Waiting

I have no idea what that means.

To quote that great philosopher, Conan the Barbarian: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." Do you recall the news wonks on the night that Trump won the first time? They were lamenting all over the place, emotionally crushed, fleeing to a place of solitude to sulk and lick their wounds. (Figuratively, of course.)

The emotional pain that he would inflict on those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome will be plenty of retribution for the pain they have inflicted on him for the last eight years.
 
And how many are killed by guns? In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That is about the same number of deaths we suffered in Viet Nam.

While it may seem like a huge number, a lot of those deaths are drug-war or gang-war casualties. I know that for a fact in New Orleans because I see what gets reported. You know what? If one gang-thug or drug-thug kills another one, I'm sad for the decedent's surviving family, but it is hard to get worked up about taking another violent thug off the streets. It is a true moral dilemma.
 
And how many are killed by guns? In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That is about the same number of deaths we suffered in Viet Nam.

And so deductively reasoning, what would happen if all the law abiding people gave up or were banned from having guns tomorrow?
They would have no way to defend themselves from the criminals who do have guns and any number of other harmful things
The only net effect would be more violence and the worst kind - perpetrated against people who have no way to defend themselves.

You don't come to a gunfight with a knife. How many crimes have been detered simply from the sight or sound of a gun on the good guy?

We'll never know, but I think it's obvious/evident enough that the number would be very many.
 
I do not disagree with you for the most part. I wan't lecturing regarding all gun laws. I was writing about bump stocks. Like a Republican, I used to be a hunter, birds and deer; now I am not because of age. I see absolutly not need for the public to have any sort of weapon that can fire 400 to 800 rounds per minute. Those will invariably fall into the hands of the wrong people. The code needs to be changed to reflect the fire power, not the mechanics. I know a lot about guns, and an AR 15 with a bump stock fires at the rate of a machine gun, which are illegal. I used to have a lot of long guns, bolt and falling block. I fixed up a Savage 250/3000, and with a 64 power scope I was shooting quater sized groups at 200 meters. All those guns are gone, and all thats left is an antique 12 gauge shout gun, that was given to me by my father in law. Do you think bump stocks should be legal?

FWIW, I think bump stocks should be illegal. The supreme court did their best to do their job of applying law to facts. Now it Congress's turn to simply explicitly ban bump stocks. I shudder when I hear the ignorance of some people angry at the supreme court for doing their job ... because it's as dumb as being mad at a policeman who refuses to arrest somebody who's doing something that's not illegal - No, he's doing his job correctly.

BUT, I would support banning bump stocks - heck yeah, all day long. AS LONG AS the gov does a good job of comprehensively trying to round up and ferret out the ones that are out there, because (again), what we NEVER want, no matter what, is a situation where ONLY the good guys have been banned from something all the bad guys have - that puts us at a disadvantage again.
 
There was no out smarting involved, just a right leaning congress, and, I am not a liberal. The far left is just as dilusional as the far right. You think I am a liberal from the position you hold, which is, anyone to the left of you is a liberal even if they are a bit right of center. BTW, I don't think that Trump is all that smart. He still does not know how tariffs work. In the debate he claimed that the US took in a lot on money from China because of his tariffs. Consumers (like you and me) pay the tariffs. When he said that I stopped watching the debate. He has also claimed that he carried California in the 2020 election. He did not. He lost by 5 million votes and did got zero electoral votes from California. That is fact.
 
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. People who commit mass murder are insane and belong in a mental hospital. But wait, committing them would infringe on their freedom. So, instead, friends, family, doctors, and the police all look the other way until the unthinkable happens again. And yet, you refuse to address the actual issue - drugs, mental health issues. People who want to kill people will still kill people. They just find other ways to do it. Bombs are very effective. So are knives. You don't get to kill as many people with a knife in a short time frame as you could with a gun but you can do some serious damage. How about cars? Cars are great weapons. Just drive through a parade. The people fall like bowling pins and you can get a lot at one time. When are we going to ban cars? Look how many people the 9/11 murders killed with a couple of planes. We didn't ban planes.

One thing I learned very early in my IT career was how to identify the REAL problem. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time and my client's money and having no success. Once you can accept the fact that a gun cannot kill anyone unless it is in the hands of a murder, you might be able to come up with rational solutions to "gun free zone" massacres. Oh, did the shooter break the law by taking a gun into a "gun free zone". It must be the fault of the gun.
You misss the point. Should bump stocks be legal, yes or no? SImple question, should elicit a simple answer.
 
BTW, I don't think that Trump is all that smart. He still does not know how tariffs work.
Sure he does. He knows that placing tariffs on China makes their products more expensive. The point is they accept none of our goods but expect us to buy theirs.

He explained how it works in the debate, did you miss the debate @jpl458
 
I take the view that citizens should not be banned for owning just about any kind of gun you can think of, but the more dangerous one's should be locked up and only used when there is reason to do so. Not for committing crimes of course, but more for self defense purposes or in the case of anarchy in the streets, suddenly you are your own police at that point. That being said, those guns and pretty much any guns should be controlled carefully and as safely as possible using a gun safe or whatever extra measure to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands when not needed for an actual legitimate reason. You hope you never have to ever use them just like nuclear weapons between countries. So disarming the people is a big no no in our country unless you have been found to be mentally unstable or used them to commit crimes.

