Jump to content
"Frankly, I don't think I can say what would be considered "proof". It likely varies from some who already believe to some that will NEVER believe" M Hartless when asked what deniers would consider "settled" science re: climate change. To continue…"Personally, I do believe that man's activities has some negative effects on Earth, including quite possibly the climate."
It's the solutions deniers don't like, not the "science".
Voting rights as of 1776-white, male, property owner excluding, Catholics, Jews and Quakers. So much for all "men" being created equal.
Tipton one of the "lefties". I could have sworn he was a darling of the Tea Party. I'm sure his donors will be glad to know he is now a "leftist". That being said, does he really think most working folks from his district make $12/hr? Really??
When we became pregnant in Germany, the Dr there told my wife vitamins weren't necessary, just drink 1 beer a day…… not Bud, of course. Just goes to show…….. to each his own.
If only we had such a news source…...
You're right. All those "free people" that lost their jobs were just responding to market conditions. They chose to move their jobs to countries that allow human/planet abuse in the name of profits so they could "live off the gubbermint" and/or work for minimum wage. Like I stated in another thread…. it seems okay to ruin cities. towns and lives across America for more profit, but not okay to do it to attempt to mitigate the effects of using our planet as a garbage can. As far as the hypocrisy, their support of the development of alternatives shows that they do not accept the status quo of available energy. (they also use a fair amount of alternative sources for their energy.)
You are a sick man to think anyone "prays" for people to be shot down, anywhere, any place, any time. There is no evidence that "more guns equal less crime". I know many folks that carry 24/7 and if anything ever comes down where they have to use their weapons, I will be just as afraid of their bullets as of any perpetrator's. A bullet doesn't care where it comes from or who it hits. When lead flies, things die.
To cite the Supreme's to refute the influence of the NRA in the "guns in society" issue is to completely ignore the question of said influence , esp when considering the extremely right stance of the Court on most issues. To quote John Lott as the source that more guns are better is to cherry pick and totally ignore the folks that dispute his findings stating that he had significant methodology errors and most probably a political agenda driving his findings. (see armedwithreason.com) We, as a country, are not having the conversation because of the NRA's strangle hold on both House's of Congress, plain and simple. I think the most recent vote on tightening background checks failing with over 80% of the country for it says it all. To ignore the NRA's influence is to ignore campaign finance reality. I'm not questioning the constitutional right to "bear arms". That being said, we as a country have an obligation to discuss why we have the highest rate of gun violence of any industrial country and what, if anything, can be done to reduce the incidents. An honest, factual conversation.
So Brian says "lock'em up" while Ed say Psych treaments are the cause. Whatever. An interesting aside is that it was Reagan that dismanteled the mental health system and put many struggling folks on the street. Laws on the books without the dollars, leadership, and supporting oversight to enforce those laws are worthless. The NRA, via congress, has ensured that laws that could inpact ownership are rendered useless. The AFTE has not had a permanent Dept head for 6 yrs in an effort to stymie any enforcement. Another example is the Tiahrt amendment riders in 2003/2004 that prohibits ATFE from using tracing data to suspend/revoke gun dealers license and authorized background checks to be destroyed after 24 hrs. The NRA's influence in the cutting of funding to CDC to research the effects of guns in our society stops all efforts to indentfy patterns, causative factors, etc that extensive research could provide. The inability of the AFTE to create a registry of gun transactions is another way to stop a possibly very effective intervention. Why can't we have a registry of who owns the gun and hold them responsible for what it's used for? It doesn't have to be kept by the government. Hell, have the religious leaders of the country control it…. who cares, just get it done. Will it solve all gun issues, no. Would it have stopped any mass killings, don't know, but it would be a start. Guns are not the issue, I know. Canadians own more guns per person, yet have many, many times less gun violence. It's the American gunslinger attitude combined with easy access that is one of the issues. Another probable issue is the disenfranchising of a large part of our citizenry…. they feel they just don't have a place at the table, no worth in our country. Bottomline is the NRA contols the conversation regarding the place of guns in our society and their goal is to increase gun sales……. enough said. I don't know the solution, don't know if there is one, but as long as the NRA controls the dialogue (there isn't one), we will never know what is possible. (disclaimer-I owned 7 rifles, still own 1 pistol and hunted deer and elk for many years.)
Last login: Thursday, December 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |