X-post from GCRA: Okay, I'm finally there. Ban the import, manufacture and sale of semiautomatic...

[beevul]

Okay, I'm finally there. Ban the import, manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons with removable magazines. Every one of them. Long, short all of them. Do a buy back for those who would like to be rid of them.

Why? Two things: a shooter is limited in the number of people he can shoot only by the physical strength to carry ammunition and I'm tired of negotiating from the point of reason which is where we all want to be instead of the extreme. Start with a total ban and move to something reasonable like a national registry, may issue, local background checks including social media.

It's a common practice of the pro gun side the negotiate any policy proposal into ineffectiveness. Oh, sure! we can have UBC but only if the NICS is open to us gunners and we don't have to BC relatives and close friends and we don't have to keep records of transfers and on and on and on.

Yeah! we can buy into a registry if there are are exceptions for our favorite whatever and nobody ever knows that guns are registered and on and on and on.

The Gun Lobby has successfully done this to every piece of legislation that managed to get passed.

Fuck it. Start from the extreme like they do and negotiate to something reasonable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629148


Discuss

On edit:

It's a common practice of the pro gun side the negotiate any policy proposal into ineffectiveness.

It seems to me, that criminal shooters 'negotiate' said policy proposals which make it onto law, into ineffectiveness, and the answer is always to come back demanding more, as the author does.

[WDIM]

1. How about the banning of all weapons of mass death?

Bomb, guns, drones, missles, tanks, jet planes, icbms, etc. All things that are created just to murder. Lets do it and our governments should lead by example with complete disarmament.

[Matrosov]

2. Banning certain firearms with certain features is useless

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

It doesn't matter if criminals are running around with single-shot .22s or fully-automatic M60s, but as even Karl Rove (yes, Hell has frozen over and pigs can fly when I actually agree with him!) pointed out, the only way to stop gun violence completely is to remove guns completely from our society

[gejohnston]

3. Rove is wrong about that too

just look at Mexico, Jamaica, and Venezuela. They banned private ownership of guns and even confiscated guns. The latter within the last 20 years. Violence did not drop. Europe had the same amount before the countries passed gun laws as they do now.

[Duckhunter935]

4. I like this part

Fuck it. Start from the extreme like they do and negotiate to something reasonable.

I am curious what is extreme on the RKBA side, able to own a firearm?

I do have to give them credit as it is banning a functional type of weapon. Will cause a serious run on weapons, cause new types like lever and pump action rifles sales to increase dramatically.

[Lurks Often]

5. Another idea that has no basis in reality

Like most of the delusional ideas to restrict firearms, the author of such an idea never seems to explain the following:

1. How they are going to get their idea passed in Congress
2. How they think their idea will hold up to judicial scrutiny
3. How they are going to get ALL 50 states to comply
4. What they are going to do when states refuse to comply
5. What they are going to do when the local police refuse to enforce the law*
6. What they are going to do when people refuse to comply**

* CO, NY and WA police departments have publicly stated they would not/will not enforce the recent laws passed in those states

**While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to get hard numbers, the laws passed in NY and CT have resulted in widespread non compliance with gun owners refusing to register the firearms and/or magazines as required by law.

[benEzra]

6. "Semiautomatic" is the Dihydrogen Monoxide of the gun control movement.

Take something absolutely ubiquitous and mundane (probably 75% of civilian firearms are self-loaders, and most of those use detachable magazines), then throw around a technical term for same as if it describes something unusual and scary.

Even better, confuse the terminology with something that is unusual, either deliberately or through sheer ignorance. I have lost track of the number of times I've heard reporters use the term "semiautomatic" to describe machinegun fire (as recently as last week, actually), even though semiautomatic actually means "fires once and only once, reloads the chamber, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time."

[CTyankee]

7. Let me be the first in this thread to post this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017273730

Just watch this guy take apart every argument against gun control and does it with wickedly sharp humor...it never fails to make me laugh...

I especially like the part "I'm a responsible gun owner. I keep my guns locked up." He tears that up.

Also terminology: "Assault" weapon never called a "Protection" weapon...ridicule in the service of a good cause...

[clffrdjk]

8. are we supposed to take that as comedy or an actual argument?

I find it funny that a guy who admits to doing cocaine thinks that prohibition will work for guns.

[CTyankee]

9. I think you missed the point. Humor is often meant to mock, to poke holes in

arguments, to ridicule. Sensible gun laws can do a lot. So can sensible drug laws.

[clffrdjk]

10. why do I sense that your definition of sensible is very different for the two.

Oh so you are claiming both, I tend not to take the side of misogynist coke addicts but you are free to do so. So are you going to defend his positions and use of strawmen? Or do you expect me to try and prop up his statement? Also you glazed over the point that a person who breaks prohibition laws regularly thinks that prohibiting another item will fix a problem, is he not proof that his own ideas won't work?

[CTyankee]

11. I said we can reform gun laws just as we reformed drug laws in many states.

The comedian was saying Australia banned guns and did a buy back and it has worked. Then he sets out to shred OUR arguments against taking such actions and breaks down the categories of those arguing that way. Obviously, you don't agree with his satire. But didn't you laugh? Be honest...he struck a nerve or two...or did it just piss you off even more...

[clffrdjk]

12. I laughed but I already told you I found the irony of a drug addict pushing prohibition to be funny.

Wait are you claiming to have actually argued his strawmen?

[CTyankee]

13. It's broad satire but therein lies some truths...the slavery bit was delicious.

I am not a comedian and I argue the points pretty straightforwardly. I do feel that the NRA has overwhelmed public opinion in persuading our political leaders to oppose what most Americans want. That is a betrayal of our democracy, IMO. What is the point of voting if the majority of people don't feel they have a chance to protect themselves adequately because of gun lobbyists and their grip on the politicians?

