Why aren't we debating behavior?[W:132]

[Masada]

What young Ameircans need to see in their developing years:
MORE killings on television, movies and video games.
MORE graphic in the act of violence. Instead of just blood splattering on walls we need to show our kids actual brain matter and intestines hanging on walls.
MORE sex between sons and their mothers on TV.
MORE rapes and cut out all the crying after it because who cares?
MORE scenes of father choking son like we see in the Simpsons.
MORE human explosions like we see on South Park.
MORE sexaul deviancy like we see on Family Guy.
MORE vomiting with the puke coming out of the mouths. Before, all we were subjected to was the sound now we get to see the actual vomit pouring out.
MORE talk shows about incest and abandoning babies.
God bless America.

You forgot Jersey Shore and Teen Mom. I mean, it's cool to get drunk and have sex all the time. But you pretty much nailed the liberal modus operendi. Dull their intelligence, and you can control their behavior.

 

[Moot]

Wrong again sweetheart. Conservatism was telling her to keep her legs crossed until she found a good husband that would work hard to support her and his children.

While liberalism taught her the opposite. Don't stop having sex, you don't need a man in your life, and there's no shame in living off welfare.

It's liberals who are all about aborting and preventing. Conservatives are about having kids, building families, but also having the responsibility to work and pay your own way. We're about being responsible. Liberals are all about someone else becoming responsible for them.

Look at the liberal reaction, it's always "we need to do something for the poor" or "what are we going to do for the poor". It's never "when are the poor going to do something for themselves". Liberals treat people in poverty like amputees. Like they CAN'T do anything for themselves. Baloney. They're poor, not crippled.

No sweetie, conservatism taught her “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” and "in the sense of rape — the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation." So is it any wonder Conservatives have 12 year old girls bearing their daddy's babies? Oh and of course, it's the 12 year old girls fault for getting pregnant.

Conservatives are all about keeping blacks in poverty or in prison so they can't compete with whitey for jobs, wealth and success. It's been that way ever since emancipation. Conservatives need someone to hate to make themselves feel relevant so they usually pick on people who are weak and can't easily defend themselves in order to rally their ignorant, racist, bigoted, white base to get elected and stay in power. Conservatives just love a good hate fest and used to celebrate by throwing necktie parties. But thats politically incorrect now so they've taken to using the internet to demogogue, intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who dares to disagree with their narrow minded world view.

 

[Masada]

No sweetie, conservatism taught her “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” and "in the sense of rape — the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation." So is it any wonder Conservatives have 12 year old girls bearing their daddy's babies? Oh and of course, it's the 12 year old girls fault for getting pregnant.

Conservatives are all about keeping blacks in poverty or in prison so they can't compete with whitey for jobs, wealth and success. It's been that way ever since emancipation. Conservatives need someone to hate to make themselves feel relevant so they usually pick on people who are weak and can't easily defend themselves in order to rally their ignorant, racist, bigoted, white base to get elected and stay in power. Conservatives just love a good hate fest and used to celebrate by throwing necktie parties. But thats politically incorrect now so they've taken to using the internet to demogogue, intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who dares to disagree with their narrow minded world view.

lol...delusion on parade. I love how you liberals describe everything precisely the opposite of reality.

It was your beloved Democrats who fought emancipation my dear. And it was Margaret Sangher, the liberal founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, that advocated for aborting black babies as a means of population control. And the majority of 12 year olds having babies are hispanic and black, which ironically are primarily liberal as well.

Your philosophy teaches kids to "be natural" and have sex at age 12.....just use protection. But when that protection fails, "we can't punish them with a baby" (obama quote).....nooooo, we cant do that. Just go get it "taken care of" down at Planned Parenthood. They'll get you right back to normal living. My world view is "narrow"? lolol....that's funny coming from a staunch liberal. What is more "narrow minded" than killing babies in the womb just so the mother doesn't have to experience some hardship??

No, liberals like you aren't just narrow minded, you're all backwards thinkers. You think Conservatives hate blacks, but it is liberal philosophy that keeps them poor and uneducated by and large. Give a few more table scraps through your precious government assistance programs, and they wont feel obligated to get a good paying job. Just give em a little more scraps, and they'll stay there forever. Generation begets generation. Stuck in the liberal nightmare of government dependence.

White base? Yep, it is primarily a white base. Wanna compare crime rates, pregnancy rates, incarceration rates, high school drop out rates, income rates between whites and blacks? Tell me, are white people FORCING black kids to drop out of highschool? Nope. Are white people the reason why 80% of black babies are born out of wedlock? Nope. Are white people forcing blacks raise generation after generation on welfare? Nope. Are white people forcing black male teens to join gangs and sell drugs? Nope. No one has a gun to their head missy.....

