General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

jeff, with all due respect.... i don't recall even ONE person "lashing out at gun owners" here.

this is the problem that i see with you and others who feel as you do. you see any concern about how easy it is for anyone and everyone to acquire guns (and abuse them) as an affront and attack on gun owners everywhere!

and any time concern is raised about trying to keep guns out of the hands of the WRONG people's hands ....that gets spun and paraphrased into ''they're trying to take my guns away!"

you say it's the liberals you don't trust to shoot straight (sorry, couldn't help myself), but after reading what Mcgraw had to say about it.....can you not see how it was you and your team that's tried to spin this as him being against the second amendment and that he's trying to take away EVERYONE's guns?

jeff, with all due respect.... i don't recall even ONE person "lashing out at gun owners" here.

this is the problem that i see with you and others who feel as you do. you see any concern about how easy it is for anyone and everyone to acquire guns (and abuse them) as an affront and attack on gun owners everywhere!

and any time concern is raised about trying to keep guns out of the hands of the WRONG people's hands ....that gets spun and paraphrased into ''they're trying to take my guns away!"

you say it's the liberals you don't trust to shoot straight (sorry, couldn't help myself), but after reading what Mcgraw had to say about it.....can you not see how it was you and your team that's tried to spin this as him being against the second amendment and that he's trying to take away EVERYONE's guns?

You're kidding right? You don't remember a certain Jimmy getting so angry and saying "and I blame you"? Every liberal news agency jumped on the hatred of gun lovers bandwagon! The bottom line Mark is we were all angry, only the liberal President used the occasion to further divide this country to achieve his political agenda. That's the problem with you liberals ya'll have a short, selective memory, with all due respect!

no, i don't recall jimmy saying that.

i won't speak for him....but i can easily see how it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch....mind you, not blaming ALL gun owners....but in fact blaming the gun owners who see ANY measures of restricting firearms ownership.... as being part of the problem. cos' y'all sure ain't part of the solution.

those with the mentality of more "guns, more guns, more guns for everyone !" as if THAT makes the world a safer place!

and those who won't even entertain for even a second the notion that not everyone should be allowed to go out and buy a gun immediately....yep, definitely part of the problem.

as i see it....if you're against ANY and ALL gun laws, background checks, etc, then an argument can easily be made that you bear some culpability when guns end up in criminal's hands or the hands of the mentally unstable (ya know....THEIR god given RIGHTS to bear arms not withstanding)

and please, let's not even go with that MORE GUNS argument that if the teachers, principal, janitor, lunch ladies, school nurse, crossing guard, and students were all packing.... then they could have taken out the shooter and prevented that tragedy.

The reason conservative C&W fans (which is most, I think) will not be happy about this is a mistrust of government incrementalism. We've seen how agreeing to a little reasonable compromise only opens the door for a dishonest sneak attack.

My example is the Patriot Act. Like gun regulation, it is reasonable to give current government administration(s) our trust to protect innocent people....as long as "we the people" decide where that authority ends. In other words, if we don't trust a specific administration to act according to the spirit of our wishes, then we should be able to clamp down and suspend THEIR privileges until a suitable replacement is found. I thought that the Bush administration would use those laws in a way that would protect America from foreign terrorists living among us. Was there a chance that some freedoms would be abused? Sure...but that happens in every war-time since 1776, and then is corrected when the danger passes.

So I was for the Patriot Act (as originally written) because it had to be renewed every two years. I had seen how the Clinton's abused the law for their own political gain, and Dems/Liberal had not protested, instead they gave them cover. Basically I don't trust Democrats to do the right thing since Billary was first elected. Republicans aren't much better, but they are at least supported by people who will vote them out for doing the same thing.

So I was counting on Democrat opposition to the Patriot Act and didn't think it would last more than 4 years tops....but then a Democrat-controlled Congress voted it to be permanent and it was too late to stop. Instead of protecting us from foreign enemies, these laws are being used by Obama against any/all American citizens who simply have a legitimate political disagreement. They have designated Christians (and any political opposition) as terrorists that should be harassed and surveiled, while giving muslim terrorism cover with labels like "job related violence".