However, I do appreciate a foreign comedian's take on our gun control dilemma. Esp. since his country went thru the same experience and is now doing better. I also appreciate John Oliver's video that Jon Stewart ran a while back...also excellent satire.

[clffrdjk]

14. why do you automatically equate failure to perform

To a grand conspiracy rather than a failure to gain enough support?
I have seen nothing that shows a majority of people are willing to donate time, money, phone calls, emails, letters, large scale protests in support of more gun control.

If you desire to never live to see the democratic party win another election on the national level, by all means support prohibition 2.0.

[CTyankee]

15. The majority of people in this country support gun control. The polls have been pretty clear. If a

majority supports it and our political leaders will not respond accordingly, then what is the answer? We have all heard from many brave political leaders who tell us what the NRA does to candidates who support gun control. It is not a conspiracy in the sense that it is all a big secret plot...the NRA's tactics are well known as I am sure you realize. This is a distortion of our democratic process.

[clffrdjk]

16. Really?

what polls showhow that a majority of Americans would like to implement Australian style gun control? why does Bloomberg have to pay protesters to show up? why exactly would legislators vote against what their constituents want, that doesn't seem to be healthy come election time.

[CTyankee]

20. oh, did I say australian style gun control?

I've seen polls that favor some gun control measures. Nothing to do with Bloomberg either. I've seen these polls since way before those two instances. In some areas of the country there may be a clear majority against just about every form of gun control. But most Americans don't live in those areas. But there is clear evidence of NRA influence.

Speaking of the NRA, how you align yourself with that organization? Are you a member?

[clffrdjk]

24. What gun control measures should I have assumed you were pushing?

Notice what I said in my post to which you replied that polls showed you had majority support.
What were those measures that had support, and how do they compare to the measures we have been talking about in this thread? The polls were before the "two instances", does that shows a growing or declining level of support? Why would he need to pay protesters if the support was already there?

No I am not a member of the NRA, just a concerned gun owner.

[CTyankee]

26. the dichotomy between public support for gun control and the lack of political will

on them has been a discussion for a very long time, preceeding australian ban and bloomberg. I think the gun lobby has had some successes some places, others not so much.

I recognize your political affinity with your cause. You have a lot more power than citizens who are not gun owners and have no concerns about gun ownership. However, they are interested in public safety. If this issue were discussed purely on the grounds of public safety it would be a better quality debate, IMO.

[clffrdjk]

28. I don't see how you can separate the two.

It may be better for you in that if we ignore rights well then there is no reason not to do whatever you want. But thank the flying spaghetti monsters we don't live in that world. And I see no reason why I should handicap myself just because the opposition is losing the debate.

[CTyankee]

29. well, we all have an investment in public safety. That is a value.

It is the reason we have limits on how fast we drive. We have limits on how many carcenigens can be permitted in our air so we fetter businesses with air quality standards. We have "time, place and manner" limits on speech. It is called society.

Do you have any opposition to discussing gun control as a public safety issue?

[clffrdjk]

30. What are the limits of that discussion?

you know as well as I do that guns already have basic safety laws. so why discuss guns and not one of the leading causes of death? from a public safety standpoint there is lower hanging fruit.

[CTyankee]

31. Uh, because of public slaughter in our midst caused by guns.

I think you might have noticed...

nevertheless, we might want to start with proposals to improve public safety re guns such as this post People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.


1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.

2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.

3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.

4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)

5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.

6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.

7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).

8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.

9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.

10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.


Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141052293#post12

[gejohnston]

32. Tasmania had some of those laws

that didn't prevent Martin Bryant from illegally obtaining two rifles, which his low IQ and criminal record would prevent him getting a licence, and murdering thirty people, nor did the current laws do anything about the 100 drive by shootings in Sydney.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/100-shootings-and-counting-merrylands-tops-driveby-list-20120911-25psc.html
What is the point of the waiting period? Other than increasing profits for insurance companies, what is the point of the insurance? Most murders are gangs and drug dealers killing each other, and most shootings are suicide.

What is your opposition to CCW, since they are statistically more responsible and safer than cops? What is the compelling State interest when there were no dire consequences when concealed carry was liberalized?

[CTyankee]

33. When slaughter with guns becomes a regular thing, steps like these will reduce the

regularity and intensity of the slaughter. And Australia reduced its gun deaths substantially after the banning/buyback. A couple of instances like what you cited may just happen, but we will go a long way on reducing it overall.

It's great that CCW are so responsible. They should appreciate these steps even more since I'm sure they don't like to be painted with the broad brush of the crazies.
Helps to weed out the "bad apples."

I think there is a compelling state interest in imposing limitations and qualifications for anyone who wishes to obtain a gun since it is a lethal weapon. Remember when people could smoke anywhere? The State took away my liberty to light up in lots of places I couldn't today (I quit in 1981). Why? compelling state interest in regulating smoke in the air that people breathe. It was once no big deal and when the health hazards were revealed it was. Well, the health hazard of guns is past due for stricter laws.

[gejohnston]

38. Actually, they didn't

the government claimed that, but not really true since those guns have been replaced with compliment guns, and the number of gun owners are actually more today. There was a study published in a British criminology journal that demonstrates serious flaws in that claim. For example, murder was already falling before the NFA. Many of the registered guns did not go from licensed owners to the smelter. Cops and contractors sold many on the black market, especially in Queensland. That is before we get to smuggled and home made machine guns. There, the "gun lobby" wants increased customs inspections of shipping containers. Gun prohibitionists, not so much. In fact, the Australian Federal Police doesn't have the slightest idea how many illegal guns there are in the country. While gun suicides did fall 65 percent, but it had nothing to do with gun access, nor did the suicide rate drop. IOW, there were more rope deaths.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
Also, New Zealand had a similar drop by doing nothing.

How about better screening for cops, there are more crazies there and they have the power of the State behind them. Frankly, most if not all CCW "crazies" are Bloomberg creations.

Not if you apply strict scrutiny, and smoking isn't a specific constitutional right. Also, nobody challenged it in court.

Your logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

While there is evidence of second hand smoke, although most of it was insurance companies not wanting to pay for health claims, there is no evidence that stricter laws will lessen violence outside of Bloomberg funded shill studies, which are not peer reviewed in criminology journals.

[CTyankee]

43. I'm afraid your "facts" on Australia are not what the majority of research has found.

I know you have your "sources." I expected that. But I do ask that you wonder why, if given what you say is true, the Australians haven't said "It's all rubbish! Let's go back to having our guns!" That they haven't might tell you something, don't you think? Or is that a vast conspiracy caused thing, too?

since I never said smoking was a right save your Latinate for others. Speech, however , is a right. And speech has been limited.

As for bloomberg, his aren't the only studies out there which surely you know. I've been in this debate far earlier than the Bloomberg stuff and if anything, he was a latecomer to the debate party.

Now your argument for more screening for cops is interesting. You acknowledge implicitly that guns are lethal and cops should be held to the highest standards of mental health. By that metric, it would stand to reason that people who get a right to CCW should have a high standard of mental health applied to them. Anyone who could go into public with a loaded gun (concealed, no less) should have even more scrutiny. After all, we see the police uniform and we know he/she has a lethal weapon. Some guy or woman walking down the street, well, how do we know...?

[gejohnston]

48. fair questions

I know you have your "sources." I expected that. But I do ask that you wonder why, if given what you say is true, the Australians haven't said "It's all rubbish! Let's go back to having our guns!" That they haven't might tell you something, don't you think? Or is that a vast conspiracy caused thing, too?

Mine is from peer review, and there are more gun owners and more legal guns now than then. Also, they have their own political party. The corporate and government media is manufacturing consent. Besides, they are something like eight percent of the population vs 30. Frankly, most people are intellectually lazy, Australians are no different than Americans in that regard. Come to think of it, this blog post about dogs makes the perfect parallel about guns especially:

…how frequently people who do not care about a particular issue or problem are willing to stand by passively and allow the rights and legitimate interests of those who do care about it be abused by authorities and public opinion;
….the role the news media plays in abusing its power to misrepresent facts in the pursuit of sensationalism and their own agendas. For example, violent incidents involving alleged pit bulls are nine times more likely to receive media coverage than biting incidents involving other breeds.
…. dim-witted, pusillanimous, cringing and lazy attitudes of elected officials and public employees, whose lack of concern for fairness and whose blind fealty to whatever position is most likely to keep their jobs is as nauseating as it is familiar;

http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/08/beyond-the-myth-disturbing-and-revealing-lessons-about-more-than-pit-bulls/

since I never said smoking was a right save your Latinate for others. Speech, however , is a right. And speech has been limited.

So is owning a gun, but you are talking about making it a privilege.

As for bloomberg, his aren't the only studies out there which surely you know. I've been in this debate far earlier than the Bloomberg stuff and if anything, he was a latecomer to the debate party.

Before they were public health types funded by the Joyce Foundation, still not in criminology periodicals or even peer reviewed. Public health types don't have any training in the scientific method.

Now your argument for more screening for cops is interesting. You acknowledge implicitly that guns are lethal and cops should be held to the highest standards of mental health. By that metric, it would stand to reason that people who get a right to CCW should have a high standard of mental health applied to them. Anyone who could go into public with a loaded gun (concealed, no less) should have even more scrutiny. After all, we see the police uniform and we know he/she has a lethal weapon. Some guy or woman walking down the street, well, how do we know...?

Mental health is a red herring. Like Wayne LaPierre's call for a mental health registry, it demonizes the least violent in our society and is a form of bigotry. The number that might be violent (including schizophrenic) is very small and and almost impossible to detect. IOW, you are talking about infringing on the rights of the many to maybe find a few. Under current federal law, The Gun Control Act, someone who was committed by her parents 20 years ago for anorexia is on the NICS don't buy list and would not pass a background check.

If you have been involved in this issue so long, have you read any of the works by criminologists or sociologists like James Wright, Peter Rossi, Gary Kleck, Lawrence Southwick, or even Don Kates? I'm betting none.

[CTyankee]

49. Yeah, Kates and Kleck have been in this thing as far back as I can remember...

In your argument, too bad "the few" are those who are doing the most damage to your argument. Public slaughter is hard to overcome for your side because well, it is slaughter and it is public. That, understandably, horrifies most (not all I guess) of the public. They can, understandably, think "there but for the grace of God, go I." It's a problem for your side every time you have to justify your position, no matter whether it is the slaughter of little children or just anyone on a street at the wrong time.

That the slaughter of kids didn't register with your side was a real "tell" to many people who preferred to avoid the issue (esp. in CT). Not to me. I knew.

[gejohnston]

50. Kleck is actually mainstream

as for the "slaughter", which are rare but publicized if a gun is used, not so much if one isn't. Yes, when 85 people are murdered by arson, I don't remember it being national news.
Here is the difference between us: I believe public policy should be based on facts, evidence, and reason and nothing else. Not emotion or dogma.
Yours is based entirely on emotion and dogma.

no matter whether it is the slaughter of little children or just anyone on a street at the wrong time.

That is your pot and coke dollars at work. That is all on the drug culture and the criminal gangs it funds, not the drug culture. None of your proposals will change that, just like complete bans in Jamaica, Mexico, Venezuela did there. Oh, and Europe had as low rates when they had no gun control laws at all.

Have you read any of Kleck's or Kate's work? Wright? Rossi? Wright and Rossi are actually much older.
edit to add
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/firearm-law-loophole-for-thugs/story-e6frf7jo-1226086644742

[CTyankee]

51. um, pot and coke dollars at work! Holy shit, I've been deceived all these years!

