General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

me and Trump are on the same page ..it is not not the gun that is evil, it is simply a tool that can be dangerous like a circular saw or a lathe..and in the hands of an evil or mentally ill person that tool can have devastating effects

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_ ... ontrol.htm

Q [to Gov. Christie]: In light of the recent South Carolina shootings, what is the harm in tightening standards for not only who buys guns, but those who sell them?

BUSH: We don't need to add new rules. We need to focus on what the bigger issue is: we should focus on is the violence in our communities. The other issue is mental health. Why not begin to deal with the process of mental health issues so that people that are spiraling out of control because of mental health challenges don't have access to guns.

TRUMP: What Jeb said is absolutely correct. We have a huge mental health problem in this country. We're closing hospitals, we're closing wards, we're closing so many because the states want to save money. We have to get back into looking at what's causing it. The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on. You get the Congress. You get the Senate. You get together. You do legislation.

Q: Are there any circumstances that you think we should be limiting gun sales of any kind in America?

TRUMP: No. I am a 2nd amendment person. If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct.

Gun-free zones are target practice for sickos
The gun-free zones are target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. They look for gun-free zones. The six soldiers that were killed. Two of them were among the most highly decorated, and they weren't allowed on a military base to have guns. And somebody walked in and shot them, killed them. If they had guns, he wouldn't be around very long. I can tell you, there wouldn't have been much damage. I think gun-free zones are a catastrophe. They're a feeding frenzy for sick people.
Source: GOP "Your Money/Your Vote" 2015 CNBC 1st-tier debate , Oct 28, 2015

Trump: "The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger ....."

why not take that argument a little farther then?

why shouldn't every country on the planet have nuclear weapons?

think about it....

The NUKES don't pull the trigger. It's the people who pull the trigger....

yeah but, there is a chain of orders or tasks to get the key unlocked to pull the nuclear trigger, unlike a gun where one unbalanced mentally sick individual can kill at will.. and when I joined the armed forces in 1980 we were screened for mental illness, so quite unlikely any mentally ill people are even in the services.. no where near a nuclear bomb..

yeah but, there is a chain of orders or tasks to get the key unlocked to pull the nuclear trigger, unlike a gun where one unbalanced mentally sick individual can kill at will.. and when I joined the armed forces in 1980 we were screened for mental illness, so quite unlikely any mentally ill people are even in the services.. no where near a nuclear bomb..

so if i hear you right...it's a question of trust, then?

.....who you feel comfortable giving the ability to kill on a large scale to?

since it is a stolen U.S.A. owned technology, it should be "leased" to whom the U.S.A. can trust, and they definitely don't trust Iran.. we, the U.S.A. had the Budapest born & bred Jewish scientists that had the mental capacity to perform a "miracle" (split the atom) that if that "miracle" would have been properly regulated and safeguarded, would have been a technology no other country had the brain power to make happen.. thus, we own it and we decide within our power to do so.. we own it..we decide

..but the reality is...we don't own it.

again...it comes down to trust.

i no more trust every country to have nukes and use them responsibly than i trust every wingnut w a screw loose to use the weapon they bought at a gun show responsibly.

..but the reality is...we don't own it.

again...it comes down to trust.

i no more trust every country to have nukes and use them responsibly than i trust every wingnut w a screw loose to use the weapon they bought at a gun show responsibly.

I trust individual people knowing that some of them are going to do bad things. That's the point of having law.

Countries are not individuals and can harm entire nations of people, and start political upheavals called "war" with a single reckless act.


There is already a way to screen "wing nuts" by only allowing LAW ABIDING people to posses a weapon.

The problem with restricting ownership in the 2nd Amendment is exactly the sentiment you just expressed; "some wing-nut" is too vaguely defined and therefore open to being abused. The only problem with guns is that where people are involved, there is always a way around the law. I mean, why don't we just make murder illegal instead of guns??? Oh, snap...