The recent IRS targeting of Obama's political opposition is no different than the Gestapo tactics of intimidation. Where are objectors of this gross abuse of power on the left? The silent approval from Democrats is deafening! On top of that, the laws being proposed would do absolutely nothing to stop the criminal acts they are using as an excuse for government over-reach. This only proves they have another agenda and can not be trusted.

Since it is an established fact that Democrats will abuse government powers against political opposition for their own personal gain, any attempt to diminish gun rights is, and should be, ferociously opposed. I see an extreme position by conservatives as a balance to the extreme position of the left (which is never publicly-stated) and I think it's best to err on the side of trusting insane individuals more than a despotic government.

Yes, people can be counted on to do horrible things...but those individuals are an isolated problem. America can still survive what isolated individuals do, but we would not survive giving ANY Adminstration absolute power while being defenseless against criminals or politicians.

By having extreme positions on both sides, I think we will have a better chance of arriving at a sensible and reasonable compromise that protects ownership rights, while addressing gun violence as much as possible. We will never be able to legislate morality of criminals, but allowing the leftists to define the debate only guarantees the end of our right to protect ourselves from them, in the opinion of most conservatives.

Every liberal news agency jumped on the hatred of gun lovers bandwagon!

again, jeff...that is how YOU and your gun lobby friends interpreted (read: spun, paraphrased) their reporting.

of course your "they're always picking on us gun owners", "poor me!", "we gun owners are the victims!" outlook is alway gonna color your views when it comes to any concerns expressed about ANY restrictions to ANYONE's (including criminals and wackjobs) "god given right" to own guns.

The bottom line Mark is we were all angry, only the liberal President used the occasion to further divide this country to achieve his political agenda.

well, i'd hope all elected officials would look at the all too many incidents of mass shootings AND try to do something about it.

what...it would be better to ignore the problem to avoid pissing off those bitching about not wanting to give up their guns???? get a clue...no one's coming for your guns. no matter how many times you and the fear mongering gun lobby attempt to spin things and paraphrase....gun control does NOT equal surrendering your gun.

my hat's off to any elected official who's not afraid to stand up to those who would twist things to support THEIR agenda.

see....you think it's all on the left, but that twisting thing works both ways.

Mark, you can paraphrase all you want but that still doesn't change the fact that taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't do a thing to stop someone hell bent on mass murder from accomplishing just that. Ask any terrorist, if that monster didn't criminally get his hands on his mothers weapons by ambushing her he would have made a bomb just like Timothy McVeigh.............oops gotta go the M.I.B. are here LOL!
I could spend hours combing thru the past post on this site and show you where multiple people here at BM blamed law abiding gun owners for Sandy Hook! I ain't gonna do it though. The same thing I said back then was guns are illegal in Mexico and that is the most dangerous place on earth!

Basically I don't trust Democrats to do the right thing since Billary was first elected. Republicans aren't much better, but they are at least supported by people who will vote them out for doing the same thing.

oh please!

bush and his cronies could have made 60 hr work wks mandatory, called for the slaying of first born male children, and left his wife for osama bin laden.... and republicans ...the people supporting him and all things republican, would STILL have voted for ANY republican to keep ANY dem out!

you're living in a dream world if you believe otherwise.

and your "the repubs/conservatives are bad but dems/libs are worse"that you manage to work into every other post goes to that point . and while we're on that subject....every time you mention you "have friends who are libs" reminds me of the good ol' "well, some of my best friends are blacks" qualifier! just sayin' is all.

They have designated Christians (and any political opposition) as terrorists that should be harassed and surveiled, while giving muslim terrorism cover with labels like "job related violence".

and that's more dreamworld stuff.

ted, i know you actually believe that stuff and ya know what.....i'm not even gonna engage you on that wackiness anymore. there's no point. i don't mean to sound condescending or be dismissive.....that's just wack. there's just no point in going around and around on this stuff.

