Dammit Florida

[Jay]

17 minutes ago, nate said:

But they are.  They vote for these people because they claim they will protect their gun rights.  Maybe they should stop voting against them because they are so negligent and stupid.

sorry, nate you're fighting a losing battle.

Gun ownership drops in US, but support for gun rights grows

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ddf5476ec51d416c9625a4420f3c118e/gun-ownership-drops-us-support-gun-rights-grows

— Gun ownership has decreased among all age, race and gender groups since 1973. At its peak in that time frame, in 1977, 50.4 percent of households had guns. By 2014, just 31 percent of households did.

— Black gun ownership has dropped 75 percent since 1973; white gun ownership has decreased 48 percent.

— In 2014, about one-fourth of whites, 26 percent, owned a gun. Among blacks, the rate was 10 percent.

— When asked which is more important, gun control or protecting gun rights, big gains have been recorded in those choosing gun rights, particularly in the past 15 years, leaving Americans nearly evenly split. Those favoring gun rights — 29 percent of the population in 2000 — grew to 47 percent by last year. Those saying gun control is more important declined from 57 percent to 50 percent in the same period.

— Though a big gap still exists between blacks and whites, both groups have moved to valuing gun rights over gun control. In 1999, 17 percent of blacks favored gun rights over gun control, compared with 34 percent in 2014. Whites went from 32 percent to 61 percent.

 

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Relax Nate. Senator McCain is going to fix everything by giving the FBI your browser history.

To be fair they already have it most likely. But now they will be able to use it without having to hide that fact.

[Tank]

1 minute ago, Angels N Skins said:

At this time it is done without due process. That is a problem. If someone is that dangerous they should be locked up.

I agree that there should be something concrete done legally if a person is really that much of a risk. Unfortunately, I don't think we really have any kinds of laws in place for what might or might not happen. The gay nightclub shooter was on a watch list of some sort - what could have been done ahead of time to stop him from doing what he did? Or the San Berdoo shooters? Could anything have been done at all?

[nate]

I have to admit, the more Republicans want to spy on us and take over our lives the more I understand the idea of building an arsenal.

[Lhalo]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

Or the San Berdoo shooters? Could anything have been done at all?

We could have kept his terrorist wife out of the country.

[Tank]

Caveat emptor:

saw something on Facebook yesterday that said since the gay nightclub shooting, 15,000 AR 15s have been sold in Florida.

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Tank said:

I agree that there should be something concrete done legally if a person is really that much of a risk. Unfortunately, I don't think we really have any kinds of laws in place for what might or might not happen. The gay nightclub shooter was on a watch list of some sort - what could have been done ahead of time to stop him from doing what he did? Or the San Berdoo shooters? Could anything have been done at all?

I think the FBI dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter. The San Berdoo shooters didn't even buy those guns (at least a couple of them) that person, rightfully so, is being held accountable for it. In order to lose any of our rights there should be due process first. That is congress' job to quit playing political games and figure that crap out.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

We could have kept his terrorist wife out of the country.

Racist

[Tank]

8 minutes ago, Jay said:

sorry, nate you're fighting a losing battle.

Gun ownership drops in US, but support for gun rights grows

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ddf5476ec51d416c9625a4420f3c118e/gun-ownership-drops-us-support-gun-rights-grows

— Gun ownership has decreased among all age, race and gender groups since 1973. At its peak in that time frame, in 1977, 50.4 percent of households had guns. By 2014, just 31 percent of households did.

— Black gun ownership has dropped 75 percent since 1973; white gun ownership has decreased 48 percent.

— In 2014, about one-fourth of whites, 26 percent, owned a gun. Among blacks, the rate was 10 percent.

— When asked which is more important, gun control or protecting gun rights, big gains have been recorded in those choosing gun rights, particularly in the past 15 years, leaving Americans nearly evenly split. Those favoring gun rights — 29 percent of the population in 2000 — grew to 47 percent by last year. Those saying gun control is more important declined from 57 percent to 50 percent in the same period.

— Though a big gap still exists between blacks and whites, both groups have moved to valuing gun rights over gun control. In 1999, 17 percent of blacks favored gun rights over gun control, compared with 34 percent in 2014. Whites went from 32 percent to 61 percent.

 

Jay, this seems hard to believe, especially when we know there are over 300 million guns owned in this country. That would suggest that while the number of gun owners has decreased, the number of guns they own has skyrocketed. That's frightening.

also, I wonder how many illegal guns are out there. No one ever wants to talk about them. Ever.

[Jason]

Just now, Tank said:

Jay, this seems hard to believe, especially when we know there are over 300 million guns owned in this country. That would suggest that while the number of gun owners has decreased, the number of guns they own has skyrocketed. That's frightening.

also, I wonder how many illegal guns are out there. No one ever wants to talk about them. Ever.

I bet the NRA does. It would help push their agenda

[Jason]

http://gun.laws.com/illegal-guns/illegal-guns-statistics

Not sure how accurate this is 

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

I think the FBI dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter. The San Berdoo shooters didn't even buy those guns (at least a couple of them) that person, rightfully so, is being held accountable for it. In order to lose any of our rights there should be due process first. That is congress' job to quit playing political games and figure that crap out.

That's a valid point.

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

Jay, this seems hard to believe, especially when we know there are over 300 million guns owned in this country. That would suggest that while the number of gun owners has decreased, the number of guns they own has skyrocketed. That's frightening.

also, I wonder how many illegal guns are out there. No one ever wants to talk about them. Ever.

I think the number of households has grown significantly, and many of them choose not to own a gun. Yet they recognize the need for self defense and are not ready to surrender their constitutional rights.

With respect to illegal guns; I am in favor of mandatory jail time for sales and possession of illegal firearms. But the gun-control nuts don't want to talk about that.

[Thomas]

18 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

 If someone is that dangerous they should be locked up.

What if they haven't done anything remotely illegal?

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

With respect to illegal guns; I am in favor of mandatory jail time for sales and possession of illegal firearms. But the gun-control nuts don't want to talk about that.

Isn't that part of the enforce current laws rhetoric?

[mtangelsfan]

35 minutes ago, nate said:

But they are.  They vote for these people because they claim they will protect their gun rights.  Maybe they should stop voting against them because they are so negligent and stupid.

 

Come on man, I'd wager you have voted for some of those very same individuals.  Crap, Gary Johnson is one of them.

Gun rights is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down my list of voting issues as it is among most 2nd amendment advocates who are not members of the NRA (and there are plenty of us)

[mtangelsfan]

32 minutes ago, Tank said:

It seems to me that gun advocates/second amendment rights folks/the NRA supporters don't want any kind of limitation on the ability to own, use, or purchase guns. Every single time one of these tragedies happen - and they're happening more frequently - they view that gun control is not the issue (I'm sure, MT, that your Facebook feed is just as littered as mine with "Obama wants to take our guns away!" and "if more people at the scene had been armed then maybe this wouldn't have happened!" Stuff ). It's almost as if they're saying that the right to bear weapons is so effing vital that all of these senseless slaughters is just simply the price of doing business.

the anti-gun crowd is equally lame here by thinking that more control laws will solve these problems, when it seems that many/most of these horror shows are committed by people who acquired guns legally.

what we don't hear from either side is some kind of reasonable plan to address getting guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. I don't know if such a plan can even be achieved, but it's a gigantic FAIL to continue to allow people on the effing no fly list or terrorist watch list or whatever list to still be able to purchase guns. There is absolutely no logic to this. "We're afraid, Habib, that you might try to use this plane as a missile so you can't fly on it, but here's a 2-for-1 coupon to Billy Bobs gun emporium on route 37."

Tank, you are really painting with a broad brush.  

[Jay]

5 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Isn't that part of the enforce current laws rhetoric?

I don't know... if not it should be.

[InsideThePark]

7 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

At this time it is done without due process. That is a problem. If someone is that dangerous they should be locked up.

You definitely keep up with the conservative talking points. Their favorite phrase right now is "due process." I agree that one should be given that right if they are denied the sale but the Republicans proposed to give the courts just a 72-hour window to respond. If they don't, the sale goes through. It's a BS half measure that wouldn't change anything.

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Tank, you are really painting with a broad brush.  

Guilty as charged. 

But I think that's how this entire issue is being handled publicly right now. i.e. All dems want to take away all of our guns vs. all cons want to stockpile for Armageddon.

There really doesn't seem to be any middle ground in this debate, and there desperately needs to be.

[Jay]

On 6/20/2016 at 3:18 PM, Geoff said:

We're not going to release the information where he talks about Allah and ISIS.  

We're not going to release the information that the club was a gay nightclub.  

We're not going to release the information that the weapon he used was a automatic (or semi-automatic) riffle.  

 

Why would any of those things ever make sense?

 

 

 

Obama administration jumped the shark.

I will say this about Clinton though. She's probably not this stupid.

 

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

You definitely keep up with the conservative talking points. Their favorite phrase right now is "due process." I agree that one should be given that right if they are denied the sale but the Republicans proposed to give the courts just a 72-hour window to respond. If they don't, the sale goes through. It's a BS half measure that wouldn't change anything.

Would any longer even pass constitutional muster?

[Spirit]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Would any longer even pass constitutional muster?

Great question.  What would be the appropriate amount of time to deny someone their constitutional rights? 

 

 

[InsideThePark]

1 minute ago, Geoff said:

Great question.  What would be the appropriate amount of time to deny someone their constitutional rights? 

 

 

LOL, I'm sorry but this is just stupid.

If a person is on either list, odds are they are there for good reason. I believe they get it right about two-thirds of the time. It's not as accurate as we would like but that is why potential gun owners should be given due process.  What the number of days should be, I'm not sure, but the courts should be given a reasonable amount of time to get it right. Ridiculous that something like this should be hurried.

[Thomas]

Just now, InsideThePark said:

LOL, I'm sorry but this is just stupid.

If a person is on either list, odds are they are there for good reason. I believe they get it right about two-thirds of the time. It's not as accurate as we would like but that is why potential gun owners should be given due process.  What the number of days should be, I'm not sure, but the courts should be given a reasonable amount of time to get it right. Ridiculous that something like this should be hurried.

Are we so conditioned to this post 9-11 that the audacity of being on a list and being suspected of being up to no good means well....anything?