Gun Laws

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

As to changing the national discourse on all topics, the following is an example of what needs changing. We could start with Fox and other news organizations:

"Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News strategic analyst, and Stacey Dash, a Fox contributor, were both suspended Monday for two weeks after using profane language on the air, CNN Money reports. Peters called President Obama "a total p***y while appearing on the Fox Business Network and, an hour later, Dash said the president doesn't "give a shit" about fighting terrorism. Dash was partially bleeped as she made her remark, but Peters' could be heard in its entirety."

And then there is Donald Trump...

While I agree that the President is too cautious, and one needs to shut down ISIS quickly and aggressively,  can we urge people to email the White House to petition him to do so... let's cut the drama.

I'd prefer we get rid of all the media and career politicians and start over from scratch.  I'd like to see the media go back to the days when 80% of the news was spent delivering ALL of the current news, not the select stories they choose to cover or their opinions. 

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, CoachB25 said:

So you would deny all Americans the ability to defend their families?

Not remotely.  I was only referencing the specific argument - it's not even exclusive to the 2nd.  The argument - and not saying a lot here are making it, but tons of people out there do - that "you can't change the constitution" is just dumb and lacks understanding of the constitution and it's amendments.  You absolutely CAN change it, that's why they are called amendments.

[dkolo]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Not remotely.  I was only referencing the specific argument - it's not even exclusive to the 2nd.  The argument - and not saying a lot here are making it, but tons of people out there do - that "you can't change the constitution" is just dumb and lacks understanding of the constitution and it's amendments.  You absolutely CAN change it, that's why they are called amendments.

I mean, you can literally amend it but not in reality. There's a reason that there haven't been any amendments in a few decades, and it's not because everything is perfect and we've nailed it. The structure is overwhelmingly stacked in favor of inertia. With the ability of minority groups (mathematical minorities on whatever hypothetical issue, not socioeconomic minorities) to organize more easily with technological advances and the high ratification barrier, it's exceedingly unrealistic to expect any substantive amendments to get passed in the future. 

[Ernest Jones]

If more people would rank human lives at least slightly above their "God given right to bear arms!!!!!", this conversation would bear far more fruit. 

Personally, I think Charles Heston is a bit of an asshole.

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

If more people would rank human lives at least slightly above their "God given right to bear arms!!!!!", this conversation would bear far more fruit.

The people who commit the acts that spur these kinds of discussions aren't strong gun rights advocates, Jason.

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Second, then what do you suggest we do? We have a problem. How do we reduce this from happening? The current state is failing right now. And it is not just with ISIS or ISIS wannabees. It is spread across the spectrum of race, religion, gender and ethnicity. You cannot find this acceptable, can you?

What do you suggest we do? Because things like the Brady Bill haven't had any effect. Since the Brady Bill was allowed to lapse, we've actually seen a decline in gun homicides. It's at some of the lowest rates in modern U.S. history right now.

Now, that's not because the Brady Bill (and other things) lapsed, but because of a multifaceted thing. Economics, race relations, gun control laws passing or lapsing, etc. all play a role. And obviously the number of attention-getting stuff like Sandy Hook, etc. are increasing.

5 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Now the following is not about your post, but if you look at the preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment and read them together -- I think it might give you context as to the Second Amendment and may refute the simplified argument of every GOP politician the news trots in front of the camera for discussion and shouts "Second Amendment!"

If the framers had intended for all people to have all arms, you'd think they would have said so. At the same time, many people believe the framers wanted flexibility in the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not state "all" people or "all" arms. An attorney will tell you that loopholes exist in the phrasing of the Second Amendment and that Congress has the right to limit arms, and  indeed gun control legislation exists. So every time a Congressman screams "Second Amendment!" as that is the end of the discussion, I beg to differ. It is misleading.

You're not a constitutional lawyer. Nor have I seen anyone - anyone - arguing that all people should have all arms. Congratulations - you knocked down that straw man.

5 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

At the same time, I see no stats showing that right to carry neither increases nor decreases gun violence. The problem is more than guns -- it is societal, cultural, economic, and now religious. 

That's probably because you haven't looked for them. There are plenty of stats that will show you that violent crimes are reduced in areas with higher private legal gun ownership levels. Which makes sense: if you're a criminal who likes to rob homes, are you going to rob the home that has a few deer hanging from the porch every fall, or the home with anti-gun posters in their front yard?

3 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

1. I'd vote out the politicians that do nothing but stammer "Second Amendment" and show no intelligent response to the issue. These are the guys whom the NRA has bought. ( I think they are all bought, but we are trying to get something done here.) Vote in politicians who understand it is a holistic issue.

2. Change the national discourse from hate and blame to a discussion. I'd flame the Rush Limbaughs of the world and embargo them. They only incite while running to the bank. Same with politicians. Cut the talk about imprisoning women who obtain abortions, ya' know, stuff like that... there are better ways to influence behavior. We need better and more leadership around the country.

And if you weren't so ridiculously left-biased, you might be able to see some of the ways in which Democrats have failed, too.  Particularly when Democrats love to make the emotional argument. You love to cite the New York Times… but look the other way when they publish garbage. You're the last person here who really gets to talk about casting politics aside and finding some middle ground.

---

None of us are politicians, and none of us are going to convince anyone on the "other" side of anything. On this topic I try to be as central as possible. The NRA sucks, as do any Republicans they buy off, as do the Democrats who get on their stumps and make emotional, weak-on-facts speeches that rile people up.

Nobody here is going to come up with a solution, and like other threads, I've closed down, I'm closing this one down now as well. The purpose of this site is not to divide us. It's to bring us together to talk about golf, and occasionally, some other things.

Anyone starting a similar thread in the next few weeks may be subject to a "Trolling" warning.