Yes, people can be counted on to do horrible things...but those individuals are an isolated problem. America can still survive what isolated individuals do, but we would not survive giving ANY Adminstration absolute power while being defenseless against criminals or politicians.

and i'll let YOU explain that line of reasoning to families and loved ones of victims of shootings like these.

Mark, you can paraphrase all you want but that still doesn't change the fact that taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't do a thing to stop someone hell bent on mass murder from accomplishing just that.

jeff, the point isn't to stop it from EVER happening again. the point is to reduce the incidence.

by your reasoning why have any laws????

hey, let's suspend laws about murder, child abuse, speeding through a school zone! i mean, we have laws against those things but people STILL break the law? oh, well....what good is the law if people STILL do those things????

oh, yeah.....that's right. they happen LESS FREQUENTLY if there are laws against it and we've taken measures to reduce occurrences!

same thing w violent crime where firearms are used by the bad guys. yeah, of course people will ALWAYS find ways to get guns and use them for wrong purposes.....but that's why you TRY to make it a little harder for the BAD GUYS to get guns.

Ask any terrorist, if that monster didn't criminally get his hands on his mothers weapons by ambushing her he would have made a bomb just like Timothy McVeigh

mcveigh had the time, patience, and inclination to learn how to build a bomb. but the crazy guy who has a closet full of guns and likes to strangle cats because he believes they're aliens.....well, one day he forgets his meds and is all bent out of shape because his favorite soap opera got prempted by a Rangers/Cards game.

so, he goes to the closet and grabs a cpl of automatic weapons he just bought yesterday at a gun show and off to the supermarket he goes.

now to your making a bomb instead argument....if he didn't have those guns....he'd have to first go out and get the supplies, then do some research about HOW to build a bomb.....all this taking several days.

not the best scenario, but then the very next day he remembers to take his meds! and his soap is on! and now he's wondering why he has that bag of fertilizer and roofing nails on his counter!

what's my point?.... that scenario is no less plausible than the one you presented!

.............oops gotta go the M.I.B. are here LOL!

well, politics aside....i trust you know i like you too much to have ratted you out!

I love making you write all these long post with paraphrase!

I love making you write all these long post with paraphrase!

no more than i love "making you" read them!

bush and his cronies could have made 60 hr work wks mandatory, called for the slaying of first born male children, and left his wife for osama bin laden.... and republicans ...the people supporting him and all things republican, would STILL have voted for ANY republican to keep ANY dem out!

you're living in a dream world if you believe otherwise.

People who would do such horrible things are all safely on the left.

You have to invent fantasy scenarios because there are no factual ones to reference. And, of course, this helps avoid mentioning the actual extreme scenarios of the leftists that are given blind support by the rank-and-file (like creating false narratives to produce race wars, trading 5 of the most dangerous people in the world for an Army deserter, partial birth abortions, cowardice as a US Ambassador was brutally raped and murdered in Libya, hiding sensitive intel and public records on personal email accounts, etc)

On the other hand, Bush was opposed by most conservatives on everything he did except the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He absolutely did NOT have the all-devoted worship that Obama or Clinton get from their base. Neither he nor his father were ever considered conservative, but unfortunately for the nation, Gore or Kerry were the only alternatives.

and your "the repubs/conservatives are bad but dems/libs are worse"that you manage to work into every other post goes to that point . and while we're on that subject....every time you mention you "have friends who are libs" reminds me of the good ol' "well, some of my best friends are blacks" qualifier! just sayin' is all.