I have seen and read Kleck and Kate's work. Are you so unaware that these two are not considered unbiased researchers on this subject in academia?

Have you ever been to Europe, btw? I'm taking my 13th trip in October and I'll be in Spain. How nice it will be to enjoy Europe without fearing a gun attack in a piazza or near a museum. And it will be a nice vacation from the gun violence in our public spaces in this country...and my friends in Europe just shake their heads and ask why?

[gejohnston]

52. you really are misinformed

um, pot and coke dollars at work! Holy shit, I've been deceived all these years!

If you think that most of our violence is target shooters going of the deep end and going "postal" and that violence is evenly spread in cities and the US, yes you have been. That is, in fact, very rare. Our violence is concentrated in a few areas in a few counties and mostly criminals killing each other. Those areas have other problems like gangs, income disparity, food desert, political corruption, and poverty.

Are you so unaware that these two are not considered unbiased researchers on this subject in academia?

Who in academia? The fact that Kleck not only did well in peer review, is head of his university's criminology department, plus his DGU study earned Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology as being the most significant contribution to criminology in 1993. I don't don't know who "they" are.

Have you ever been to Europe, btw? I'm taking my 13th trip in October and I'll be in Spain. How nice it will be to enjoy Europe without fearing a gun attack in a piazza or near a museum.

Yes I have. I have also been to Asia and the Middle East. As I mentioned above, your chance of being attacked in a piazza or museum in the US just as slim as in Europe. My state has more guns per capita than anyone in the US or world. The last murder in my city was last year, someone using bare fists on his four month old. Before that, a stabbing 31 years ago.

And it will be a nice vacation from the gun violence in our public spaces in this country...and my friends in Europe just shake their heads and ask why?

I'm guessing it wasn't at a museum in Belgium or a Swedish pub.

What books by Kleck have you read? How about Wright and Rossi? I suggest start with this one
http://www.amazon.com/The-armed-criminal-America-incarcerated/dp/1125370629

[clffrdjk]

34. copy paste really?

And you couldn't even stay on your chosen topic for even a subject line. You went straight to an argument based solely on your emotional desire to do something.
Not a single thing in your post dealing with public safety just another list of gun control demands.

[CTyankee]

35. Oh, please, now don't be trivial. This is serious...I just loved that post and agreed with

the whole thing and wanted to bring it to you as a present! See how nice I am?

Of course, that post has everything to do with public safety. It is a way to achieve public safety. These are called safeguards. You know, like licensing of cars is another way of dealing with public safety, is it not? You tell me...

[clffrdjk]

39. I have already seen it, I wasn't too impressed then either.

I already asked you what the limits of this public safety discussion was and you refused to answer. When asked for a motion you went straight to an emotional appeal. So I guess the question is why don't you want to have a discussion on public safety?

As for your copy job
1 does nothing for public safety just adds a hurdle to legally gun ownership.
2 not a chance, you sound like a repub describing your next round of voter Id requirements.
3 hey look the first time safety might be mentioned but you lost my trust with the first two.
4 you just pissed off every fudd you might have been able to convince to help you. Taking kids hunting is a big deal.
5 The NRA thanks you for the new funding stream.
6 what do waiting periods do, you already have a year and a half of licensing bullshit. I take it this also bans all online sale of ammo?
7 so all guns are illegal unless you have the proper exemption.
8 so a ban on ccw
9 registration
10 jaywalk and lose everything.
So like I said a list of gun controls most wanted, maybe one thing for safety the rest is just to put more hurdles up for the law abiding to jump over. Well lucky for me as discussed before you don't have any support for these ideas. Maybe next time you will think of a way to get the people you are trying to punish to support your law.

[CTyankee]

45. Naw, I'll never get the support of your believers...I don't expect to.

It's OK cuz I have the support of most of the American public behind me. I'm cool with that...

[clffrdjk]

46. haha haha

I already asked you to prove that one, you gave up and said you wanted to talk about public safety.

[CTyankee]

58. I'm going to say this one more time: as I explained our gun politics are in a death

grip by the NRA. You not only gave up, you didn't start and didn't bother to respond. And yes I want to talk about public safety. I'll just put you in the column AGAINST public safety...

[clffrdjk]

60. yea it's the NRA it most definitely can't be the Millions of people like me.

Oh wait we are dealing with politicians, I wonder if they would take a bribe if they knew they would get voted out for it. Nah the Millions of voters like me definitely hold more power than the NRA.

Yea you care so much about public safety that you copy pasted the standard list of gun control demands.

Put me in whatever column you feel the need to, you have already proven that your attempt to rename the debate was just a ploy.

[CTyankee]

64. still on the copy/paste thing? Got anything else?

[clffrdjk]

65. yup and I posted it too.

[blueridge3210]

47. It's a shame, really

that your "support of most of the American public" never translates into any victory at the ballot box. I wonder why that is?

[CTyankee]

57. I explain this over and over again. Your side doesn't listen or can't hear and

just won't/can't believe in the iron grip of the NRA in our politics. It's right there in your midst, you don't like what you hear and so you put your fingers in your ears.

I expect you'll do same with this post...

[blueridge3210]

61. Seems if "most of the population" supported your proposals

it would translate into victory at the polls. Your "NRA, NRA, NRA" response to this fact is the functional equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing and listening to unpleasant truths.

[CTyankee]

63. The unpleasant truth is that you think the NRA is just playing patty cake when it comes

to federal legislation that reached across the aisle to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. Sen. Toomey looked so defeated today on Morning Joe. He and Joe Manchin had worked hard to get to this agreement on some basic issues. Nobody was expecting that one piece of legislation to solve the entire problem. But it was a good try, with people in good faith really trying to accomplish something important. If it weren't for the bullying by the NRA we'd have it in place.

[clffrdjk]

66. Oh boy

If that law passed it would take a grand total of 4 30 mile trips to the gun store plus $50 in fees plus 4 days of waiting periods just to let my brother try out my new pistol.
And as an added fact Charleston would still have happened exactly the way it did. So why exactly would I want that law passed?

[CTyankee]

68. why would joe manchin from a pro gun state write it that way?

(I'm not agreeing that that is what the bill would actually do but I guess the NRA explained it to you that way)

why would manchin risk having West Virginians rise up against him?

[clffrdjk]

70. manchin himself didn't vote for the bill because of the amendments.

But of course you assume I am wrong without any knowledge or proof showing otherwise.

[CTyankee]

72. I believe you are correct but I am wondering why he would go to t he trouble of co-

authoring the bill in the first place if he didn't want to get something done on gun control.And why did he give up on it? Could the provision that made him vote against the bill have been a "poison pill' just for that purpose?

[clffrdjk]

76. doing something is not doing the right thing.

That is one of your biggest hurdles. Everyone has a line but your line is so far away from everyone else's that you can't see why they wouldn't cross it. Poison pill, maybe either way it had the same effect.

[CTyankee]

77. saying that not doing anything in the face of the daily slaughter in our streets

is doing the right thing evades the question. The law of diminishing marginal utility must play in at some point and perhaps we are not far enough along on the spectrum to get to the final utility, where value is found and will ultimately solve this problem. Our political system is so broken that it cannot manage the process as self evident in what happened to Toomey-Manchin.

[clffrdjk]

83. who said anything about not doing anything?

How would machine Toomey have changed "the daily slaughter in our streets"?
I predict a "good start" answer.
Like I said you are so far out of norm anything works for you.

[CTyankee]

84. Yes, whatever your "norm" is I am far out of it.

[clffrdjk]

86. It is not my norm

It is the US norm

[CTyankee]

88. depends on how you ask the question, as always...

[clffrdjk]

90. ask it any way you want.

Just understand what you are asking.
As you said before there are polls showing that a majority of people could imagine a UBC system that they could support. That does not mean that they will support any UBC law and the latest attempt is a perfect example of that. Enough people saw something they didn't like and called their representatives to tell them their job was on the line.

[CTyankee]

91. I guess on some points we will agree to disagree...

OKay?

[clffrdjk]

94. I can agree to disagree, that is fine by me.

The problem comes the next time you or someone else tries to take away my rights.

[CTyankee]

100. Or when you try to take away mine.

[clffrdjk]

104. I have never advocated for the restriction of anyone's rights.

[CTyankee]

106. So you are a pure libertarian, I guess.

I've known a few. I remember the arguments over hate speech, over the right of the press to publish sensitive government documents during a time of war (or even relative peace as with Snowden). Or libel. I once worked for the ACLU and heard some fascinating debates over limits to First Amendment rights, not just "time, place and manner" regulations...

[clffrdjk]

107. grab the pitchforks we are going on a witch hunt.

[CTyankee]

108. um, what? I thought we were discussing rights and I was bringing up

the subject of regulating a right that we have, speech and assembly. It has been debated many times as I pointed out...but perhaps I have misconstrued your post...let me know!

[clffrdjk]

113. No you were accusing me of being a libertarian.

Which actually now that I think about it, is right up you ally. You lose the debate so you attack the debater.

[CTyankee]

114. oh, good lord, no offense was meant. I'm trying hard to be sensitive and not upset you.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

[blueridge3210]

74. Anyone with a felony conviction

is already prohibited from purchasing a firearm and will fail a NICS check conducted by any FFL. Those adjudicated mentally unfit will also be denied.

Perhaps if Manchin and Toomey were to propose legislation that were supported by the population they might have some success; proposing legislation sponsored by Brady/Bloomburg/Moms Demand Attention, not so much.

[CTyankee]

78. more Americans are in favor of gun control than opposed so that cannot be the basis of

your argument. When popular will enters our broken political system in Washington it is thwarted by a much smaller portion of the population e.g. the warped and ultimately tragic paranoia of some gun owners and their cynical manipulation by the NRA. The result is inevitably more slaughter in our streets.

[blueridge3210]

79. Again,

if the public was so overwhelmingly in favor of gun control it would translate into victory at the polls. As the pro-control side cannot point to any electoral victories that support increased gun control there must be something wrong with your theory. Running around yelling "NRA, NRA, NRA" and refusing to accept the obvious is not productive.

Gun control has been described as a movement that is 10 miles wide and 3 inches deep. Most people that "support" increased gun control are not going to vote on that issue as they are not gun owners and are not directly affected by most proposed legislation; most people that oppose increased gun control do vote on that issue as it affects them directly. You can decry the "will of the people being thwarted"; but if it were truly the will of the people they would vote in people that would enact their will.

[CTyankee]

80. and those people would march into the buzz saw in Washington and find out that

they can say and deeply believe all they want but once elected the reality of our broken political system comes to bear.

It's true that gun control supporters are not one issue voters usually, they are a mix of progressive values. The mind set of the one issue gun voters is always laser focused on their ONE issue and therefore aren't spread so thin in terms of their enthusiasm and energy.

[blueridge3210]

81. Your reasoning is completely circular.

"Gun control legislation does not pass because our political system is broken; the proof is that gun control legislation does not pass".

The fact is that gun control legislation does not pass because the general public does not see additional restrictions as an effective means of addressing criminal misuse of firearms. The "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 expired in 2004; there has been no interest in renewing it even when Congress was controlled by the Democrats.

[CTyankee]

82. so we are back to the starting point which is throwing up our hands and saying that

nothing can be done, are we? Just give up.Talk about circular logic. And we are back to my conclusion that your side is basically reversing the famous Seabee motto CAN DO with NO CAN DO (I use that analogy because my mother loved the motto CAN DO. To her it meant a lot when FDR got the New Deal thru and we fought on two coasts and won WW2. She would be appalled and furious today at the spinelessness on gun control). And we will get exactly what we are getting now as a result.

