Gun violence

[Isaac]

 

[AccessBlaster]

I still see roadmasters occasionally.

 

[ColinEssex]

Could someone explain what all that means please?
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, the problem between the Uvalde shooter and Kyle Rittenhouse is who originally suggested the blame for the action, which is partly because one case was politically incorrect (Kyle was acquited using a self-defense plea after shooting a protester) and the other was just flat-out totally incorrect (the Uvalde case). Also, the reference to the vehicles shows that there is a "viewpoint" issue there, too, since other than color scheme, those are the same vehicles.

In other words, the USA's crazy political divide says that when you go out to shoot someone, it matters as to whose "internal narrative" you messed up. This makes gun control extremely difficult. The country is not unified over the issues.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Just one caveat on the so called protester(s). One was armed with a pistol looking to shoot Kyle, the other jumped into the air attempting to smash Kyle's head into the asphalt.

Trivial I know.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AB, I was on Kyle's side in the discussion, but my point was to advice Col that it depends on whom you ask as to whether something was evil gun violence or righteous self-defense. You KNOW how Kyle was vilified - except that he won his case.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Looks like Kyle is on his way to being a millionaire

 

[conception_native_0123]

no need to start a thread on this. nothing's gonna change, at least not in the USA. sorry to lend the truth folks.

 

[Isaac]

no need to start a thread on this. nothing's gonna change, at least not in the USA. sorry to lend the truth folks.

Probably not, until we get back to emphasizing a man marrying a woman and raising a normal two parent family with relatively happy and secure children. Then those children will probably stop shooting people.

Given that we already have 50 years of data that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that having a two parent family is the biggest privilege and predictor of success and well-being out there. It's the best kept secret that liberals pretend not to know that I've ever seen.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sorry, Isaac, I have to call you down (slightly). Your answer about "a man and a woman as a normal two-parent family" is biased by a religious group's incorrect interpretation of homosexuality and its implications. Before you complain, I ask you to quote me exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality. Not other prophets, but Jesus. Find the quotes in the four gospels and let me know what is there.

If folks wouldn't emphasize their views that a gay marriage is automatically a sin no matter what else those parents do, those kids who had two gay parents would have less stress at school and therefore would not be bullied as often. It is your attitude that engenders stress based on gender biases. The data about two-parent family? Don't actually disagree, because the second parent is a safety net who provides regular attention and/or a second income. But the data for gay parents is harder to find because of same-sex marriages not being legal for such a long time. So I challenge the depth of that facet of the data.

 

[Isaac]

Sorry, Isaac, I have to call you down (slightly). Your answer about "a man and a woman as a normal two-parent family" is biased by a religious group's incorrect interpretation of homosexuality and its implications. Before you complain, I ask you to quote me exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality. Not other prophets, but Jesus. Find the quotes in the four gospels and let me know what is there.

If folks wouldn't emphasize their views that a gay marriage is automatically a sin no matter what else those parents do, those kids who had two gay parents would have less stress at school and therefore would not be bullied as often. It is your attitude that engenders stress based on gender biases. The data about two-parent family? Don't actually disagree, because the second parent is a safety net who provides regular attention and/or a second income. But the data for gay parents is harder to find because of same-sex marriages not being legal for such a long time. So I challenge the depth of that facet of the data.

Withdrawn.

I'll retract what I said about a man and a woman and just limit it to "two people getting married and raising children within the confines of that marriage."

Now on THAT, the data is incontrovertible.
That was my main point anyway.
People stop sleeping around and having a bunch of kids outside of marriage no matter what their orientation is. Period.

And I think that the average person in this country secretly agrees with that or even publicly agrees with it it's just not talked about very much anymore because our current society seems to find it impossible for whatever reason....

 

[conception_native_0123]

Given that we already have 50 years of data that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that having a two parent family is the biggest privilege and predictor of success and well-being out there

I didn't know that there was so much importance to a 2-parent home and how that results in successful kids. thanks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

limit it to "two people getting married and raising children within the confines of that marriage."

We can agree on the value of a two-adult marriage in that it provides monetary and emotional stability to the kids. Both of those stability factors are of great importance.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'll ask the question I asked on the Buffalo thread before it got locked.
Now, it's generally accepted that the American President is the most powerful man in the world. In America the NRA is a very powerful organisation, probably giving back handers to many senators and the like.
Does the most powerful man have the power to ban the NRA and make being a member illegal? Personally, I think the president is just a figurehead to go on the world stage or is too scared to tackle the NRA.
Yes in the constitution, Americans have the right to bear arms and waltz about like some modern day Wyatt Earp waving guns around. If everyone is disgusted at the continued serial killings, why doesn't the president or the government change the constitution to make gun owning illegal.
It seems to us in the UK, that the president, whoever they are, are all talk and no action, serial killing will continue, sympathetic words will be spoken by the president and it will go away until the next 20 children are killed and the cycle will repeat again and again. Sadly, Americans accept it rather than demand change.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'll treat this question as simply as I can. Col, since you don't know the details and implications of what you ask, here are some key points.

