we know fox cable will look into it while they ignore covering the hearings on the 1/06 Domestic Terroist Attack on Congress
OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
Does more of America look like WV, its shrinking population and this one incident....or NJ?
Surely you have evidence he listened to Schumer?
Did you forget the federal judge and RU alumna whose son was shot by the former guy loving men's right's activist...and how that killer targeted Justice Sotomayor?
Or did you miss who was talking "invasion" before Buffalo, El Paso and Pittsburgh?
Who was it that egged on the people chanting about hanging the VP with gallows?
Who says the choice is mutually exclusive? I haven't argued that we ought to make laws based on either WV or NJ. In fact I've argued the opposite. Which makes any measure of how much of America resembles either state completely irrelevant.
It would only become relevant if we try to force all 50 states to adopt either the gun laws of WV or NJ. And you've already made a strong argument (in the quote above where you highlight that NJ and WV are different) for why doing so would be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
All 50 states have some population centers that are densely populated and heavily policed, with other areas that are, to varying degrees, far larger, far less densely populated, and lightly policed. So even within any given single state, it seems like different gun laws ought to apply depending on where one lives. NYS and NYC follow this model with laws they feel make sense for them based on their specific needs. Why shouldn't WV be allowed to do the same based on its specific set of needs?
Quite simple. Because someone could come from WV and use their gun to shoot up a supermarket or a school in NJ. Much like previous shooters have done, buying in NV and shooting in CA.
I wish it were as simple as you're stating but since there's no real border between states it's not that easy.
I'm not saying it's simple. I'm saying it's extremely complex. There is no valid simple answer coming from pro or anti-gun folks. All we have are possible mitigations.
The reality is, some crazy person or criminal from WV or NJ or anywhere else can always come to my town to shoot people. And no amount of laws, not followed by criminals, can stop it. Nor can the police be everywhere all at once.
Nobody really disputes this possibility - it will always be there in one form or another. Discussions of mitigation benefits are theoretical, no matter how much we support them with statistics. Because we're talking about a people problem, there is no deterministic answer and never will be.
The difference of opinion lies in how people view what to do about the fact that someone might violently attack them or their family or their loved ones. Some people count on the police and hope not to be on the wrong side of statistics. Others hope for the best w/the police and statistics, but plan for the worst by arming themselves.
I don't believe I have any more right to tell a person who chooses to protect themselves and their families and friends "no" than I have a right to tell a woman what she must do with her body and whatever is inside it.
Freedom is hard. And free people are highly imperfect. But freedom's worth it.
But freedom does not me everything goes
From reading this thread I assume you are a libertarian by nature. Are you familiar with Grafton NH and what happened when they tried to turn it into a libertarian paradise?
What I have written, what I’ve proposed, in this thread is a very long way from “anything goes”. And much of what I’ve proposed is realistically achievable and can make our children safer without significantly limiting sane and law-abiding people’s right to protect themselves.
I am somewhat libertarian-minded, but I really don’t fit neatly into any ideological boxes. I am not opposed to government, I recognize that a society must have some rules, and understand and agree that we must weigh social safety against individual freedoms.
I just draw the line more closely to freedom than safety. At a certain point, make life too safe and it has unintended negative consequences for society.
Yes spell check was needed
Thank you for pointing that out.
But that’s the only saving grace you had in your reply.
Consider this as you try to make the sewerage look like fresh water.
Needless to say,it doesn’t smell right.
Because some of the people that attacked the Capital on Jan 6th were domestic terrorists.
>The violence and destruction of property at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6 showed a blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process. The FBI does not tolerate violent extremists who use the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to engage in violent criminal activity. The destruction of property, violent assaults on law enforcement officers, and imminent physical threats to elected officials betray the values of our democracy. <
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/examining-the-january-6-attack-on-the-us-capitol-wray-061521
So true. The mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6th were traitors to this country and the system of government enshrined in the Constitution.
And all those who defend this treason are guilty as well.
LOL one loon that actually called seeking help before being arrested doesn't absolve the domestic terrorists you're trying to protect
Criminal complaint in Kavanaugh threat
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22056087-criminal-complaint-in-kavanaugh-threat
You’re a partisan lemming.
Protestors you disagree with : Terrorists
Rioters that torched cities and murdered people: peaceful protesters
Its your choice to continue on your trail of grazing or not
when you can't refute, insultYou’re a partisan lemming.
Protestors you disagree with : Terrorists
Rioters that torched cities and murdered people: peaceful protesters
Its your choice to continue on your trail of grazing or not
You’re a partisan lemming.
