

By "extreme curbs" do you mean wearing masks and various lockdowns in order to preserve lives? Those Democratic "autocrat" governors were trying to save lives. As of today, look at the vaccination rates of Dem and Rep governed states.


The role of the militia in the time of the framing has been explained plenty of times

This is NOT the time of the framing. It is TWO CENTURIES+ later!


It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .

Again, you are supporting my thesis that the gun lobby's fear is all about government tyranny, not any patriotic adherence to the Second Amendment.

This is NOT the time of the framing. It is TWO CENTURIES+ later!


Then by all means repeal the 2nd amendment if you find it outdate . Let's see how far you get with that .


It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .



Again, you are supporting my thesis that the gun lobby's fear is all about government tyranny, not any patriotic adherence to the Second Amendment.

Why would a fear of a tyrannical government not be patriotic ? When people fear government there is tyranny . Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty . The word patriotism is perverted when it is said to mean unquestioned support of the government . The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It's about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that's a criminal or the government.

He was standing in the entryway at the as-yet-unopened door, had cocked the hammer, and was ready to shoot the "intruder" in the head after opening the door.Why did he not shoot?

Is that similar to the story of the woman who was awakened at 11:00 by an intruder. She lived in Chicago and so was not allowed by the government to have a handgun. The male intruder, who was armed with only a knife, tied her up, raped her, raped her 13 year old daughter, and then strangled both of them to death.

The case was never solved.

Why did he not shoot?
Because I shouted "Wait!" as I ran in from the kitchen to open the door and reveal our neighbor standing on the porch.

Because I shouted "Wait!" as I ran in from the kitchen to open the door and reveal our neighbor standing on the porch.Then you guys need training on how to defend yourselves in your own home. Identifying a potential target BEFORE you even think about shooting is a basic rule. But suppose the neighbor had been a home invader? What then?

What about the poor woman and her daughter?

Then you guys need training on how to defend yourselves in your own home.
Not in this neighborhood.

Identifying a potential target BEFORE you even think about shooting is a basic rule. But suppose the neighbor had been a home invader? What then?
He had a potential target. Home invaders don't knock.

What about the poor woman and her daughter?
That story is not at all similar to mine.

Then by all means repeal the 2nd amendment if you find it outdate . Let's see how far you get with that .

We both know that won't happen - the gunners have done an excellent job of ensuring it.


Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty

The government (US) does not fear the people (well, except for Jan 6). The government is there by the consent of the governed. Small arms are hardly a defense against a tyrannical government.

Patriotism is supporting the principles upon which our government was founded.

Different subject - Climate Change.

I read your post. Here's a question. Why are climate scientists near unanimous in warning about climate change? For that matter, why are mostly all scientists?

Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is libertyExactly correct, as the Germans discovered to their dismay in the 1930's.


Patriotism is supporting the principles upon which our government was founded.You mean like the second amendment?

No there doesn't. That's why your statement is ridiculous. You are taking very isolated, very rare occurrences and trying to portray them as the norm. It's a completely foolish and wildly inaccurate approach. It's the same as if I met two dumb Aussies and then decided that all Aussies must be dumb.

Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.

2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-more-gun-deaths-than-any-year-over-two-decades-2021-3)


But many experts say that defining mass shootings based on how many are shot rather than the number killed offers a fuller picture of the scale of gun violence in the US. It also helps highlight incidents that generally don't make headlines (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332649220948184) and disproportionately impact Black Americans (https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/mass-shootings-2020-gun-violence-black-neighborhoods/) and people of color. Public mass shootings also account for just a fraction (https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare) of total gun deaths in the US, and focusing on them can lead to myopic perspectives on gun violence.

.AND about Chicago, Ill.

Gun Laws in Chicago - Feldman Criminal Defense (https://feldmancriminaldefense.com/gun-laws-in-chicago/)


Though it is possible to obtain guns illegally, Chicago gun laws exist to regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois. In order to possess firearms or ammunition, residents of Illinois must apply for and obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (https://www2.illinois.gov/services/ISP/foid) (FOID) card issued by Illinois State Police. The state police are also responsible for issuing concealed carry licenses to qualified applicants aged 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course.

complacency won't solve anything

Why are climate scientists near unanimous in warning about climate change? For that matter, why are mostly all scientists?