I was on the liberal plantation until 1990, though I would have been labeled a Reagan Democrat because Carter was/is a national embarrassment. I wrote songs in the 80s that compare Falwell and Pat Robertson to Hitler that prove my liberal credentials. I still hang out with friends from those days when I go out to jam locally (rare that I'm home, but it happens), and my latest CD, "Hollywood Sessions" features nothing but producers/musicians/writers from the most liberal community in the world....Hollywood. Heck, two people on that project are friends of Obama, not just political supporters. We had to reschedule a session with LA Life choir early last year because the producer doing my vocal arrangements, HB Barnum, produces Aretha and they were invited to the White House. Maybe you remember the Fox news reports of Obama mis-spelling RSPECT? The liberal media crucified Dan Quayle for a lesser mistake.

We all chuckle at the irony of them helping me producing an album. And btw, I have sung in that choir when I'm in LA and they have a concert scheduled. I seriously love and enjoy these people. Just like the fun you and I are having here.

They have designated Christians (and any political opposition) as terrorists that should be harassed and surveiled, while giving muslim terrorism cover with labels like "job related violence".

and that's more dreamworld stuff.

Apparently you are uninformed about this also?

No, it is verifiable fact but you don't seem willing to look at those in any discussion we've had, so I'm not going to spend time showing you what is publicly available for all to see.

ted, i know you actually believe that stuff and ya know what.....i'm not even gonna engage you on that wackiness anymore. there's no point. i don't mean to sound condescending or be dismissive.....that's just wack. there's just no point in going around and around on this stuff.

I can (and have) offered verifiable publicly-known facts that lead to logical conclusions. Just because someone won't take the time to consider the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yes, people can be counted on to do horrible things...but those individuals are an isolated problem. America can still survive what isolated individuals do, but we would not survive giving ANY Adminstration absolute power while being defenseless against criminals or politicians.

and i'll let YOU explain that line of reasoning to families and loved ones of victims of shootings like these.

Most of those people already know that bad things happen to good people. I don't have to condone criminal action to say that making us all defenseless is not the answer.

Liberty from tyranny has always been paid for in blood. In the past, most Americans thought it was a noble goal to be free, but that has changed with the socialist takeover of the DNC. Now we have the Nanny State taking from the producers to give to the dependancy class they have created.

As Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrasing) "Anyone who wants security over freedom deserves neither."

This might be a fair question for the parents at Sandy to ask: why did the first gutless cops not go in shooting? just like at Columbine - they 'minimized officer casualties.' Bitches...they maximized child casualties! There is a point, and that point occurs when kids or women are in danger - that a man must stop worrying about his own sad ass and get it done - no matter the risk.

Another Question - why were these kids totally unprotected when any political whore above the rank of dogcatcher has bodyguards these day? There are plenty of nasty old rascals like me quite willing to put in a couple shifts a week at the school providing security.

Talbot

For the record, I do not support "taking away" anyone's guns, unless:

1. They have a criminal record
2. They are mentally ill
3. The guns are semi-automatic whose only purpose is to kill a large number of people quickly

There is NO reason anyone should have military-grade weapons.

Let the spinning begin.

I mostly agree with that sentiment, but the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from our own government as much as foreign invaders, so any person who has shown themselves to be a mature, law abiding citizen should be able to own anything the government can own.

For safety, I think the answer is bio-locks that ensure a gun won't fire unless it's owner is holding it. Any kind of mental disorder (depression, skitzophrenia, bi-polar, etc) should disqualify ownership of anything that shoots more than one bullet at a time. Even one violent criminal act in one's history should disqualify ownership for at least a decade before their specific case can be re-examined.

But we all know that criminals don't obey the law and will find a gun if they want it, so citizens should not be prohibited from the ability to protect themselves from anyone.

How about let the facts begin.

Fact - Obama is in favor of gun control, he has made that clear. After Sandy Hook he introduced a gun control bill, which was shot down by congress. A congress that was not controlled by Republicans. He made a statement soon afterward that he would "keep chipping away at it." We've seen that recently with the attempted ban on .223 ammunition, when it was also shot down some of the Democrats in Congress introduced bills the same day to try and ban ammunition. Now the VA is sending names of veterans who apply for assistance to the DOJ to have their names added to the gun ban list, and sending them letters telling them they are considered mentally defective and can no longer own firearms. An attempt at gun control by going around Congress, which seems to be Obama's favorite pastime.