Protestors you disagree with : Terrorists
Rioters that torched cities and murdered people: peaceful protesters
Its your choice to continue on your trail of grazing or not
I don't think I've ever seen anyone here support looters or rioters.
Can't say the same about the 1/6 fktatds. You're still supporting them a year and a half later. So sad.
We should refuse to discuss the deflection offered by Trump supporters that equates the January 6th attack on the Capitol with protests (note they use the words “protester“ and “looter“ as if they are synonymous, such as all the protesters also looted) in response to the killing of George Floyd and other people. It’s a standard disinformation tactic.
To the topic of this thread, at least it seems some progress has been made towards improving background checks and other measures in this bipartisan Senate proposal. Not everything I’d like to see, but progress in incremental.
Last edited:
I like most of it but would have liked to see the age raised for certain weapons to 21 just like hand guns
When the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 (I think that was the year), a few academic studies were performed to see if the ban made any difference on gun violence and mass shootings. These studies showed no real impact due to the ban though we did see modest improvements in the later years which suggests it could have had a beneficial impact had it stayed in effect. But, at best, it was inconclusive.
I pasted a paper in an earlier post in this thread which found that background checks and magazine size limits reduced the number of fatalities and injuries from mass shooting events. Those are the two practical areas where I’ve always focused. That’s what I wanted to see. But you take what the pitcher throws, and I’ll take this over no action at all.
I still need to read the aforementioned paper. I’ve scanned it quickly, and thought I saw references to what you said above vis-a-vis gun bans, although perhaps it was some other study I’m thinking of. I’m very skeptical that magazine limits for handguns are helpful, but I can see where they’d be helpful for long guns, which seem more likely to be used in mass shootings.
In any event, I like most of what I see in the legislation agrred to by the Senators. I think it can help. Being more diligent about giving guns to people who shouldn’t have them has always made sense to me and I’ve never understood the opposition to such common-sense measures.
There's gotta be another word for what this is besides "incremental".
A sloth is speedier than this "incremental progress".
I'm not surprised though. I pretty much knew after Sandy Hook that true progress in this area was doomed.
Sad.
Think of it this way. If Democrats truly held power, the progress would be faster and more far reaching. The problem is that Democrats hold only the slightest majority, but behaved as though they had a 60+ seat majority. They attempted to push through transformative legislation without the votes to pass it. Better to rack up incremental wins like this gun legislation to show voters a stream of legislative accomplishments along with the campaign message, “want more? Get us more seats.” Instead, they pushed for legislation beyond what they had capacity to deliver, And you know where things stand, it was a poor political choice made primarily by Schumer.
I am hoping this president can lead the charge and solve some of these problems the country has like violence, inflation and a border crisis just to name a few . I won’t hold my breath though as he is making things worse for Americans every day. Crazy what is going on right now.
You want Biden to solve the violence, inflation and border crisis problems that he created?
He definitely created these issues and I was trying not to trigger those that still “think” he is doing a good job. They are so sensitive if anyone calls him out. Lol
If you look at NJ vs WV- or America vs the rest of the world...does only one have mental health problems, or loners, or violent movies and video games?
There's one variant that's consistent. That is very simple.
I get the feelings of people who feel strongly about guns. Great. No one wants them to not have handguns securely stored in their homes. Just that they not have weapons of war in the streets of the country.
There's a lot of achievements (infrastructure and judges among others) but they're not properly advertised. It is basically one person who held up BBB and two essentially holding up every other issue (voting rights, guns, Roe and more).
I think we need to ask ourselves what kind of system we live in that if less than 100k voters in North Carolina voted differently we'd have passed BBB...add a few more in Maine and then you have the assault weapons ban passed...there's a problem.
LMAO
Crime spiked in 2020.
Weird how he "created" inflation but it's in every country. But I guess he didn't create the 3.6% unemployment...that was the guy who had 15% unemployment.
Muh border...weird how "the caravan" got on the way the minute the Jan 6 hearings started. There's no crisis. Too bad so sad, the US signed the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
Anything else Fox has....are they cancelling commercials or was that only while Tucker was crying during the first Jan 6 hearings?
There is not one variant and it's not simple. And anybody's insistence that it IS simple (coming from either side) kills the discussion, it kills the chance for any sensible progress on improvement.
I keep repeating this and nobody seems to want to address it. But I'll try again. If West Virginians were only allowed to store their handguns securely in their homes, as many as 40 people would've died at the hands of a convicted felon with a gun a couple weeks ago. It was only WV's permissive carry laws that made it possible for the woman hero to carry her firearm, train with it, and shoot the convicted felon before he could kill everybody.
