My position is the govt should NOT be involved in the gun argument OR abortion... It is both a state's rights issue... and a freedom issue.
Please explain how GA is involved in your statement... THX.
I agree if one were observing human behavior (usually behavior comes from beliefs), one could conclude the way folks handle one political hot-potato could lend clues to how they handle another. And if both of those political hot-potatoes are as controversial as the two issues you note Student... well IMO there may be some similarities in how they are approached and handled.
Sorry Tool... have to disagree with you.
IMO there is usually an under-lying problem that was not addressed in time before... thus the current problem. GA likes to go back and find the underlying problem to find the SOURCE of the issue. Thus the comment they are both state's rights issues and NOT FED issues. If one of two things had happened in the past: One-Feds had stayed out... declared it a state's rights issue (Constitutionally correct thing for them to do); or two: The citizens had stood up and said NO mr polecat you will NOT violate the Constitution... this is state's rights and your comments are not acceptable... then start the legal chain to assert Constitutional authority. Well either of these would have been the solution decades ago.
When we let a problem go (as in to not decisively resolve it)... we end up with larger problems. Like a splinter in your finger... if we only put a bandaid on it... or put cream and a bandaid on it... nothing happens to heal the wound. ONLY when the splinter is removed... does the wound heal.
We need to go back to the Constitution to resolve these things... until we do... we may as well buy stock in bandaid and cream companies... cause we will be covering it up for a LONG time.
Job offers, Sufficient finances that social security would not be required, possible investment and job creation, very high security rating, educated.
I think that is as clear as i can answer that area.
I would hope that in USA, NZ and the rest of the world we could reduce crime, so for this to happen changes have to be made, can I or anybody else guarantee what will happen of course not, but without change you can not expect change.
I indicated that I preferred safes to reduce the number of arms that my get into the crims hands, It would seem many gun owners feel the same, they already have gun safes. Safes do not stop the committed crim, but stops the opportunist.
As I have indicated it is the fault of the crim. not the victim, so we should need lock our doors, but we have to, for the same reason why you want to carry a gun, because you may need it, when the gun it is not in your control put it in a safe, to reduce the temptation of the opportunist.
I can understand the idea of locking up guns when not at home, but then my home is locked. So how many locks do I have to install? At what point is the law going to step in and do something to stop the law-breakers? That is the other frustration. Laws are broken to steal the guns, but you feel I should do more.
If gun owners do not show concern, and make suggestions then the fear of gun owners may come true.
ok Im going to say what everyone seems to be dancing around:
What the anti-gun nuts are worried about is something they can't control, the brain of a deranged individual. So they go after the only thing they think they can control, the law abiding citizen. It is literally the only thing that is tangible to them
It's like when I moved in with my girlfriend 22 years a go(soon to be wife) my MIL was so mad that her little Catholic girl was living in sin 400 miles away, the only thing she could do was ground my SIL (who was 15 at the time):grin2: I had a good laugh over that one
The other thing that is driving the anti-gun nuts crazy is the unbelievably miniscule possibility that someday a Legally armed individual will "lose it" and start shooting up the place (which BTW has never happened)
If your going to live in a society of 310+ million people, a few are going to fall through the cracks and kill someone. It happens everyday with cars and alcohol. It's going to happen with guns. Period. Its just something your going to have to live with.
The only thing you can do about it is to be prepared. Have a defensive tool of your own, throw them the bird and have at it. Your chances of dieing in a car are 17 time higher than dieing from a GSW (gun shot wound)
Im done with this BS, talking to anti-freedom-gun grabbing-misinformed people is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
Have fun, good luck, stay sharp.
Nobody knows what makes crime rates rise and fall......
chicago crime rates over the years.....
Id say if you look at most cities... that you will find that over the past few decades crime has done the old see saw thing.... rising this year falling the next.... rising for a few years then falling for a few....
I looked at the data for my town and its done the same thing.... rise and fall and rise and fall...... we saw our most murders about 2 years ago.....4....where most years its 1 or 2.
So.... Quit claiming CCW permits lower crime rates when in fact there is no data to confirm that..... but I will concede that there is no data to prove it doesnt... But what we do know is that crime rises and falls like the tide......whether its an area where concealed carry is allowed....or where it isnt.
Below is the latest power-grab from DC and the libs:
Read the whole article... This power grab stuff has been going on longer than most of us have been alive. (The specific power grab addressed in the article has been tried a few times before; each time by DEMS who think they are above the law). It is always the same... a polecat lusting for power and drunk on how important they are... disregards the rights of the average citizen and knowingly violates the Constitution to satisfy their lust for power.
This attitude of lust for power (we need to remember: power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts, NO exceptions), is why the Constitution has the checks and balances it does. And the 'teeth' of that document is in the 1st and 2nd amendments. You can say what you choose, and you can own a firearm and if necessary use it to change bad govt.
Seems I heard over the weekend a Fed circuit court told BHO he had violated the Constitution by appointing folks to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) and CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission). BTW: This is the same NLRB that tried to tell Boeing they could NOT build a 787 Dreamliner plant in SC because it was a right to work state. Seems 'recess' appointments, Constitutionally, can only be done when Congress is in recess, not when they are not scheduled to meet over the weekend. Seems also every ruling made by each of those two agencies since the appointments is now null and void... because the agency was acting with members who have no authority (were not appointed by the rule of law).
Seems Mr Obama thinks he is above the law... well he was TOLD over the weekend he is NOT. Seems the NLRB does not think they are subject to the ruling of the courts...
Now do you folks REALLY want someone making laws who thinks they are above the rule of law, and when reprimanded just says the courts are irrelevant?
IMO if ANYONE does not see serious danger for the country here... they are either blind or stupid or part of the side who thinks they are above the law.
The first two can be fixed... the third needs jail time to learn.