Fact - Background checks are already in use, and have done absolutely nothing to reduce gun related crime. Why? Criminals get guns on the black market, with no worries about background checks. Just like locks, background checks only keep honest people honest.

Fact - Virtually all of the places in the US with the strictest gun laws also have the highest crime rates. New York, DC, LA, Chicago...

Fact - Australia passed gun control several years ago, thousands of guns confiscated or sold back to the government. Mostly sold back. Crime rates immediately went up. Murder rates did not go down signifigantly, and criminals still get illegal firearms.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/obama ... nd-checks/

Here in the US - http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... rol-lobby/

A couple of interesting quotes from that article...

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Fact - Criminals would LOVE to see gun control. They already get their guns on the black market, and will continue to do so. Make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own firearms, we can't protect ourselves, and that's exactly what criminals want. Defenseless victims...easy targets. Think about it from their point of view...would you try to rob a silver haired couple from out of state who probably wouldn't bring a pistol along on vacation for fear of getting in trouble, or the 30 year old guy with a gun rack in his pickup? Would you try to rob someone who can defend himself, or a defenseless person who can't fight back? Don't even think about telling me you would choose the guy who you know can defend himself. I know better.

Fact - The group promoting this event supports gun confiscation. Not just sensible laws...gun confiscation.

Quote - (from above) Breitbart News has reported that Sandy Hook Promise currently supports legislation in Oregon that opens the door for legalized firearm confiscation, they support the expanded background checks which Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said would not have prevented the Sandy Hook attack from happening, and they oppose teachers being armed in the classroom for the defense of themselves and their students.

Fact - Obama filled out and signed a questionnaire as senator saying he supported gun control and a ban on all handguns. Then lied about it.

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

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

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

I can't find anything but I'd be willing to bet Obama and most of the gun control lobby would definitely support confiscation. Nobody wants to say it though.

In summary - Criminals want and look for easy targets...defenseless victims. Background checks already in place have done very little to solve the problem of firearm related crime, because criminals already get guns through the back market, not from a gun shop where they have to pass a background check. In the past 20 years or so while gun ownership in this country has increased greatly, the overall murder rate has dropped.

Remove guns from the equation, criminals will grab another type of weapon,. This is historically proven in reverse. Before firearms were invented, the Roman government created the first paved roads. Why? Merchants traveling from distant locations were being robbed on the traditional merchant trails, which were often muddy and rutted so seriously the merchants had a hard time getting through and the Roman army could not get there when highwaymen attacked merchant caravans. So long before guns were invented criminals were using swords, spears and knives. Eliminate guns and it will immediately revert back to the same today. And criminals will still look for easy targets.

But why are we bickering about this? I've stated on here repeatedly we need to drop the arguing and name calling and start trying to put our heads together against a common threat...our damn government. The 2nd amendment is not the only one of the bill of rights in jeopardy. All of them are. Your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech is being attacked by this administration on a regular basis. Reporters are being harrassed, audited by the IRS, told not to report certain stories critical of Obama, when the big uproar over the Bundy issue in Nevada was in the news I saw pictures of signs with small marked off areas that said "Free speech zone". Every inch of this country is a free speech zone, period. Reporters are being banned from political fundraisers, by Obama, a group of about 30 journalistic organizations sent him a letter last summer voicing their string disapproval of these attacks on journalists and suppression of free press...

And that's just the beginning. Again I must say...stop the bickering and start discussing all of this in a civilized fashion, look up the FACTS and ignore the media hype, ignore the propaganda, and let's try putting our heads together in the interest of some sort of solution. It ain't easy, I don't have any answers, but I do know the politicians sitting in DC trampling our Constitution love to see you at each others throats. That means you are not doing anything to stop them...