It's time to take the advice of Bill Cosby, and take responsibility for your own situation and stop blaming everyone else for your plight.

But oh how you liberals love exploiting those victims. Your philosophies cannot survive without some victim to EXPLOIT.

 

[BretJ]

ooops. wrong !!
the Constitutional right remains a Constitutional right ... unless the right to bear arms is eliminated ... and we all know that is not about to happen

however, violating the restriction on the guns you are able to bear will (hopefully) cause the violator to do real jail time

Take it to another forum. The grownups are trying to talk.

 

[Bob N]

keep the existing background check framework (which already includes reasonable requirements for private sellers).... add in mental health stipulations ( it's already been illegal for over 40 years to sell a firearm to a person who is mentally unstable)
in itslef, that doesn't do all that much.. but it does do some good, and more importantly, it does no harm ( provided the list of exclusions is proper and principled)

Well congratulations for giving the devil room enough to hide in those details; we have that already, and you call that addressing the problem? :roll:

 

[Bob N]

Isn't the entire objective to lower gun crime????

I truly fail to understand this kind of discussion; it may be doing something for you but it does nothing for me. Have a nice day. :coffeepap

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

OK... enough of the petty baiting. From here on, violations will be levied.

 

[Moot]

lol...delusion on parade. I love how you liberals describe everything precisely the opposite of reality.

Nobody denies reality better than a conservative.

It was your beloved Democrats who fought emancipation my dear. And it was Margaret Sangher, the liberal founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, that advocated for aborting black babies as a means of population control. And the majority of 12 year olds having babies are hispanic and black, which ironically are primarily liberal as well.

Conservatives fought against emancipation, dearie. They may have changed their name, but they didn't change their spots.

Your philosophy teaches kids to "be natural" and have sex at age 12.....just use protection. But when that protection fails, "we can't punish them with a baby" (obama quote).....nooooo, we cant do that. Just go get it "taken care of" down at Planned Parenthood. They'll get you right back to normal living. My world view is "narrow"? lolol....that's funny coming from a staunch liberal. What is more "narrow minded" than killing babies in the womb just so the mother doesn't have to experience some hardship??

That looks more like conservative ignorance and lies, than what liberals teach.

No, liberals like you aren't just narrow minded, you're all backwards thinkers.

Oh my, it didn't long for you to resort to personal attacks, did it? Typical conservative.

You think Conservatives hate blacks, but it is liberal philosophy that keeps them poor and uneducated by and large. Give a few more table scraps through your precious government assistance programs, and they wont feel obligated to get a good paying job. Just give em a little more scraps, and they'll stay there forever. Generation begets generation. Stuck in the liberal nightmare of government dependence.

I don't see many conservatives rushing out to adopt unwanted black babies. In fact, black baby boys are the least adoptable and they usually end up growing up in the foster care system and then finally end up in the prison system for the rest of their lives. That's how much conservatives care.

White base? Yep, it is primarily a white base. Wanna compare crime rates, pregnancy rates, incarceration rates, high school drop out rates, income rates between whites and blacks? Tell me, are white people FORCING black kids to drop out of highschool? Nope. Are white people the reason why 80% of black babies are born out of wedlock? Nope. Are white people forcing blacks raise generation after generation on welfare? Nope. Are white people forcing black male teens to join gangs and sell drugs? Nope. No one has a gun to their head missy.....

Whites control the money and tend to make most of the laws. So yes, whites can and do force blacks to stay in a state of perpetual poverty.

It's time to take the advice of Bill Cosby, and take responsibility for your own situation and stop blaming everyone else for your plight.

But oh how you liberals love exploiting those victims. Your philosophies cannot survive without some victim to EXPLOIT.

You mean the Bill Cosby that commited adultry and got another woman pregnant and then tried to pay his kid off to keep her from talking? As far as I can tell he never did pay child support. Cosby is really no different than the blacks in the ghetto that he preaches against.

 

[Masada]

Nobody denies reality better than a conservative.

Conservatives fought against emancipation, dearie. They may have changed their name, but they didn't change their spots.


That looks more like conservative ignorance and lies, than what liberals teach.

Oh my, it didn't long for you to resort to personal attacks, did it? Typical conservative.


I don't see many conservatives rushing out to adopt unwanted black babies. In fact, black baby boys are the least adoptable and they usually end up growing up in the foster care system and then finally end up in the prison system for the rest of their lives. That's how much conservatives care.

Whites control the money and tend to make most of the laws. So yes, whites can and do force blacks to stay in a state of perpetual poverty.

You mean the Bill Cosby that commited adultry and got another woman pregnant and then tried to pay his kid off to keep her from talking? As far as I can tell he never did pay child support. Cosby is really no different than the blacks in the ghetto that he preaches against.

On a personal level, I see conservatives doing far more for the poor than liberals. In 2008, your dear Joe Biden gave a whopping $357 to charity. God bless him for that. In addition, why is it the responsibility of conservatives alone to adopt black babies? I dont see any white liberals adopting either. I'll tell you why. Liberals just say "abort em", just like the founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD advocated.

You mean government controls the money and government makes most of the laws, so yes, government can and does force blacks to stay in a state of perpetual poverty. I'm glad you recognized that, because it's liberal social engineering programs like welfare that keep blacks in a perpetual state of poverty. You're right about that. Regular white folks aren't doing that.....government is.

 

[Moot]

On a personal level, I see conservatives doing far more for the poor than liberals. In 2008, your dear Joe Biden gave a whopping $357 to charity. God bless him for that. In addition, why is it the responsibility of conservatives alone to adopt black babies? I dont see any white liberals adopting either. I'll tell you why. Liberals just say "abort em", just like the founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD advocated.

No, Liberals want to prevent pregnancy by educating the young and making birth control easy and affordable to get. They believe that an educated population can make more rational real life decisions, than those that aren't.

You mean government controls the money and government makes most of the laws, so yes, government can and does force blacks to stay in a state of perpetual poverty. I'm glad you recognized that, because it's liberal social engineering programs like welfare that keep blacks in a perpetual state of poverty. You're right about that. Regular white folks aren't doing that.....government is.

No, I mean a small group of rich, white men control the money and the money controls the politicians that make the laws. Follow the money, it really is just that simple.

 

[mr4anarchy]

Lotta violent crime in cities. Maybe we should ban cities. :mrgreen:

Or... maybe we should find ways to help federal and local authorities trace guns coming into the cities and go after people facilitating the trafficking of gun across state lines.

Keep in mind, the gun restrictions in Chicago are for Cook County only. Drive 30 minutes from downtown and you're in Will County. Drive 60 minutes from Chicago and you could be in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin.

The notion that gun violence in the poorer neighborhoods of South Chicago proves that Cook county gun regs don't work is preposterous. It proves that guns fit in trunks of cars and cars travel on highways.

 

[Goshin]

Or... maybe we should find ways to help federal and local authorities trace guns coming into the cities and go after people facilitating the trafficking of gun across state lines.

Keep in mind, the gun restrictions in Chicago are for Cook County only. Drive 30 minutes from downtown and you're in Will County. Drive 60 minutes from Chicago and you could be in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin.

The notion that gun violence in the poorer neighborhoods of South Chicago proves that Cook county gun regs don't work is preposterous. It proves that guns fit in trunks of cars and cars travel on highways.

So... MY access to guns in Podunk USA should be restricted because outlaws in Chicago misuse guns bought elsewhere?

Sorry, I never agreed with the idea of punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

 

[Fisher]

So... MY access to guns in Podunk USA should be restricted because outlaws in Chicago misuse guns bought elsewhere?

Sorry, I never agreed with the idea of punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

That and you should move to Chicago so Uncle Rahm will take care of all your needs...

 

[Thrilla]

Well congratulations for giving the devil room enough to hide in those details; we have that already, and you call that addressing the problem? :roll:

yes,I do.. and it's addressing the problem in a responsible way that does the least amount of damage to our rights.

of course the devil is in the details.... but i have ideas on how to properly address those details as well..... but as you are only interested in idea that do harm to our rights, I doubt you'll be open to those ideas either.

 

[Bob N]

yes,I do.. and it's addressing the problem in a responsible way that does the least amount of damage to our rights.

of course the devil is in the details.... but i have ideas on how to properly address those details as well..... but as you are only interested in idea that do harm to our rights, I doubt you'll be open to those ideas either.

However you are not taking care of the so-called behavior problem that the OP brought up; that problem, of which you alluded to that the left didn't wish to address, of keeping guns out of the hands of the improper elements does not still have a concrete plan to prevent incidents where unbalanced (or criminal) people can go to purchase guns and cause irreversible damage, because you still haven't changed anything in the immediate plans of the act of acquiring the weapon.

Do you see what I'm saying? Earlier you said that the left does not wish to deal with that problem, and that we just wanted to take guns, but if we start to talk on just keeping guns away from the improper elements than people like you still do not like that we are trying to solve the problem by keeping guns out of the hands of the unsavory elements in society. :shrug:

 

[mr4anarchy]

So... MY access to guns in Podunk USA should be restricted because outlaws in Chicago misuse guns bought elsewhere?

