|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#161 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:03 PM
|
So that would be a no.
__________________Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#162 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
did he murder these two people on the basis of their ethnicity or sexual orientation and thusly send a signal to other members of these groups that they were under attack? certainly, his long list of grievances had racial and sexual components, and he seemed particularly upset by the Charleston shooting (he legally purchased a gun 2 days afterwards). but it's this complexity, combined with his work-related complaints, that make this a classic workplace shooting perpetrated by a delusional individual who lives in a state that enables easy access to deadly weapons. he hated his co-workers, he hated what he perceived as slights on the basis of his race and sexual orientation. but he did not kill the two simply because they were 1) white, and 2) straight. very different than the Charleston shooting. i have some intellectual issues with hate crimes in general, but there's a pretty clear standard when it comes to their defintion. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#163 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#164 |
The Male
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 68,211
Local Time: 04:03 PM
|
Prior to their "gun ban," did every Australian feel entitled to their own personal armory purely because of where they were born? Because that might have contributed to the ease of their buyback.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#165 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,100
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
Not anything close to incremental change. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#166 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,100
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#167 | |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,396
Local Time: 04:03 PM
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#168 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
I think it would be a tough sell as well. We're talking about a country where 85% of the country wants more gun control, but politicians are too fearful of the NRA to do much of anything. If a classroom full of first graders mangled by semi-automatic weapons doesn't move our politicians to action, what will? That said, it was clearly successful in two relatively culturally similar countries they have a fraction of our gun violence. Might it be a good idea? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#169 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#170 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
Really, we have to look at the history of the NRA and its leadership change in 1977 -- that was when the language around guns began to change and the notion of any gun, any time, any person, "from my cold, dead hands" as some sort of inalienable right came into vogue, and it gained steam during the Reagan years. Before that, the NRA was, ironically, focused on gun training and gun safety. Now, it's focused on the exact opposite -- gun sales, and whipping up nativist fear in order to do so. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#171 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,100
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#172 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 11:03 PM
|
Reporter and Cameraman Murdered on Live TV
Quote:
85% in the United States? Bull crap. You're off by over 30%. Heck, not even 80% of democrats support more gun control. I'd like to see your source on that polling data. Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#173 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,396
Local Time: 04:03 PM
|
It's commonly understood that post Sandy Hook, around 80% of the country wanted stricter gun control. A bill was ready to go, and it didn't pass Congress. It would have, if I understand right, strengthened background check enforcement online and at gun shows, the one form of gun control enforcement overwhelmingly supported on both sides.
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#174 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,100
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Of course I've read the legal definition and several interpretations of it, including yours here. Not going to argue any further about a label. Not going to bring anyone back.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#175 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 11:03 PM
|
Reporter and Cameraman Murdered on Live TV
Quote:
The recent polls I've checked from this month are around 52% of the nation. 77% of democrats, 48% of independents, and 31% of republicans. In fact, since January of 2013, it's been pretty consistently around 50%. Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#176 |
The Male
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 68,211
Local Time: 04:03 PM
|
I think 52% places us firmly in the region of "we need to have a serious talk about this situation and not just ignore it because gun lobby."
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#177 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,100
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
85%, 52%. Whatever. I see a lot of non-starters in the thread here. No wonder there's a stalemate in Congress. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#178 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:03 PM
|
I read recently of proposal that would allow family members to put a hold on a family member to make a gun purchase if they were fearful of violence. Can't find a link to it right now.
That seems reasonable to me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#179 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,246
Local Time: 07:03 PM
|
Quote:
There are lots of good ideas and solutions that have been implemented in other countries, as well as broad bipartisan support to do something. The stalemate is almost entirely due to political fear and the big money behind the NRA. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#180 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:03 PM
|
Quote:
It all depends on the poll, the wording of the poll, and where it's being conducted. If you equate "gun control" with confiscation then yeah your understanding of the polls is probably correct. If you understand gun control as better background checks and the removal of loop holes then the 80+% is correct. Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|