[blueridge3210]

85. I'm not saying nothing can be done.

I'm saying the pro-control approach is not working due to a lack of support. Perhaps taking another look at the actual problem (criminal misuse of firearms); the actual numbers as opposed to legal firearm owners and realize the problem is the people, not the guns themselves. Approximately .1% of firearms are used in a way that results in the death of a human being. Clearly the guns are not causing the problem; it is the people who are using weapons to commit crimes or kill themselves. Develop an approach to deal with the real problem not the made up one.

I am reminded of the issue of Impaired Driving. When the nation decided to address the issue of operating a motor vehicle while impaired the solution was not to vilify those who consumed alcohol (law abiding gun owners) or red herrings such as high-performance vehicles or alcohol concentration in beverages ("assault weapons", "magazine capacity&quot . The nation chose to educate the public about the dangers of driving while impaired and address LEO resources to the people creating the risk, not the public at large.

Nothing circular about my logic; the evidence is quite clear that more gun-control legislation does not pass due to a lack of interest in passing more laws.

[CTyankee]

87. well, driving drunk essentially "weaponizes" automobiles which is not their basic

function. So the impaired driving argument is impaired at the outset. Guns are by their very nature weapons. You may use them for target practice but I don't think you can logically call a gun not primarily a weapon.

I think we can agree that any legislation on gun control must address the mental health aspect (as I believe manchin/toomey did). We must make it as nearly impossible as we can to make sure that the mentally ill cannot get a gun. Background checks (also in Manchin/Toomey) any where guns are sold are also important. What we can do, we must do.

I think some voters are feeling hopeless, that Washington is just too indifferent to their concerns about guns and then for a brief time we are all lulled into complacency. The nine people are gunned down, or all those little kids in Sandy Hook and we are horrified once again.

But I'll tell you one thing. People in the families of the victims won't forget because they can't. They are gone and you can't get them back.

[blueridge3210]

89. The argument is not impaired.

Both situations are attempting to address harm caused to society due to bad behavior. One solution was to focus on bad actors and educate the public that impaired driving was not "Otis in Mayberry". The "solution" regarding firearms was to paint nearly all firearm owners as "Yosimite Sam" out to shoot up the neighborhood. This struck many people; who were, or knew, responsible firearm owners as a broad-brush smear that did not accurately address the issue. Again, with less than 1% of the firearms or legal owners causing the problem, the issue is not the guns but the maladjusted criminals who are using them to commit crimes.

The issue with restricting firearms to those who are mentally ill is that many people could be excluded due to a distant past incident regarding insomnia or an eating disorder and be drawn into the net and have their rights restricted when they present no threat. Currently a person must be declared incompetent following due-process of law before their rights can be restricted.

[beevul]

92. Theres not enough gun control there for the usual suspects.

Not enough by a longshot.

No matter how good it works.

[blueridge3210]

93. It certainly seems that way some days.

One could suppose that the actual goal is not to reduce criminal misuse of firearms at all; some people need a "cause" around which to rally.

[beevul]

36. Its a right, not a privilege.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.

Call it what you like. If its governmental permission to own a firearm, the answer is no. Its a right, not a privilege.

2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.

Outside the background check, that's a permission criteria laundry list. I can't say I'm real enthused by the idea of making ones rights subject to "family, friends, employers" interference, either.

Again, its a right, not a privilege.

3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.

For what other things must one jump through all those hoops, simply to own?

4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)

Yes indeed. Make it a pain for people to take their kids shooting. And of course, this 'privilege' is dependent on others living in your home.

5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.

No. Just no. If you want to argue that those who carry should have insurance, I *might* be able to get on board with that. but to simply own? Not a chance.

Please, name for me, the things one is legally compelled to insure, simply to own.

6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.

A right delayed is a right denied.

7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).

Just like a DUI? DUI is a public action. Ownership is not. There is no "just like" here. This is simply another way of slyly working in a hypothetical of someone who does not have 'governmental permission to own' and comparing it with another boogieman DUI, as if they're comparable.

They're not even close. Ownership vs public usage. Apples and oranges. Yet again.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal.

Someone loves the smell of forced teaming in the morning.

Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities.

Yes, but you don't need a license to OWN a boat, fishing gear, or a car. Or just about anything else. The author conflates ownership and usage deliberately, makes a ridiculous comparison, and hopes no one noticed.

I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

I'm familiar with the original author of this screed, and this author, like so many on the anti-gun side, defines "some people" as 'as many people as possible'. It was bad when the original author wrote is, and it remains just as bad with you quoting it.

I'm curious when you guys will drop this losing avenue, and focus more on mitigating what people who already have guns are able to do with them. It would make a great deal more sense than picking a fight with the politically active American gun owner, and would meet a great deal less resistance than the usual 90s era regurgitated anti-gun laundry list. Of course, that also takes the 'anti-gun' out of the equation, which makes it unpalatable to many many of your colleagues, and makes it a forbidden topic in the gun control group here. Telling, that.

[CTyankee]

37. well, free speech is a right and it is subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions.

Overall, these are urgent issues with urgent suggestions for remedy because of regular slaughters of our fellow Americans in the public square going about their daily lives. Guns are lethal, pure and simple. Because they are often stolen and used for bad purposes they are always a potential danger to the public. To do that, owners should be subject to closer scrutiny than those who purchase a bottle of wine. Hey, it makes sense to me. And really, don't you WANT fewer crazy people buying guns in the first place so you don't get labelled as one? I would think you would. Weed out the bad apples. It makes you look better.

[beevul]

40. "well, free speech is a right and it is subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions."

well, free speech is a right and it is subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions.

I see. So you'd be just fine with free speech being subject to "family, friends, employers" interference then?

I thought not.

To do that, owners should be subject to closer scrutiny than those who purchase a bottle of wine.