Does the most powerful man have the power to ban the NRA and make being a member illegal?

No. The USA constitution also guarantees Freedom of Association, which in the past has been taken to include the right to join an organization as long as that organization doesn't advocate sedition or insurrection. Further, if the organization were to be accused in that way, its members would have the right to challenge that accusation in court.

The NRA has not, insofar as I remember, advocated sedition or insurrection. They advocate gun rights and gun training. They have the publicly avowed intention of preserving gun rights under the 2nd Amendment to the constitution, which is, at least prima facie, in support of a guaranteed right of the people, which therefore is NOT within any of the definitions that would make the NRA illegal. If they have a hidden secondary agenda, it remains hidden.

why doesn't the president or the government change the constitution to make gun owning illegal.

Because neither the President nor Congress nor even the USA courts can do that. Changing the constitution is a right expressly granted to the people through the mechanism of formally amending the constitution, where 38 states (actually, 3/4 of the states) must accept the proposed change. The process is called "ratifying an amendment" and is described in the main body of the USA constitution. At the moment, I do not believe enough agreement exists among the general population to support that particular action. Among many states with hunting traditions, that would be a non-starter.

Americans accept it rather than demand change.

Americans are demanding change but the politicians are, as usual, pressing their own tunnel-vision agenda in a way that will not have the desired effect - and the majority of the people know that. Some so-called "red flag" laws might get passed, laws that would allow police intervention if someone appears to represent a gun threat.

The REAL problem is that folks have not been, and still are not, willing to "blow the whistle" on someone else. The Uvalde shooter posted stuff online that, if it had been forwarded to police for their attention, might have prevented the incident entirely. We used to have an old phrase, "to drop a dime" on someone - meaning use a pay phone to call the police. Now of course we have so many cell phones that the phrase no longer has a meaningful referent. But it still remains the best solution. Sadly, too many people are so self-centered that they don't want to get involved and thus let pass those opportunities to prevent such incidents.

EDITED by The_Doc_Man to fix a couple of awkward sentences and to correct one more statement. The number of states required to ratify a new amendment is 3/4 of the states. That was true. But 3/4 of the states, or 75% would be 37 1/2 states and they round DOWN. So I originally said 37 but actually, we need 38 states (=76%) to ratify any new amendments.

@ColinEssex - I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Just to clarify for our non-Constitutional friends.

There are two paths to amending the Constitution. They start differently but end up in the same place.

1. Congress can propose an amendment. This requires 60% in the Senate but probably just a simple majority in the House.
2. The states can request a constitutional convention. This requires 2/3 of the states to call the convention. The convention then proposes amendments.

Then the proposed amendments go back to the states and 3/4 of the states are required to approve the change so it isn't that easy which is why the Democrats keep trying to make end runs to get past it. Sometimes there is a time limit, say 3 years. If an amendment hasn't been approved in three years, it has to go back and be re proposed. I think there is still an "equal" rights amendment lurking out there that will give women "equal" rights but which essentially diminished the rights we now have by default in order to make us equal to men. When I was young, all my women friends were really bummed that they weren't being drafted to serve in the Viet Nam war I wonder if the men pretending to be women realize that

 

[AccessBlaster]

His own son Hunter lied to the DOJ about his drug use which should have prevented Hunter from owning and eventually disposing of a firearm in a dumpster. By not enforcing existing laws it undermines future laws, this concept escapes liberals.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident. Biden's minders wouldn't have let him make that mistake. They would have reminded him that he needed to get the civilians out and secure the weapons. Then and only then should the troops go home. And we should never have given Bagram up to the Chinese either. That wasn't part of Trump's plan. This "withdrawal" went exactly as planned.

 

[Isaac]

why doesn't the president or the government change the constitution to make gun owning illegal.

Why don't you go to Ukraine and ask some of the citizens there to explain to you how that would have worked out for them, and why it's not a great idea.

 

[ColinEssex]

Why don't you go to Ukraine and ask some of the citizens there to explain to you how that would have worked out for them, and why it's not a great idea.

OK,OK, don't get in a huff. I only asked a question, Jesus, can't ask a question without getting a sniping answer.
I'm sorry I took an interest in stupid American politics. As NG has said, I'll go and crawl back under a rock.
Col