I don't deny the fact that climate is changing . I question the premise that it is totally AGW . Even if it is ;what is the solution except adapting to the change ? Do you think humans will go carbon neutral in our lifetime ? And even if we did ;climate change is happening anyway .
My bumper sticker says "Climate Change Happens " .

Warming happened from 950 to apx 1250 . It was a good time for European humans . Crops were plentiful The Norse explored North America .

It grew very cold prior to the industrial revolution between the 13th century and the 19th .There were ice festivals on the Thames . People could walk across the ice from Staten Island to Manhattan in the winter . It was called the Little Ice Age . Glaciers have been retreating since the Ice Age .

I'm not saying that humans have not contributed to the change . I just ask ;what can realistically be done about it ? Human energy needs are growing as more humans demand the benefits of a 21st century life style . I'm all in with alternatives once they prove they can deliver . For now ;carbon based energy is the only reliable one outside of nukes .

I'm with you Tom the retreat from nuclear is a disgrace

Then by all means repeal the 2nd amendment if you find it outdate . Let's see how far you get with that .

How about some reasonable updates like MOST Americans want outside of elected officials and the bankrupted corrupt gun lobby?

Why would a fear of a tyrannical government not be patriotic ? When people fear government there is tyranny . Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty . The word patriotism is perverted when it is said to mean unquestioned support of the government . The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It's about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that's a criminal or the government.

Or a bad cop!

Latest completely stupid comment by BLM co-founder Bree Newsome. You can't make this stuff up.

“Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely.”

So when teenagers are having knife fights, we need to call a Girl Scouts rep? To be sure, someone needs help alright, but it's not the someone BN thinks it is. It's much closer to home for her.

Not to be outdone, Cornell Brooks, former head of the NAACP, called the whole incident nothing more than a schoolyard fight. "What if it were your child? What if it were a member of your family … in essentially a teenage fight, a schoolyard fight?”

Right. So as long as they are merely killing each other with knives, leave them alone and let them have their silly little teenage fight? Talk about reprehensible, it doesn't get much worse than that. Can you imagine the outrage if the cops had refused to show up? "We don't intervene in those meaningless knife fights. They're just a part of growing up. Well, they're a part of growing up for the one who doesn't get killed."

Lastly, the democrat government of Portland continues it's magnificent job of encouraging rioters. It continued last night. "Portland police declare riot Friday night after mayor's state-of-emergency extension." In a display of great courage and resolve, mayor Ted Wheeler declared, ""Tonight, the anarchists have called for more destruction. I've directed the police bureau to arrest and engage illegal activity whenever they can safely do so." So the police are to engage those rioters, but only when, "they can safely do so." So how do you oppose rioters "safely"? He has downsized the police, and predictably murders and violent crime are rising. He did, however, go out and hire unarmed park rangers to patrol the city.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-police-declare-riot-friday-night-after-mayors-state-of-emergency-extension

These people are crazy. That's about all that can be said.

No you people are crazy, that must be said

And the fourth listing. This person honestly believes that the presence of a few crazy people means EVERYONE must be crazy. "No you people are crazy, that must be said."

Huh?

Huh! Indeed!

No you people are crazy, that must be said

That maybe half true! 8D

yeh, which half?

The half that kills indiscriminately

well tal the other half is crazy too, because they won't take measures to stop them

well tal the other half is crazy too, because they won't take measures to stop them

The good half tries to take measures, but the bad half prevents that.

Yes a bummer this two party system

The GOP has lost it's mind. Fallout for following the dufus even after he got fired.

What do you mean lost? that happened when they made him their candidate

Well Biden through out the red flag to the gun nuts and red necks when he flagged assault weapons ban in his speech. Nothing else controversial except kowtowing to China