NM11046

While I don't disagree that money should be put toward research for terminal illness, homeless and etc what you missed here was that this cost would have immediate impact on lives saved. With proper gun restrictions we could save lives and the results would be seen quickly. All these initiatives need funding no doubt. Elect a dem and we'll take care of the homelessness and charitable work, and if you allow stem cell research we can make headway with medical research (said with kinda sarcasm).

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege. Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go. Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns. Guns are NOT the problem and they are NOT inherently dangerous. People are the problem and many of them ARE inherently dangerous. I have a loaded Kimber .45 sitting on top of my computer tower and it has never once jumped up and committed a crime. I suspect it never will. You want to take away our birthright to own firearms. I want to take away your birthright to Free Speech. Speech can be dangerous so we must treat it as a privilege and not a birthright. (See how easy that is?) I don't want to hear how speech can't kill or that it could never be as dangerous as guns. Adolf Hitler inspired an entire nation to go to war with his speeches. Over 60 million people died before that nightmare ended. Btw, there has never been a consensus that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. There have been many people (mostly Democrats) who have made that claim. Before the NRA-ILA became the force it is now, 34/36 Constitutional scholars said it was an individual right. What about all the defensive gun uses in America every day? Every single day good guys use guns to foil crimes and in most cases the weapon never gets fired. Twice in my life I have pulled a weapon in my defense. Once to stop a crazed homeless man from entering my vehicle and attacking me (yes, he was crazed and I do not have the time to relay that story atm) and the other time it was to stop a guy from climbing into my apartment through my bedroom window while I slept. I didn't fire my weapon in either case but I certainly stopped a pair of bad guys. Defensive gun use in America has been studied and estimates run anywhere from 100,000 to 3 million times per year depending on who did the study and their methodology. How many peoples lives have been saved by defensive gun use? We'll never know the answer to that one because it is impossible to know. I do think it's reasonable to assume that number would be in the thousands and possibly many thousands each year. Far too often we focus on the bad and forget to look for any good. The NRA used to publish stories about citizens defending themselves with guns and all of the stories were taken from local newspapers. It used to be posted online but I am not seeing it anymore. Read through some of those stories and you just might change your mind on some things. Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Actually, guns themselves are a problem. 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities have reported owning a gun, which by it's very nature is illegal. 65 percent reported to own three or more guns. With 300 million-ish guns in America, it stands to reason tens of millions of those are illegal. So, the ease of access and trade of guns are a problem. Aka... guns are a problem. Second, please cut the following nonsense out. I have not seen a single person here legitimately suggest that we round up everyone's guns. This is a paranoid delusion. The legitimate discussion moving forward should be addressing what we can do, as a nation, to limit access of guns to people who don't need them and work on social issues that lead to gun violence. One statistic that is possible to know is how many people have died so far this year from gun violence. I'll just keep updating everyone until it starts to sink in - 6, 495 so far this year. Not sure if it's new or if I just picked up on it, but wanted to tell you how much I like your Emerson quote on your sig.

Maybe a plan B in case Miles goes elsewhere If you watch his film he's actually pretty agile and moves well. I'll take a heavy RB w/speed and good feet any day.

Is that a commitment?? It's a commitment to wearing a kick ass shirt.

Not wrong to think it, but to take the time to post that here - yes.

He decided not to come up this weekend - planning a ND trip (unclear if that was instead of Lincoln) so I doubt it.Ya it was a wild "theory" about him making surprise visit, mostly a joke. I would have loved that. I think he's gonna end up with us but this ND offer has me a little off balance. He seems pretty stoked about i, we gotta get him back to remind him about why he loves it at NE.

He decided not to come up this weekend - planning a ND trip (unclear if that was instead of Lincoln) so I doubt it.

I've got to read a bit and get up to speed on it before getting in the discussion here - I'm finding that there are some sharp folks on this board, so I don't want to come without an A game. Don't want to be the Trump of the Brexit discussion.

This is the sort of rant that I appreciate. Thank you. Very reasonable thoughts.

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do. So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives? 100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us. Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have. Are you serious with his question? I am. What are the people of Australia held back from doing? What freedoms do we have that they don't?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do. So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives? 100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us. Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have.

I am pretty sure she's just a Freshman (maybe just finished Freshman year) so there are a few years between their college scholarships.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'm guessing I cover a few folks when I say, nobody is arguing that Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, but that NOT EVERY Muslim (Islamic??) is radical and dangerous. In fact the majority of Islamists are peaceful people. The bold is a problem in confusion over terminology. I'll try to clarify that a little to the best of my knowledge.Muslims - These are the "good guys" who believe in our secular ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are the Maajid Nawaz and the Malala Yousafzais of the world. The optimist in me says they make up somewhere between 75-80% of the Muslim population.Islamists (Islamism) - These are radicals by any reasonable definition. They don't believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land and push for it in political, non-violent ways. They believe things like people who leave Islam should be killed. Not necessarily bad people, they just have really bad ideas. Let's say this is about 20% of the Muslim population. For instance, you can look at poll result after poll result and easily conclude 1/3 of British Muslims are Islamists. When you look at poll results in the Muslim world my confidence in the 20% estimate becomes shaky. For instance, 86% of people in Egypt and 82% of people in Jordan think apostates should be killed, according to Pew polls. This is to say nothing of the eye-opening numbers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, ect. 20% is a fair but conservative estimate.It's important to note these are still Muslims. They're not perverting the religion in any way, they're simply more devout in their belief of the religion. They take it more literally. Saying they're perverting the religion is not helpful to the discussion. This is sort of the key group of the discussion. I hate to use this term, but this is the group that's not politically correct to talk about. Because if we criticize their bad ideas in any way that makes us bigots somehow. Liberals by and large will tolerate Islamists' illiberal principles because "they have their own culture don't you know". We're supposed to hold them to a lower standard for some bizzare reason. Ironically this is simply the bigotry of low expectations. This is a huge problem. Particularly in Great Britain right now, it's a huge problem. Islamists are rapidly gaining influence.Jihadists - Everyone can agree these are the "bad guys". They believe all the same things as Islamists but express it with actual violence. Again, saying they're perverting the religion is not helpful to the discussion. Although I understand President Obama's reasoning behind wanting to do that. It's just extremely short-sighted and harmful. I would say they most definitely make up less than 5% of the Muslim population but probably more than the 1% people seem to pull out of thin air. 1-2% of 1.6 billion is still a staggering number. Deleted by me.

Oh my - after saying "what?" Outloud as I read through the last few parts of this thread I am laughing my head off.

Wow, I must have taken a wrong turn at Alburquerque - how does this comment relate in any way to what's being discussed?

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'm guessing I cover a few folks when I say, nobody is arguing that Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, but that NOT EVERY Muslim (Islamic??) is radical and dangerous. In fact the majority of Islamists are peaceful people.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options; 1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem. 2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem. 3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government. 4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news. If it's not one of those 4, what is it? Answer me this.. Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem. EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way! I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air. I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues. I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention! I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music.. Oh and the biggest one, abortion. The abortion commentary, which you continue to bring up has absolutely NO place in this discussion.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/self-immolation-republican-party/

The kid is a house. And green - not a lot of bad habits and a ridiculous amount of upside potential. Imagine that frame with proper weight lifting and training - and he's only been playing for 2-3 years ... scary how much he'll likely improve as a Jr and Sr and then when he gets to Lincoln ... kudos to Parella for getting in on that early.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation #morecontext #knowyourhistory Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change. His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this. funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird! Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with? This is what happens, people argue.. if that isn't your thing then maybe this isn't the place for you. Also, you can argue with me but I can't give it back? Oh, I'm supposed to stop when you think I should? lol So no, you don't have anybody at home. I don't come here to argue, I come to learn, to understand what others are thinking and why. I don't take the aggressive approach. I appreciate well thought out, fact based or responses - not defensive attacks. And conversations about the "whys". You can continue all you want here just seems like your comments toward the folks here are aggressive and on the verge of disrespectful. If what you want is a dialogue then you should change your tactics, if what you want is a fight you're right, I'm not signed on for that.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation #morecontext #knowyourhistory Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change. His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this. funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird! Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to. So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it. You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so. I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process. Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime? Yes you do, you just won't admit it. It is pretty clear what her intent was just by reading the article. She was trying to expose something but while doing that she lied, and committed a felony in the process. That isn't the same thing at all. I believe in the 2nd amendment, which doesn't grant me any rights by the way, it up holds my rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't uphold your right to be a child molester. If your worry is chasing reporters that lied on a form in order to show significant outages in the monitoring of the sales of guns in a news story, you're focused on the wrong thing. You should create a thread to debate that.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation #morecontext #knowyourhistory Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change. His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to. So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it. You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so. I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process. Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to. So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.