Absolutely not.

And the 'outlaws' I've suggested in multiple threads that we focus on are those purchasing guns either legally(as far as the seller knows) or using false information, then traveling across state lines with the intent to sell to criminals and thugs in urban areas. If I recall, you agreed with me on this a while back.

You sound like more of an expert than me, and I don't believe you wish harm on any innocent person in another city, but why do some gun owners feel put out when they're basically doing what is the equivalent of walking through a security check before boarding a plane?

Speaking of planes, I understand that some types of frequent travelers can apply for a special identification to facilitate faster processing. Why can't states like Illinois that require a permit (FOID) make that permit function like a credit card that you swipe for an instant check? That would eliminate the hassle in some states of having to renew your permit annually. If states work together and link their systems, swipeable permit and check cards could be used in multiple states. The more responsibility the states take for policing their own people and sharing information across state lines, the less need for federal involvement.

Sorry, I never agreed with the idea of punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

Most people don't see filling out a form as punishment.

 

[sookster]

There is a lot to be discussed, but I think two main statements are the cause of such violence from the black community.

First, is because the black community wants to be independent from the white community. How they are going about it, I disagree. But it shows that the methods are completely different from going to school, getting a good education, and working a corporate job. They want to detach themselves from the status quo of society because it was the status quo to enslave and discriminate them.

Second, is poverty. I read a study where repairing just broken windows in a certain area lowered crime. There were various theories on why that happens, but the fact of the matter is, you make nicer buildings eventually crime will go down. People turn to crime when they don't have an education to fall back on. When they see no other way out. Part of that is creating better schools, by not just funding, but by hiring teachers that actually care about their job and want children to succeed. Some schools are so bad, people go right to crime because they know they won't make it if they were to go that route.

But the problem is that there exists a feedback process. Our school performs poorly so we get poor funding, which makes the school to perform more poorly. The fact of the matter is, in order to start attacking this issue, is we are going to have to give schools more money, even the ones that are not performing to par. For the simple fact that money is required to enact serious change, which is what they need.

If poverty is a core component as to why people do violent crimes, which it is, then there will always be crime if there is poverty. We as a nation, have the means and know how on getting rid of poverty. This however, would mean less money for the collective mass. So if people want more money, they are going to have to deal with violent offenses.

 

[Arbo]

I call you a hack when you act like one. Which is often.

I'll say it AGAIN. If you say something stupid, especially if it is a hack statement, which is what you said, I'll confront you on it. If you don't like it, don't make hack statements.

Moderator's Warning:

OK... enough of the petty baiting. From here on, violations will be levied.

..........

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

View attachment 67141738

..........

Moderator's Warning:

Poor choice. If you have an issue with moderation you may NOT address it publicly.

 

[BretJ]

However you are not taking care of the so-called behavior problem that the OP brought up; that problem, of which you alluded to that the left didn't wish to address, of keeping guns out of the hands of the improper elements does not still have a concrete plan to prevent incidents where unbalanced (or criminal) people can go to purchase guns and cause irreversible damage, because you still haven't changed anything in the immediate plans of the act of acquiring the weapon.

Do you see what I'm saying? Earlier you said that the left does not wish to deal with that problem, and that we just wanted to take guns, but if we start to talk on just keeping guns away from the improper elements than people like you still do not like that we are trying to solve the problem by keeping guns out of the hands of the unsavory elements in society. :shrug:

It appears however that people are putting a tremendous amount of work into gun control and a pittance into solving the problem discussed. Government does not have to be the only one trying.

 

[haymarket]

So... MY access to guns in Podunk USA should be restricted because outlaws in Chicago misuse guns bought elsewhere?

Sorry, I never agreed with the idea of punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

You ask a very key question and its importance should not be dismissed. Having followed this debate for most of my life, it is obvious that there is a difference in perspective between Americans who see themselves first as Americans belonging to a country with one culture, one set of laws, and one main direction that needs to be adopted in approaching a major problem. Then we have people who are more focused on their local area or state. In the old days of the 1800's that was called SECTIONALISM and it severely divided the country over issues like the tariff and slavery. These people want more emphasis on the local powers of government and far less on the national.

So your question reveals much about the way one is oriented when they give their answer.

Lets look at what you asked about restricting guns in Podunk because of the problem in Chicago. On the surface, the first answer would be NO. It is nor fair or right or even practical to impose a system on Podunk which is designed to abate a problem in Chicago when Podunk does not have this problem. If one person a year is murdered by gun in Podunk while 500 are in Chicago - it is obvious that the same solution would not fit both.

However, we then have to face the fact that there are Chicago's all over our nation and a huge chunk of the population lives in them. Of course, the same is true for Podunk. We also have to face the fact that people move around quite a bit, travel quite a bit, commute through our Chicago's and Podunks sometime on a daily basis. Can we practically have two different America's with two different sets of law and culture and approaches to firearms that will work for the nation?

In the 1800's it was easy to think of yourself as a New Hampshire man since you were most likely to die in the same area where you were born. Your entire attitude about politics, economics and culture was built around New Hampshire and its unique environment. What was good for South Carolina might well be poison to New Hampshire and vice versa.

But today one is born in Manchester NH, goes to college in Ohio, gets a job in Oregon, marries someone born in Michigan, has a time share in Florida, gets a later job in Missouri, and then retires to Arizona.
They simply will NOT have those same sectional state based emotions that existed in the 1800's or even the first half of the 20th century.

I do not think there is a 100% foolproof answer on this but the question posed by Goshin is worth exploring and I believe will reveal much more wisdom then if there is a magic number for a magazine capacity.

 

[Goshin]

You ask a very key question and its importance should not be dismissed. Having followed this debate for most of my life, it is obvious that there is a difference in perspective between Americans who see themselves first as Americans belonging to a country with one culture, one set of laws, and one main direction that needs to be adopted in approaching a major problem. Then we have people who are more focused on their local area or state. In the old days of the 1800's that was called SECTIONALISM and it severely divided the country over issues like the tariff and slavery. These people want more emphasis on the local powers of government and far less on the national.

So your question reveals much about the way one is oriented when they give their answer.

Lets look at what you asked about restricting guns in Podunk because of the problem in Chicago. On the surface, the first answer would be NO. It is nor fair or right or even practical to impose a system on Podunk which is designed to abate a problem in Chicago when Podunk does not have this problem. If one person a year is murdered by gun in Podunk while 500 are in Chicago - it is obvious that the same solution would not fit both.

However, we then have to face the fact that there are Chicago's all over our nation and a huge chunk of the population lives in them. Of course, the same is true for Podunk. We also have to face the fact that people move around quite a bit, travel quite a bit, commute through our Chicago's and Podunks sometime on a daily basis. Can we practically have two different America's with two different sets of law and culture and approaches to firearms that will work for the nation?

In the 1800's it was easy to think of yourself as a New Hampshire man since you were most likely to die in the same area where you were born. Your entire attitude about politics, economics and culture was built around New Hampshire and its unique environment. What was good for South Carolina might well be poison to New Hampshire and vice versa.

But today one is born in Manchester NH, goes to college in Ohio, gets a job in Oregon, marries someone born in Michigan, has a time share in Florida, gets a later job in Missouri, and then retires to Arizona.
They simply will NOT have those same sectional state based emotions that existed in the 1800's or even the first half of the 20th century.

I do not think there is a 100% foolproof answer on this but the question posed by Goshin is worth exploring and I believe will reveal much more wisdom then if there is a magic number for a magazine capacity.

Credit where credit is due: that's an interesting post.

However, there's a bit more to it than just sectionalism.... or as I prefer to call it, regionalism. There's the question of whether the honest and law-abiding should have a fundamental right restricted because a small minority of people misuse the tools associated with that right.

The 2A is about more than guns... it is about not strictly monopolizing the use of force to government, but leaving that ultimate recourse in the hands of the people, as long as they use it responsibly... as more than 99% do. It is about self-protection, protecting the community, and in certain extreme situations the state or the Constitution itself. It is fundamental to the structure of our nation.

Basic rights should not be tampered with carelessly, broadly, or hastily. Restrictions ought to be limited to what is absolutely necessary, narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means possible of actually achieving a particular necessary goal. This is how we handle all other enumerated BoR rights... the 2A should be no different.

Any new laws should be very carefully targeted to affect criminals and crazies while having as little impact as possible on the law-abiding. Any new law should be analyzed carefully and should not be passed unless there is strongly substantiated evidence that it would ACTUALLY achieve the goal it is intended to achieve. Any such new law should be required to have a demonstrable positive effect within a limited period of time or else it automatically sunsets. NO law restricting any basic right should ever be passed in haste or a careless emotional drive to "do SOMEthing"... it should be done with logic and reason and not mere demagogery.

Exerting prior restraint on a fundamental right is no way for a free society to act, when that prior restraint impedes the honest citizen more than the criminal.