Laws that end up eating away at this basic right, like you can't have this, or can't have that because we said so, are all a means to chip away at our basic constitutional rights.

The second amendment was written the way it was to prevent those in power from reversing this important right and many more rights, and taking it away from the people. What they are slowly and methodically trying to do in stages is reducing "the right to bare arms" into "the right to own a pea shooter" which is clearly not what it says, but that's what they want. At that point the pea shooters can then be confiscated easily and along with it even more rights.

We probably go down the road of digital currency first before that happens, and your life could be shut down instantly by denying all ability to use your earned income. That's game over for all of us.

Consumers (like you and me) pay the tariffs
If you live here in the U.S., please purchase American products as much as possible. That's what tariffs do, they make the decision easier for you to make the right one. Your not forced to purchase anything as you suggest. What happens to all that tariff money when no one buys foreign goods anymore or reduces them significantly?

Now you might know that China's products are embedded in just about everything so it's tough to find anything truly and wholly made in America anymore, so obviously it will take a very long time to swing the pendulum back in the other direction. It just doesn't happen overnight. How long has the no tariff policy been in place for China? A very long time. So of course it's not going to be immediately apparent right away how beneficial it really is to have these tariffs in place. They are really there to prevent a trade imbalance, plain and simple. Ideally, we should be able to trade equally and fairly, but China doesn't want to play that game, they would rather have the casino rules where they always win.

The more immediate issue is our runaway national debt and not bringing in enough economic growth to support it. Not having the tariffs in place, will just speed our financial ruin a lot quicker. It's not a perfect solution to anything, but it's a step in the right direction. Getting us into many wars and creating trillion dollar spending bills is definitely not a step in the right direction. Paying for things with money printed out of thin air is not a step in the right direction.
 
Like the national debt going parabolic, government has gotten too big, and going back to small government is going to be darn near impossible at this point. How do get out of this mess?
 

“Not going to drive them higher.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump on whether tariffs would increase prices

This is false.

Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industries by raising the price of foreign products, and economists anticipate that any increase in tariffs would result in some increase in prices.

Economic studies found that the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese goods during his first term were largely paid by American consumers, rather than Chinese companies. In a recent letter, 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists wrote that there was concern that Trump’s policies, including his plan to impose blanket tariffs on most imports, would reignite inflation.

China does not pay for the tariffs imposed on them.
 

“Not going to drive them higher.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump on whether tariffs would increase prices

This is false.

Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industries by raising the price of foreign products, and economists anticipate that any increase in tariffs would result in some increase in prices.

Economic studies found that the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese goods during his first term were largely paid by American consumers, rather than Chinese companies. In a recent letter, 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists wrote that there was concern that Trump’s policies, including his plan to impose blanket tariffs on most imports, would reignite inflation.

China does not pay for the tariffs imposed on them.
And Biden kept kept them!!! Moreover: Biden increases tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese imports in a new warning to Beijing.
So where is your outrage against Biden screwing the consumer?
 
It's almost time to start a new thread, this one's beat
 
You misss the point. Should bump stocks be legal, yes or no? SImple question, should elicit a simple answer.

You missed the REAL point. We know for an absolute fact that criminals don't CARE what is legal or illegal. Bump stocks EXIST. Now that it exists, if someone wants one bad enough to break the law to get it (or make it), we can't stop it. That horse has left the barn.

Should bump stocks be legal? Your question is moot. How simple is THAT answer?
 
You can 3D print stuff nowadays. Perhaps you can 3D print the parts if bump stocks get banned.
 
People who want to kill people will still kill people. They just find other ways to do it. Bombs are very effective. So are knives. You don't get to kill as many people with a knife in a short time frame as you could with a gun but you can do some serious damage. How about cars? Cars are great weapons. Just drive through a parade. The people fall like bowling pins and you can get a lot at one time. When are we going to ban cars? Look how many people the 9/11 murders killed with a couple of planes. We didn't ban planes.
I agree with Pat. As a Brit I view the USA from an outside perspective.
A gun is a means to an end, it can be a defensive deterrent or can be an aggressive weapon, as can 1000 other things like a hammer, a stick, a knife etc etc.
The prospective perpetrators choose from a vast array of implements to carry out their dirty deed. For example, a gun is not so effective if you wish to kill and injure dozens of people in one go, a car or truck is more effective, but not indoors, so a gun may be favoured for that job. Its true a gun is most versatile for most jobs of that ilk like robbery, or just maiming someone easily, you can do it from a distance unlike a knife where you need to get closer.
I liken it to guitars, if you play various genres of music, then a Fender Stratocaster style is very versatile for anything from blues to heavy metal. Plus if you want you can hit someone with it and maybe kill them.
But I suppose using a gun is easier, in the UK we say 'horses for courses' - it's your preference.
Col
 
The role of the judges is to interpret the law and apply the facts to it, not opine on the goodness or badness of the thing. For all you know, every single US supreme Court Justice May despise the idea of bump stocks
Not so much any more, ever since the Court was taken over by MAGA, it has been on a witch hunt to destroy the Institution that keep citizens safe from the Crown. The quest for power has infected the Court.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom