Enhance

They happen with a fair amount of regularity, but we have a few too many people here that like to fight fire with fire. They see a criticism of Trump as an opportunity to point out a flaw with Democrats, and the vice versa happens a lot, too. I don't think many people are generally as interested in non-partisanship as they claim. Take my father-in-law for example. Harps on politicians as a whole all the time. Thinks D and R parties should be dissolved. Thinks the two party system is a huge issue in America. Same guy: only votes Republican and has spent the entire day to

IMO, there's nothing overtly mysterious about it. Using Omaha as an example, there's a reason District 66, Millard and Ekhorn are considered better districts and having higher performing students compared to OPS. OPS has the largest percentage of minority students, as well as the largest percentage of students from low-income families and poverty-ridden neighborhoods. They, like other metropolitan 'public' districts, have mountains of socio-economic challenges they have to address that other districts don't have to worry about to near the same degree. I agree that throw

I agree. However, that's not what happened, and that's why it makes Scarlet Revival's attempts at comparison asinine. The fabric of these situations are so cataclysmically different that discussing them as if they're on an equal playing field would make all of us more unintelligent for it. And, again, it's nothing more than a red herring. As someone who is neither liberal or conservative, it seems like the vast majority of your arguments usually devolve into R's vs. D's, or trying to compare something perceived as 'bad' among the D's to something perceived as 'bad' amon

Yes, it is. It's a red herring tactic. He injected what he believed to be a correlative topic in order to avoid answering the question. This type of nonsensical argument strategy may be something you find amusing but I'm not going to give it free passage. Literally every political argument could turn into a circular discussion of 'oh, they did this, but what about that!?'. It's lazy, mindless fodder. Not every discussion has to turn into a battle of determining who is more hypocritical than who. There's more than one way to threaten democracy, but not all threats to dem

Only in situations of negligence, yes. I think guns come with a sincere amount of responsibility... moreso than just about any other kind of property a citizen can own. That responsibility, in my humble opinion, demands accountability. If you leave a gun unsecured in your vehicle and it gets stolen, there should be repercussions. To be clear, I'm not anti-gun. I own them. But I think our citizenry has been given enough opportunities to do the right thing over the years and... we kind of suck at it. That's why I'm in favor of much stiffer gun control overall.

Stop trying to make a diversion. You answer mine, I'll answer yours.

I think there's a deep discussion to be had there but I have to hop away from the PC for awhile But, law-abiding citizens aren't really the focus of many of those policies. Unless, of course, we're talking about proper storage and safety. I know several law-abiding and smart gun owners who have had their guns stolen because of a lapse in judgement, a mistake or a burglary. Next hting you know, the gun ends up the street in the back of someone's car and gets used in a violent crime. Stolen weapons are a huge problem in the gun violence debate. Part of this fix is limiti

Ehh... I think it's a stretch, personally. I get what you're trying to express but I don't see any of those things you mentioned as correlative to guns in really any way. Are gun's place in capitalism more important than the negative effects it causes on our society?

The act of rioting and vandalizing the U.S. Capitol during an official election event, for the purpose of causing disruption in the event and/or preventing it from happening, is a threat to democracy. A threat to democracy does not mean they were going to "destroy our system." I think you're hyperbolizing what I'm trying to say. Voter fraud is a threat to democracy, but that doesn't mean an isolated incident of it will destroy our system. Hopefully that clears up my perspective. Additionally, it still begs the question why someone would ask the ludicrous question of why

@teachercd IMO the sheer fact that this country's gun problems lead to so much gun violence and deaths, and that guns are literally designed for killing, puts them on a pedestal away from all those other things you mentioned in regards to why they should be more regulated. Again, most other first world countries acknowledge this. Many Americans don't.

I'm not asking this to be snarky or combative, but which specific policy or policies are you referencing that give you concern about the gov't telling people how many guns they can own? Additionally, which policies listed do you think would have an overtly negative impact on the quantity of weapons a person could own in a way that's more valuable than saving lives and preventing gun violence? Because I can tell everyone right now that high capacity magazines aren't the reason we're a laughing stock fo the modern world. It's a small and necessary step, but not the most important or

Are you asking why it's a "big deal" that radicalized Trump supporters broke into the federal U.S. Capitol building, vandalized property, attacked and killed law enforcement, and threatened our democracy?

I don't care if the gov't knows how many guns I have or don't have. Why do you? The government already has mountains of personal information on you, more than you probably know or would feel comfortable with. And if they don't have it, they could find it out. But your reaction is sort of what I'm talking about. The vast majority of policies listed on Biden's page have to do with gun violence programs for those affected, closing buyback and purchasing loopholes, background check strengthening, eliminating high capacity magazines, eliminating ghost guns, and accountability for seller

IMO, much of what's listed on his website seems reasonable to me assuming he sticks to it... which I think he would. A lot of this is pretty common sense stuff to me, particularly the closing of purchasing/background check loopholes. There are three big problems the way I see it, though. First, selling guns and ammunition is incredibly lucrative. I have a family member that sells weapons a lot through their business. They do everything by the book, but "by the book" has a ton of gaffes and loopholes in it. People are always going to fight something if it means they'll lose money.

Did you read the article or simply the headline? They have all the jurisdiction they need.