That was a case of a gun being used to protect the innocent, just like what cops can do. But there are not nearly enough cops, and there never will be enough cops, for the cops to protect everyone 24/7.
Now, if WV adds some permit requirements with background checks, basically adopting what the bipartisan Senate panel just agreed about, then I think that makes sense. Because the intent is to improve checks about who can obtain a legal gun. And I think we could do still more than is in that proposed legislation, but only stuff that falls short of gun bans or senseless feel-good measures (like banning body armor which way up there on the list of mind-blowingly ridiculous examples of a totally moronic laws).
It makes no sense at all to change WV's laws such that those 40 people at the birthday party would have been defenseless. It actually makes more sense to find ways to allow more civilians in places like NJ and CA to carry firearms. What are you gonna say to those 40 people, sorry, but you are on the wrong side of some cherry-picked statistic that makes us feel good so you have to die?
The problem that needs fixing is guns in the hands of the wrong people. Just because that's a hard problem to solve doesn't mean we should take guns away from the right people. It would be throwing out the baby and not even managing to throw out most of the bath water.
What can be done"
Making sure guns are only sold after background checks are made and a thorough one is made, even if it takes some extra time to find facts needed to OK or deny sale.
Those selling are held criminally liable for circumventing background check when they sell a weapon, even in private dealings.
Case can be made for carrying outside the home and no legal owner should be denied that right.
Semi Auto assault weapons should need a special permit to be able to buy and carry.and special permit should include storage and insurance clause.
Many times we hear of a responsible citizen saving the day using their weapon to thwart a crime and that is a valid point in supporting the ability to carry your firearm everywhere .
But we don't hear as often ( like I posted) about two responsible gun owner who got scared over a possible animal attack because they thought they heard it growling and fired in the direction of that noise, killing an innocent person walking in the area the bullets were aimed at without seeing a target.
Just fired off shots in the general direction of the so called noise.
No charges were filed and considered a regrettable mistake.
Then we have so called responsible gun owners leaving their guns lying around and tragedy strikes what a child gets hold of it.
Nothing really can be done about that type of situation ( except vigilance), but we must be aware they happen when we talk about gun ownership and what it entails, good and bad.
Complaints about the bad guys getting guns is a favorite subject, making that harder to do by theft might be wise and a wise move might be a law stating any gun left in your empty house must be kept in a secure safe place like being locked in a hard to access area of house .
But in reality only a gun safe might be the only way and most will oppose it as being an unnecessary burden.
So burglars will always find guns at gun owner's homes if left in empty homes that are burglarized
I just hope gun owners can find a place that might not be found if they leave their guns in empty living quarters
Gun laws should never impend the right to own and carry, but should force personal responsibility on the owners and those who even sell their personal weapon to a friend .
in a one to one transaction
Some guns and large magazine clips need to be heavy regulated, but not denied if the potential owner qualifies after intensive check on his/her background, mental health, storage plan and insurance coverage part of qualifying.
We want to cut down on the killing, we might just have to let a little inconvenience ( like longer wait time because of background check and restrictions put on some guns and ammunition) be part of the gun buying process .
But the one thing we must admit, just because guns can save innocent lives, they also can take an innocent life away and stopping that ( as much as possible) should be the goal
Making sure guns are only sold after background checks are made and a thorough one is made, even if it takes some extra time to find facts needed to OK or deny sale.
Those selling are held criminally liable for circumventing background check when they sell a weapon, even in private dealings.
Case can be made for carrying outside the home and no legal owner should be denied that right.
Semi Auto assault weapons should need a special permit to be able to buy and carry.and special permit should include storage and insurance clause.
Many times we hear of a responsible citizen saving the day using their weapon to thwart a crime and that is a valid point in supporting the ability to carry your firearm everywhere .
But we don't hear as often ( like I posted) about two responsible gun owner who got scared over a possible animal attack because they thought they heard it growling and fired in the direction of that noise, killing an innocent person walking in the area the bullets were aimed at without seeing a target.
Just fired off shots in the general direction of the so called noise.
No charges were filed and considered a regrettable mistake.
Then we have so called responsible gun owners leaving their guns lying around and tragedy strikes what a child gets hold of it.
Nothing really can be done about that type of situation ( except vigilance), but we must be aware they happen when we talk about gun ownership and what it entails, good and bad.
Complaints about the bad guys getting guns is a favorite subject, making that harder to do by theft might be wise and a wise move might be a law stating any gun left in your empty house must be kept in a secure safe place like being locked in a hard to access area of house .