You're doubling down on what the author of the piece you quoted did. Comparing 2 unlike things. You're comparing someone who already owns, to someone purchasing, and even setting aside the false equivalency, its very obvious why.

Prospective gun buyers have to go through more scrutiny bying a gun from an FFL than someone does buying a bottle of wine in a liquor store.

And really, don't you WANT fewer crazy people buying guns in the first place so you don't get labelled as one?

I'm far less worried about a 'crazy' as you call them, getting a gun, than I am with what he can DO with a gun. If they couldn't do much with them, the fact that they have them would be a great deal less important. Of course, you ignore that methodology the same way as your colleagues do, and like them, would rather stick it to the politically active American gun owner.

[clffrdjk]

41. that's not weeding out the bad apples

That is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I wonder how many anti-gun folks would call that a good start.

[clffrdjk]

17. have you seen the numbers from the safe act?

Just what do you suggest should be done to the vast majority of gun owners who chose not to comply?

[CTyankee]

21. I dunno. What do we do with others in society who violate the law? oops, scusi, "choose

not to comply"?

[clffrdjk]

25. better get to building prisons

You are going to need a lot of them.
What of the cops who said they would refuse to enforce the law? Are they fired or arrested, how will you replace them?

[CTyankee]

27. I'll ask my son for an answer to your question. He is a senior prosecutor in the office

of the District Attorney in Brooklyn, NY. He deals with law enforcement officers all the time...

[DonP]

19. The "Majority" just never gets around to actually ever voting that way, do they?

I guess the political types pay more attention to the people that actually get out and vote than the latest Brady/Everytown/MDA funded survey.

Funny how that works every election season.

[CTyankee]

22. well, there is no anti-gun lobby in this country as strong as the NRA.

As Tessio says when they take him away "Tell Mike it was only business."

[Straw Man]

18. Ah yes, Jim Jefferies ...

... and his astute social commentaries.

No thanks.

[CTyankee]

23. Oh, would you like to discuss misogyny?

I have some strong views on that, too, and Jeffries would get one helluva lot of heat from me on his misogyny.

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion about his ideas and satire on guns...is it not?

If you want talk about Jeffries misogyny, no problem. Ready any time you are.

[Straw Man]

53. I would like to discuss the fact ...

... that Jim Jefferies is a vicious idiot, and I have no interest in his opinion on any issue. You might want to think about the character of the spokespeople you endorse.

[CTyankee]

54. I will speak to his ideas on a subject, thank you very much.

And I will oppose, or support, depending on his ideas. I can deplore him on some and support him on others. Since I don't know him and I don't know you, I think it is best for us to discuss ideas, not personalities here. Let's keep it there.

[Straw Man]

55. His "ideas"?

What might those be?

Nothing Jefferies says in his gun bit is even remotely factual. Australia had exactly one mass shooting before they passed their legislation. Can you say "statistical outlier"? The fact that they haven't another since is hardly a proof of the efficacy of the laws. In fact, gun violence rates have not been demonstrably affected by the laws:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

But if you'd prefer to rely on the rantings of a crude and misogynistic drug addict for "ideas" on gun control, go right ahead.

His take on safe storage is moronically simplistic. Locked up guns are useless? Well, duh. So you lock up all the guns except the one in your direct control, i.e. on your person. If you have small children, you use a keypad safe next to your bed at night. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently for Jefferies it is.

[CTyankee]

56. oh, my, so much bitterness in your tone. Calm yourself, he's just one person...

just calm down and breathe...tell yourself that you don't know him and he doesn't know you and despite the fact that he drives you to the edge, everything will be OK.

Not worth your getting this upset...breathe...

[Straw Man]

59. I'm just fine, thanks.

I'm touched at your concern. Does this mean we're no longer talking about the "ideas"?

[CTyankee]

62. Promise you'll talk about ideas? If you are game, I sure am...

[clffrdjk]

67. You haven't been able to keep to a chosen subject yet.

This is the second time in this thread you have broken your own rules within one post of writing them. I don't think he needs to promise anything.

[CTyankee]

69. humor is lost...guess I really need to be careful...meant to be a bit playful...

[clffrdjk]

71. too cute by half.

As soon as specific ideas were brought up you went straight to a personal attack.

[CTyankee]

73. oh, jeez...I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings...

I thought it would be accepted as light hearted but not hurtful...guess I was wrong...

[clffrdjk]

75. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when one post prior you are saying let's stick to the ideas.

[CTyankee]

96. well, I certainly don't want to be insensitive if my words upset anyone...

I will try to be more careful of people's emotions here.

[clffrdjk]

103. nothing emotional about that, it shows just exactly how sincere and trustworthy you are.

Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

[Straw Man]

95. OK. Let's talk about ideas.

Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

I mentioned two: the faulty conclusions re Australian gun laws and Jefferies' ridiculous gaffe re safe storage. His "humor" is based on false premises. I rebutted both of those points.

Your turn.

[CTyankee]

97. from what I have read the Aussies were successful with their gun control.

maybe we have differing sources. And his satire on the safe storage was just funny. "I was naked, not wearing my holster..." I didn't take that to be a mean remark. Most people think a safe is a safe. You are telling me something I didn't know. Is there a safe that you can just open so quickly? And would that safe be located right near your bed so you could leap out of bed quickly and get the gun before an intruder sees you? That's good to know. So if the intruder just wants to steal your tv, you would be in a position to shoot him immediately? Would you? Or would you just threaten to? Would you also have an instant alarm that would summon the police? Or would you check out the situation further...e.g. you might have another family member coming home late, etc.

Forgive me if you feel these questions are insensitive. I am seeking information and how such a scenario would play out in real life.

[Straw Man]

98. You were wrong.

from what I have read the Aussies were successful with their gun control.

Did you read the article that I provided? Do you have any comment on it? What are your differing sources? Could you cite one?

