The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

[Accountable]

Way to support BTS' accusation, rj.

Originally Posted by rjwould

First you make this statement.Then when asked to clarify the statement, you go on to blame "people like me" for gun issues. This is the problem with conversing with you, Jester. You resort to circular reasoning and Ad hominem attacks .The links I have provided are rational, credible and factual, not to mention unbiased.

Ive said clearly several times now...

There are many deterrent uses of firearms, 31000 deaths in the particular year we are discussing (2005) I etsimate there are well over 500,000 instances of a gun used to dismiss a crime (deterrant use of a fire arm) of those I'd estimate about 500-700 ended in justifiable homocides. I agree the suicide issue is large, but unstoppable, and I dont agree we should stop folks who want to commit suicide anyway its a complete side issue. So the only other issue of concern to me is the negligent use of firearms, which are those occurances of accidental gun dishcarge that kill or maim and innocent person. Then of course we have those perps who use a gun in a crime, an illegal use of a firearm.

You want to ban all firearms.

which is stupid... because there are too many out there to make it happen, second it leaves the honset folks who turn in their guns defensless. which will increase the violence to innocent persons (think about those 500,000 deterrent uses).

And you call my reasoning circular?

I want to hang every perosn who uses a firearm illegally, get them out of the gene pool, and send a message of zero tolerance of illegal gun use.

I want to increase the penatly of the negligent occurances of a firearm, make it hurt the pocket book and do time in jail, ten years minimum for anyone who leave a gun unsecured and it is used accidentally by a child.

Suicides are just too bad. deal with it.

You are just nuts Rj, everytime I read one of your posts I just scratch my head at the acenine thoughts you have.

[yaaarrrgg]

Originally Posted by Jester

...
There are many deterrent uses of firearms, 31000 deaths in the particular year we are discussing (2005) I etsimate there are well over 500,000 instances of a gun used to dismiss a crime (deterrant use of a fire arm) of those I'd estimate about 500-700 ended in justifiable homocides. I agree the suicide issue is large, but unstoppable, and I dont agree we should stop folks who want to commit suicide anyway its a complete side issue. So the only other issue of concern to me is the negligent use of firearms, which are those occurances of accidental gun dishcarge that kill or maim and innocent person. Then of course we have those perps who use a gun in a crime, an illegal use of a firearm.

If what you are saying is true, there should be a positive correlation between gun ownership, and longevity. But there isn't. What benefits the gun confers to the owner, is purely psychological.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

If what you are saying is true, there should be a positive correlation between gun ownership, and longevity. But there isn't. What benefits the gun confers to the owner, is purely psychological.

The fact that I possess the right to keep and bear arms if I choose, even though I don't currently exercise that right, does me a world of good psychologically.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by rjwould

So what do you see as BTS's point? That some have been the victim of slow emergency response? Offer a few stories of which seem to be lacking any common sense scrutiny, against all the evidence and figures from the FBI which clearly points out that public safety is suffering disproportionately to any legitimate and/or justifiable use of firearms for defensive purposes?

At the same time, people making this claim, are demanding taxes, which pay for police and other emergency related public services be reduced if not completely halted?

How are you sure they're the same people?

Originally Posted by rjwould

Its all getting old and I think a large enough majority of the American voting electorate are wise enough at this point to say "out, you bunch of hypocrites".

So go for it. Get that Constitution amended! I have a funny feeling you don't have quite as many in agreement as you claim. The very small but vocal minority find it easier to get legislation via decree from the bench rather than passed through legislation. But by all means, recall the 2nd Amendment if you can.

Originally Posted by rjwould

Incidentally, I heard on NPR this morning that the NRA has announced they are going to be spending $40,000,000.00 (thats 40 million dollars) of its members hard earned money on campaigned adds this election cycle in order to tell their members how to think. Mighty thoughtful of them, don't you think.....oops....or not?

No different than the NEA or the UAW. Hell, the AFL-CIO spent nearly 9 grand in one month all in little old Iowa. LINK They call it their political education fund. Nice that they care about education.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by rjwould

So what do you see as BTS's point? That some have been the victim of slow emergency response? Offer a few stories of which seem to be lacking any common sense scrutiny, against all the evidence and figures from the FBI which clearly points out that public safety is suffering disproportionately to any legitimate and/or justifiable use of firearms for defensive purposes?

At the same time, I suspect the people making this claim, are demanding taxes, which pay for police and other emergency related public services be reduced if not completely halted?

You'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of that, I think.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by rjwould

I don't think its far fetched to say that unregulated gun ownership and dismantling government through reducing taxes is mostly part of the conservative agenda. You do?

Yes I do, absolutely. Never mind that they are both great ideas, especially that last one (gave me chills).

Look around. You're right what you say about marketing, yet you believe their marketing even as you talk about how sneaky (I can't remember the better word ) it can be. The "Conservatives", or those that currently claim the title in the gov't, want to rule the world. Ya can't rule the world with small gov't. Gov't grows no matter who's in charge.

Gun ownership has become just another wedge issue. It's a right. Let that go. Just as any other right, this one can be abused. Punish those guys.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by rjwould

I don't understand this part.

You think the 'conservative' arm of the Demopublican Party want to shrink gov't? Name one program they've stopped, one way they've reduced spending, one department they've dissolved.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by rjwould

I don't think conservatives want to shrink government the way you seem to mean it. On the contrary, they want to occupy it and make it ineffective except for military and police (although I think they would actually like to privatize both). The conservatives want to redistribute wealth via spending in support of big business. They kneel to the business interests of corporate America because corporate America provides jobs, mostly low paying jobs, too. They have a euphoric idea that if we will all just become investors, we all will become rich. Delusional.

Look at the windfall for Insurance, pharmaceutical, banking and credit industries while republicans were in power in congress for 12 years. Look at all the bubbles that surfaced during their reign. We are in the midst of another financial bubble right now (oil speculation) due to the policies that have lingered from them. And why were we steered into this current bubble? In order to pressure and persuade our people to permit drilling in public lands for the good of the oil industry, again to provide job. They resist progressive ideas to encourage alternative energies through denying there are environment problems looming.

You invest

[K.Snyder]

Originally Posted by rjwould

They have a euphoric idea that if we will all just become investors, we all will become rich. Delusional.

If everyone had equal share between the bias of 60%-40% everyone would be rich...