Are you a veteran? Have you served in the military? I'm asking because I don't know if you are, not because I am.It's great you've helped folks out...we have too over the years. As to the expense of shelters in the winter...there are empty buildings all over this country that can serve that purpose and many are churches...who don't pay tax....don't know where you get the idea that homeless shelters are failing or more expensive than building missiles....priorities should put humanity pretty close to the top of the list for financial assistance if you ask me.....the poor are not the problem with our economy, the wealthy are. Many wealthy people get tax write offs for sponsoring homeless shelters, etc.....if they don't donate to charities they lose it to the govt anyway...don't see your point about expense being an issue. If money worries you....tax churches...money spent saving lives > money spent on weapons that kill
safety in america is very much on topic....weapons for safety vs homeless shelters for safety....and that stemmed from the posts about military freedoms and civilian freedoms...also tied to gun ownership as well as mental illness, poverty, etc....you are welcome to post about the topic too you know. Things can tend to become conversational when topics of controversy are discussed.
This thread is about guns and what, if any, restrictions should be placed on them. It has been veering off that topic in my opinion.
I'm not a veteran, but many of my HS friends were. I'm constantly reminded to be thankful that I didn't join. It would not have been any better for me than it was for my friends who's lives were destroyed by injuries in the middle east. The argument about expense is that we aren't spending the money more efficiently and shelters let too many people fall through the cracks. Largely due to rules. Rules aren't always a good thing, and can in fact be very harmful.
Exactly all the rest simply throws a little more mud in the water. This country has a gun problem. We need to fix it.
It has a violent crime problem. You can tell, because violent crime rates trend exactly with gun violence. And those tend to trend on how healthy the middle and lower class are. The peaks happen during economic downturns and a strong economy tends to result in flat or dropping rates of violent crime and murder, as well as gun crime.
This makes perfect sense, as those are the most violent members of society with adult rights. Yet many in that demographic still have a disassociated prefrontal cortex, so make poor choices.
Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance is that they still need to be able to defend themselves, via a firearm. My opinion is that we should prevent them from having firearms, therefor, defending everyone else.
My stance is that there is no way to prevent them from accessing firearms. We already have too many, and we don't even have a chance to get to a nationwide restriction for decades. And I don't think we should wait that long to address these problems. My preference would be that no adult rights are granted to anybody under 25 years of age (which is the typical age that the prefrontal cortex attaches). So no military, drinking, etc. until 25. But I don't think that's possible either. And that being the case, we need to be focusing on other ways to address these problems. In fact, there are much better ways to address these problems than prohibition, which tends to result in an increased demand for the prohibited item. As happened with the assault weapons ban, the alcohol ban, the marijuana ban, etc...
Pretty much. You can not solve the fact that some people are going to commit crimes. It is true everywhere, has been, and will forever be. What we can solve is limiting the access to tools that make it easy to commit violent crimes and inflict more damage. Everything else is just excuses. When other first world countries have 1/4 of the murder rates that we do and have much higher limits on firearms, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. You need a lot less "protection" when it is much harder to get access to tools of destruction.
Fucking your girlfriend all night sounds vaguely familiar but what does it mean. I seem to recall that it was something good but I can't recollect just what it was. Explain in detail and maybe it will jar my ancient memory.
21 year old or 25 year old firearm ban unless you're in the military. They'll gain access but it'd be due to negligence by the gun owner, who should be held liable. Trying to tie that into military service or alcohol is not the way this would be able to happen. I'm libertarian with you on that. I'm scared for what happens when all the children that were socially effected by the Covid lockdowns start wanting and getting access to their adulthood.. That's probably a subject for a different thread though?
This is true. And my opinions as stated are: Civilians shouldn't have the same restrictions as soldiers. His position on the constitution has no legal basis. If somebody has some legal ruling or basis that agrees with his statement on the constitution I'd be eager to read about it. *Edited to change tone and be less argumentative as suggested below by Lanny. My apologies, @stampedehero
Pronouncing someone wrong on an issue is a sure way to change a debate to an argument that will make the Hatfields and McCoys thing look like a childrens' game.
I like the point made last night by the President that Gun manufacturers should also bear some of the burden on this issue. Exactly how much and when that should be imposed is certainly up for debate. Biden made the point by saying where would we be if Cigarette manufacturers were not held responsible for what their products have done? It's another tough battle but i think it's one they could start to fight. Nobody thought the mighty RJ Reynolds could be taken down either.