The current Administration and fascists of the Democrat Party would love to exclude gun ownership from anyone whom
they disapprove based on purely political (fascist) concerns. You might get to own a gun if you can prove that you always vote Democrat, and are not a Christian, if they had their way.

Do you not know this? Just look at who is listed as a "threat" to the government and you'll see that it is only those who oppose THIS administration of our government. The real threats of international terrorism are conspicuously missing from that list, too. Obama can not be trusted to touch the second amendment. Period.

Once the law-abiding are disarmed, criminals are the only ones with guns and government suddenly has absolute power. Why do you, or anyone else, think that is a good solution, especially when there is such ample proof of the most restrictive cities having the highest violent crime rates? How much more proof does one need?

And do you not realize that the point of the second amendment was to keep the government from having absolute power? Why should we give power to, for, and by the people up...especially at a time when no one trusts any person in government?

BIG problem w/ some of this rhetoric about mental illness and violence. Let's look @ the FACTS concerning this issue.

People w/ mental illness are much more prone to be VICTIMS of violence than perpetrators of violence. Again, these are the facts. The PRESS jumps on the stories pertaining to mentally ill perpetrators and doesn't mention the countless acts of violence by the simply BAD people. Drunks killing drunks. Drug deals gone bad. Jealous spouses. Gang shootings. Racial hatred. The list goes on and on every day, 24/7. Do you see all of this on National TV?? No.

But you get 1 psychotic guy who thinks the Devil is in his head and he shoots up a place and takes out a few people and he's front page news.

3.1 million people own guns in the good old U.S.A.
Then....
3.1 million people should be killed each day by the 3.1 million people who have guns.
Just what the hell is the problem. These gun owners are slacking off!

Let's quit the B.S. Weapons are to kill. This thread has run the gamut of nuclear weapons to guns. So were do we go from here?

There is already a way to screen "wing nuts" by only allowing LAW ABIDING people to posses a weapon.

now THERE'S a foolproof failsafe!

The current Administration and fascists of the Democrat Party would love to exclude gun ownership from anyone whom
they disapprove based on purely political (fascist) concerns. You might get to own a gun if you can prove that you always vote Democrat, and are not a Christian, if they had their way.

Do you not know this?

no, i don't KNOW this. and neither do you. it's your opinion. you don't KNOW this.

This is no bumper sticker issue. There are literally millions of people in this country who have no more business near a firearm than Mark has near a nuke. (I sense his craving! )

However, where are the people we dare trust to make decisions on who gets what? Because to say a person can't own a weapon is a use of force against that person.

We certainly have no reason to trust govt at any level. This current race for presidentproves that neither our system nor our citizens are mature enough to even understand the role for which they are trying to elect some superhero to 'make things right.' A country where that can happen is called a dictatorship.

The president the dems and repubs want to elect is assumed to have powers never envisioned under law and nobody even remarks on it because what they really want is their 'guy' to abuse power in their behalf.

Who to trust?

Talbot

Text of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Unable to hold their own against properly trained and equipped professional forces, it is common for militias to engage in guerrilla warfare or defense instead of being used in open attacks and offensive actions.

However, beginning as early as the late 20th century, some militias (particularly officially recognized and sanctioned militias of a government) act as professional forces, while still being "part-time" or "on-call" organizations. For instance, the members of some U.S. Army National Guard and Air National Guard units are considered professional soldiers and airmen, respectively, as they are trained to maintain, and do maintain, the same standards as their "full-time" (active duty) counterparts. Therefore, these professional militia men and women of the National Guard of the United States are colloquially known as "citizen-soldiers" or "citizen-airmen".[citation needed]

Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the situations the term "militia" is used include forces engaged in:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries and are known as militsiya.
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[3] often politicized.[citation needed]


Definition of people

plural people

1
1
plural : humans making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

2
2
plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>

3
3
plural : the members of a family or kinship

4
4
plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people

5
5
plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

6
6
: lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation....................... Is this what non gun owners think?

7
7
: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state