But in reality only a gun safe might be the only way and most will oppose it as being an unnecessary burden.
So burglars will always find guns at gun owner's homes if left in empty homes that are burglarized
I just hope gun owners can find a place that might not be found if they leave their guns in empty living quarters
Gun laws should never impend the right to own and carry, but should force personal responsibility on the owners and those who even sell their personal weapon to a friend .
in a one to one transaction
Some guns and large magazine clips need to be heavy regulated, but not denied if the potential owner qualifies after intensive check on his/her background, mental health, storage plan and insurance coverage part of qualifying.
We want to cut down on the killing, we might just have to let a little inconvenience ( like longer wait time because of background check and restrictions put on some guns and ammunition) be part of the gun buying process .
But the one thing we must admit, just because guns can save innocent lives, they also can take an innocent life away and stopping that ( as much as possible) should be the goal
Enhanced background checks for anyone under 25 applying to buy a gun. Why can’t it take a week to approve a gun purchase by a young person?
Auto rental companies restrict business from anyone under 25. Similar policies can be applied to gun purchases.
Of course this doesn’t stop hardened criminals from buying guns on the street. That supply is reliable and steady.
I would say they take way more innocent lives than they save
Who are They, the shooters or the guns?
The real problem is with the shooters, not the guns.
I’m responding to your last comment above. Not so much for you, because I‘m certain you’re aware of the reason why common sense measures don’t get passed on gun topics, but more for the record.
In a word, it’s the extremes. The extremes on each side prevent progress on these initiatives. On the right, there is concern that giving any ground on gun rights will be the first step to a national registry and, ultimately, confiscation. They rely on the (faulty) reading of the 2A that the right shall not be infringed, And, to an extent, I understand the strategy. Many on the left do use charged language on gun rights, and have stated a desire to confiscate some types of, or perhaps all, weapons. So the extremes repel one another, and we are at a practical deadlock. Nothing gets done.
As an aside, curing the extremes is the cure to progress on a number of issues. I’d advocate primaries independent of parties, where the top 2 candidates in a primary advance to a general election. In a heavily red state, that would likely lead to a more extreme candidate and a more moderate Republican, and that moderate may draw from Democrats in a general election. The same would hold true in heavily Democratic areas. Not a panacea, but would make a meaningful difference, I think.
Maybe, but the Dem base was sold on a more far reaching and expansive platform that didn’t materialize. infrastructure was called back, and many programs advanced in the initial bill were eliminated. Voting Rights was DOA. Better to have set more achievable expectations. Of course, you need to win the election and energize the base to vote, so I understand why they offered such a platform.
The solution to some of these issues is rather easy. Get rid of the filibuster and cloture. Neither are in the Constitution. And, yes, both sides would need to live with the consequences. But the system is broken with it in place.
Fully agree w/your description of why we have deadlock on gun laws.
And I'd be willing to try just about anything to divert the nation from its current course towards the extreme left and right. What we're doing now isn't working well, IMO. Both sides just talk past each other and don't listen to one another. It's all demonization and caricaturization [sic]. Very unhelpful.
Also, in addition to better background checks and even, IMO, periodic proficiency certifications (aka qualification testing) and some other stuff intended to prevent legal guns for problem people, I also am once again troubled by the lack of discussion about more hardening of schools.
We can do a lot more to harden schools in ways that don't turn schools isn't "prisons" or otherwise make them feel prison-like for kids and teachers alike. The only real blockage is funding (which should be state or locally done, IMO). To me, it's more than worth a jump in my property taxes or state taxes to better protect our community's schools.
Hardened entry doors, hardened classroom doors and windows, hardening at the borders of the property where cars might encroach on the property, AI-assisted video monitoring, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why we aren't doing a lot more of this stuff. It might be overkill, from a statistical standpoint. But so is locking one's front door at night, or locking one's car when parking it. It's not hard to do, and it's effective at making soft targets hard which causes criminals to move on to some softer target.
We can do a lot more to harden schools in ways that don't turn schools isn't "prisons" or otherwise make them feel prison-like for kids and teachers alike. The only real blockage is funding (which should be state or locally done, IMO). To me, it's more than worth a jump in my property taxes or state taxes to better protect our community's schools.
Hardened entry doors, hardened classroom doors and windows, hardening at the borders of the property where cars might encroach on the property, AI-assisted video monitoring, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why we aren't doing a lot more of this stuff. It might be overkill, from a statistical standpoint. But so is locking one's front door at night, or locking one's car when parking it. It's not hard to do, and it's effective at making soft targets hard which causes criminals to move on to some softer target.
- Status