Most people think a safe is a safe. You are telling me something I didn't know. Is there a safe that you can just open so quickly?

Keypad safe: http://www.valuesafesinc.com/product-p/ES-20.htm?gclid=COr6747MqsYCFVEbgQodzMsJFA
Biometric safe (reads fingerprints): http://www.sentrysafe.com/Products/503/QAP1BE_Biometric_Pistol_Safe_

That's good to know. So if the intruder just wants to steal your tv, you would be in a position to shoot him immediately? Would you? Or would you just threaten to?

Please tell me these aren't serious questions. I find it hard to believe that someone could be so uninformed, or should I say, ill-informed. These read like bad propaganda. There is plenty of information on self-defense out there, so I have to conclude that your ignorance is willful. Or is this just more of the "humor" of which you are so fond?

If someone smashed in your door in the middle of the night, how on earth would you know what that person wanted? Would he say, "Chill out, I'm just here for the TV"? Highly unlikely -- but you knew that. If you confront an intruder, and you say "I'm armed, get out of my house," that person has two choices: retreat or attack. The latter means getting shot, and rightfully so.

Would you also have an instant alarm that would summon the police? Or would you check out the situation further...e.g. you might have another family member coming home late, etc.

Security systems are a good idea if you live in a high-crime area. Ideally, an alarm notifies police, and they respond. Your gun is to defend you and yours until the police arrive, at which time it is highly advisable to put it down while the officers can sort out the situation.

My family members aren't apt to enter the house by smashing down doors. That's a non-issue for most people. Furthermore, "know your target and what is beyond" is fundamental.

Did you learn something today? I hope so.

[CTyankee]

99. I say that about the intruder being a family member because I recently saw a news

story that reported on just that occurrence.

An intruder smashing down a door is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a person wanting to steal a tv or whatever without being detected so he could make off with it.

I agree about alarm systems. Also locking doors and windows. Common sense and nobody gets hurt.

If under ideal situations you can confront the intruder and get him to leave by threatening to shoot him, your highly well kept gun would be well, ideal. In reality you might have taken medication to help you sleep and you are groggy. Or not instantaneously alert two seconds after leaping out of bed from a sound sleep, while the intruder is fully awake and alert.

There is documentation however that says that having a gun in the house can and does have tragic outcomes in suicide rates and accidental deaths of children or adults when the owner gets enraged and drunk and goes for the gun and starts shooting erratically. A perfectly nonviolent, nonoffender, upset about something going wrong in his life, shoots several family member then turns the gun on himself. I know from family experience that this happens. Speaking of learning something, I sure did after that happened. So yes, there are learning experiences in life, if you live thru them.

[Straw Man]

101. Yup, more propaganda.

Why am I not surprised.

You're not here to learn. You're here to pontificate. You're not fooling anybody.

You don't "threaten to shoot" anybody. You say you're armed. This is fair warning should the person decide to attack you. You tell the person to get out of your house because that's what you want him to do. But you don't "threaten to shoot" him.

I don't take medication to sleep. No matter how groggy I am, I will know if I'm being attacked.

[CTyankee]

105. I'm here like you are to speak my piece and learn if anything is offered that hasn't

differed from arguments in the past. I sure didn't know about the keypad safe thing.

Sure, I guess if you announce sternly that you are armed, that could be an "admonition," but I'm sure it is meant as a warning that you intend to do harm if he doesn't leave. It isn't exactly "time to run along now." (altho I could see that as being a Clint Eastwood type movie line).

I don't take medication to sleep, either. I do take medication that warns of possible side effects like dizziness, e.g. in my case an anti-spasmodic to ease my spinal arthritic pain so I have to take it early rather than later at my bedtime.

[CTyankee]

102. oh, and the aussies. We could go into dueling sources on those stats, what you have

vs. what I have. All well and good. But a further point: if what you cite is true and the aussies feel they are not better off now than before the ban, what's stopping them from rescinding the ban? Is there a serious political movement, citing the same statistics you say you have, to do that? And who were the leaders of the movement do put the ban in effect? Were they lifelong anti gun activists or were they gun owners, supporters such as yourself

[gejohnston]

109. the Aussies don't have federal laws

technically, they don't have any federal gun laws. The National Firearms Agreement made the state laws more uniform. Each state would have to rescind the ban. Since most Aussies are as misinformed as you and didn't care because the ban didn't affect them, they really don't care.

And who were the leaders of the movement do put the ban in effect? Were they lifelong anti gun activists or were they gun owners, supporters such as yourself

The were politicians and political elite who didn't believe people should own any firearms, like the right wing John Howard. None of them were gun owners. In fact, gun owners and shooting organizations where not allowed in the "debate" they were simply dictated to.

[CTyankee]

110. hmm, interesting statement "dictated to." I'll have to definitely check that out...

thanks for your input...

[gejohnston]

111. check that out?

Chances are you will go to VPC who will claim the ASSA lobbied for it. Aussie gun prohibitionists bragged on social media about shutting out the ASSA, and the media didn't even bother. Since those who would be affected by the law had no voice, they were dictated to.

[CTyankee]

112. no, I'll be fair...I don't always go to places that confirm what I believe...

but right now, celebrating our ACA win at the Supreme Court just now...so excited I'm nearly jumping up and down...was SO nervous about this case...

[gejohnston]

115. good to hear the case went well

I'm out in the sticks, so I don't have have access the TV or radio. I'm testing out a new piece of "broke down in the sticks" item to keep in the truck when I'm not hiking or kayaking.
http://solarjoos.com/

The wife does wildlife photography, especially wild horses (wild horse activist, so she doesn't like the BLM or the Bundies.)

[ManiacJoe]

42. Good comedy! Thanks for posting!

[CTyankee]

44. Sure is, isn't it?

Gotta get a break from all those art essays I do...they're a handful, I'll tell ya...all the research and rewrites...