Gun control….only 2% think it is a serious issue this election cycle…..go for it dems...

[2aguy]

Yes…Gallup says there are a total of about 2% of the population that think gun control is a top priority…

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

 

[Dhara]

OK so what do you think of that?

 

[BULLDOG]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

 

[Dhara]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes…Gallup says there are a total of about 2% of the population that think gun control is a top priority…

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

Dear 2aguy
1. It seems the top issue with both parties
a. with GOP it's funding BUSH to compete with the threat of Trump and Cruz
to get behind a name
b. with Dems it's the censorship of other delegates to conventions and blocking other candidates
besides Clinton Clinton Clinton to get behind a name

2. If you are going to count what is critical by what the people say
you'd miss these issues:
a. reforming prisons on a state level to pay for health care reform on a state level
No candidates or officials in govt have even brought this up.
I'm the only person I know bringing it up to people.
So I'm less than 1% of 1% of 1% etc.

b. reforming the legal system and holding govt and PARTIES to Constitutional standards
I know two people who have brought this up seriously about legal reforms
to stop the monopoly by lawyers and judges dominating All Three branches of govt,
and all levels of elections from city to county and state and national.

When people bring up Constitutional reforms, they are labeled rightwing nutjobs.

I saw ONE person bring up the issue of right to health care as a political BELIEF that was
urgent to discuss. So maybe two people are taking that seriously within my circle of influence.
where I'm the only one discussing the idea of separation of beliefs by party to keep that
out of govt by "separation of church and state" or equal protection of religion and creeds from discrimination.

You won't find lawyers willing to push this.
If you do, let me know, I've asked and couldn't find any.

My point is the most important issues, the key to resolving the rest,
are missed not only by the parties, leaders, and govt officials,
but also by the general population influenced by "what is popular in the media"

The media is focused on whatever game between Clinton and Sanders is going to
move money and hype that up for corporate profit and political exploitation.

And whatever is going on between Trump, Cruz and the establishment Republicans.

So clearly that is NOT what is important in terms of issues.

The real issues are missed, completely under the radar, and won't even show up on the polls.

 

[bucs90]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

So since most gun violence is in black ghettos....I assume the discussion starts there?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Obungles and the Dems keep at the gun grabbing and that percentage will go up....and it won't be favorable to the dems

 

[bucs90]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Good for you, that's your right.

I have to ask....if 3 thugs with pistols broke into your home at 2am....what's your plan?

 

[emilynghiem]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

Dear BULLDOG
What?
1. Since when is a pacifier used to defend one's home or property against crimes or riots.

I've mentioned before the LA riots, where shop owners who visibly and audibly demonstrated they
were well armed DIDN'T get attacks by mobs. Deterrence is an important factor.

In Texas, the wild hog population is so overrun, yes, even to defend oneself requires massive weaponry.

So maybe you don't live in a State or City that requires gun ownership given the environment.

Shame on you for comparing "use of arms to defend the law" with the need for a pacifier.

2. Could you show me an example of police doing what they do by substituting a placebo or pacifier?

Ridiculous!
and DANGEROUS to tell people it's no big deal, just a personal security blanket.

Really?

Tell that to people who had to act as their OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
if a pacifier, placebo or security blanket effect is enough.

I'd ask you into the Bullring but frankly, I think I must be misreading you,
because there is NO WAY you can possibly think a "placebo security effect"
from having gun rights is any kind of substitute for bearing and using weapons
in the case of crime or emergency.

BULLDOG please tell me you meant something else.
That maybe there IS the underlying need, purpose or issue,
and you were just saying the HEIGHTENED HYPE of this as a major issue
is just due to the political perception of power and govt.

If that's what you are saying it's a different argument.
I would say this is still a critical argument, but it's based on
a. trusting federal govt to represent the people and MAXIMIZING federal regulations
b. trusting people and states to represent the people and limiting federal authority into matters

That argument has been going on since the inception of Constitutional govt.
So YES I'd say it is the most important key issue to understand
as the root beliefs behind ALL OTHER CONFLICTS
over ALL OTHER ISSUES.

They are ALL framed by the conflict between beliefs:

A. liberals and social activists who believe the purpose of govt is to "promote general welfare"
and to establish and enforce the will of the people, even against opposition by the people, with the BELIEF that using govt this way somehow "ensures equal and maximum access to rights and protections to the public"

B. conservatives and Constitutionalists who believe the point is to LIMIT govt, and only
authorize federal govt to what we CONSENT to so there is NO taxation without representation,
and to rely on people, states and free market to govern and solve our own problems first and foremost,
keeping govt to a minimum

Clearly BULLDOG whatever bias you and I have over how we SEE and STATE the gun issue,
stems from this bias described in A and B.

You trust the federal govt and the conservatives don't.
So that is the issue underneath, that MAKES the gun issue so VOLATILE And important!

This issue NEEDS to be addressed instead of arguing over the Elephant in the room.
Same argument since the beginning, you'd think we'd recognize by now the two sides
don't agree, and have different beliefs about govt, period. So why not address that up front?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Good for you, that's your right.

I have to ask....if 3 thugs with pistols broke into your home at 2am....what's your plan?

BULLDOG 's plan is to use the belief in Second Amendment rights as a security blanket or "pacifier."

 

[Silent Warrior]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Your point is moot. There is no current legislation or even discussion saying you have to have guns in your home.

 

[Dhara]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Good for you, that's your right.

I have to ask....if 3 thugs with pistols broke into your home at 2am....what's your plan?

I don't give your question a lot of thought. It's nothing I worry about.

 

[Dhara]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Your point is moot. There is no current legislation or even discussion saying you have to have guns in your home.

I'm saying I feel completely secure without gun ownership. I feel sorry for people who are so paranoid they live in fear and the way they deal with their fear is to pack a gun.

 

[BULLDOG]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

So since most gun violence is in black ghettos....I assume the discussion starts there?

Well, no. The black community aren't the ones blocking reasonable gun control laws. It's the NRA and bought politicians.

 

[Dhara]

75% of all gun ownership is by conservatives, yet they still feel threatened by liberals. Go figure.

 

[BULLDOG]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

Dear BULLDOG
What?
1. Since when is a pacifier used to defend one's home or property against crimes or riots.

I've mentioned before the LA riots, where shop owners who visibly and audibly demonstrated they
were well armed DIDN'T get attacks by mobs. Deterrence is an important factor.

In Texas, the wild hog population is so overrun, yes, even to defend oneself requires massive weaponry.

So maybe you don't live in a State or City that requires gun ownership given the environment.

Shame on you for comparing "use of arms to defend the law" with the need for a pacifier.

2. Could you show me an example of police doing what they do by substituting a placebo or pacifier?

Ridiculous!
and DANGEROUS to tell people it's no big deal, just a personal security blanket.

Really?

Tell that to people who had to act as their OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
if a pacifier, placebo or security blanket effect is enough.

I'd ask you into the Bullring but frankly, I think I must be misreading you,
because there is NO WAY you can possibly think a "placebo security effect"
from having gun rights is any kind of substitute for bearing and using weapons
in the case of crime or emergency.

BULLDOG please tell me you meant something else.
That maybe there IS the underlying need, purpose or issue,
and you were just saying the HEIGHTENED HYPE of this as a major issue
is just due to the political perception of power and govt.

If that's what you are saying it's a different argument.
I would say this is still a critical argument, but it's based on
a. trusting federal govt to represent the people and MAXIMIZING federal regulations
b. trusting people and states to represent the people and limiting federal authority into matters

That argument has been going on since the inception of Constitutional govt.
So YES I'd say it is the most important key issue to understand
as the root beliefs behind ALL OTHER CONFLICTS
over ALL OTHER ISSUES.

They are ALL framed by the conflict between beliefs:

A. liberals and social activists who believe the purpose of govt is to "promote general welfare"
and to establish and enforce the will of the people, even against opposition by the people, with the BELIEF that using govt this way somehow "ensures equal and maximum access to rights and protections to the public"

B. conservatives and Constitutionalists who believe the point is to LIMIT govt, and only
authorize federal govt to what we CONSENT to so there is NO taxation without representation,
and to rely on people, states and free market to govern and solve our own problems first and foremost,
keeping govt to a minimum

Clearly BULLDOG whatever bias you and I have over how we SEE and STATE the gun issue,
stems from this bias described in A and B.

You trust the federal govt and the conservatives don't.
So that is the issue underneath, that MAKES the gun issue so VOLATILE And important!

This issue NEEDS to be addressed instead of arguing over the Elephant in the room.
Same argument since the beginning, you'd think we'd recognize by now the two sides
don't agree, and have different beliefs about govt, period. So why not address that up front?

So many funny statements, so little time. I will address a couple of your silly whines though because they are so dumb.
Just a note. If you are going to enumerate your points, everything under each number should be relatted.

1 That is the point. The massive majority of gun nuts have never needed a gun to defend themselves or their property, and they never will. The only purpose it will ever serve is to make the gun nut owner feel adequate. Exactly the same reason a child loves his security blanket so much.
1...A? I live in rural Texas Marauding hogs do destroy gardens, but I can't remember the last time a hog attacked anybody around here. It's not what a sane person might worry about.
2. Cops have a job that sometimes requires the use of guns. You don't, and they don't need your help. You'll get in the way. As I've already said, the vast majority of gun nuts never use their gun for anything more than decoration.

Don't get me wrong. I have guns, and use them regularly to hunt or target shoot. I just find the Rambo Wanna bees to be dangerous and stupid in their claims and behaviors. I feel for you and what ever abuse you must have endured to make you feel the need for a security blanket/gun all the time, but only a coward feels the need for something to hide behind all the time.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't own any guns, I don't want guns in my home.

Good for you, that's your right.

I have to ask....if 3 thugs with pistols broke into your home at 2am....what's your plan?

BULLDOG 's plan is to use the belief in Second Amendment rights as a security blanket or "pacifier."

Well, no.

 

[Dhara]

You think guns will take care of your fear. They don't.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You think guns will take care of your fear. They don't.

We don't have guns to take care of "fear". Good grief

 

[emilynghiem]

So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.

Dear BULLDOG
What?
1. Since when is a pacifier used to defend one's home or property against crimes or riots.

I've mentioned before the LA riots, where shop owners who visibly and audibly demonstrated they
were well armed DIDN'T get attacks by mobs. Deterrence is an important factor.

In Texas, the wild hog population is so overrun, yes, even to defend oneself requires massive weaponry.

So maybe you don't live in a State or City that requires gun ownership given the environment.

Shame on you for comparing "use of arms to defend the law" with the need for a pacifier.

2. Could you show me an example of police doing what they do by substituting a placebo or pacifier?

Ridiculous!
and DANGEROUS to tell people it's no big deal, just a personal security blanket.

Really?

Tell that to people who had to act as their OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
if a pacifier, placebo or security blanket effect is enough.

I'd ask you into the Bullring but frankly, I think I must be misreading you,
because there is NO WAY you can possibly think a "placebo security effect"
from having gun rights is any kind of substitute for bearing and using weapons
in the case of crime or emergency.

BULLDOG please tell me you meant something else.
That maybe there IS the underlying need, purpose or issue,
and you were just saying the HEIGHTENED HYPE of this as a major issue
is just due to the political perception of power and govt.

If that's what you are saying it's a different argument.
I would say this is still a critical argument, but it's based on
a. trusting federal govt to represent the people and MAXIMIZING federal regulations
b. trusting people and states to represent the people and limiting federal authority into matters

That argument has been going on since the inception of Constitutional govt.
So YES I'd say it is the most important key issue to understand
as the root beliefs behind ALL OTHER CONFLICTS
over ALL OTHER ISSUES.

They are ALL framed by the conflict between beliefs:

A. liberals and social activists who believe the purpose of govt is to "promote general welfare"
and to establish and enforce the will of the people, even against opposition by the people, with the BELIEF that using govt this way somehow "ensures equal and maximum access to rights and protections to the public"

B. conservatives and Constitutionalists who believe the point is to LIMIT govt, and only
authorize federal govt to what we CONSENT to so there is NO taxation without representation,
and to rely on people, states and free market to govern and solve our own problems first and foremost,
keeping govt to a minimum

Clearly BULLDOG whatever bias you and I have over how we SEE and STATE the gun issue,
stems from this bias described in A and B.

You trust the federal govt and the conservatives don't.
So that is the issue underneath, that MAKES the gun issue so VOLATILE And important!

This issue NEEDS to be addressed instead of arguing over the Elephant in the room.
Same argument since the beginning, you'd think we'd recognize by now the two sides
don't agree, and have different beliefs about govt, period. So why not address that up front?

So many funny statements, so little time. I will address a couple of your silly whines though because they are so dumb.
Just a note. If you are going to enumerate your points, everything under each number should be relatted.

1 That is the point. The massive majority of gun nuts have never needed a gun to defend themselves or their property, and they never will. The only purpose it will ever serve is to make the gun nut owner feel adequate. Exactly the same reason a child loves his security blanket so much.
1...A? I live in rural Texas Marauding hogs do destroy gardens, but I can't remember the last time a hog attacked anybody around here. It's not what a sane person might worry about.
2. Cops have a job that sometimes requires the use of guns. You don't, and they don't need your help. You'll get in the way. As I've already said, the vast majority of gun nuts never use their gun for anything more than decoration.

Don't get me wrong. I have guns, and use them regularly to hunt or target shoot. I just find the Rambo Wanna bees to be dangerous and stupid in their claims and behaviors. I feel for you and what ever abuse you must have endured to make you feel the need for a security blanket/gun all the time, but only a coward feels the need for something to hide behind all the time.

What BULLDOG
We must be still "talking past each other"
1A. a "security blanket" is not enough to do what you already say you do.
You have guns, and use them to hunt and target shoot.
Do you use that as a "pacifier" or use "mental pacifiers" to hunt or shoot.
Or don't you use REAL GUNS.

1B. Do you mean the HYPE is the part you are saying is all psychological.
Not the real guns and usage you also do as well.

Are you saying you don't participate in the HYPE and need all that HYPE?

2. I challenge you on the cops thing. I am promoting the idea that districts
get tax breaks if they can develop their own campuses and guards, trained
alongside police to help with that work.

Our teachers and police cannot do the work alone.

Citizens and community groups need to teach people the law and compel enforcement
to REDUCE the risk and burden on teachers and police.

Good lord. If you think cops can do it all, we'd have to turn into a police state
to get the ratio of cops to population to something workable.

The average teacher in a classroom would be more effective with
10-20 students per teacher, instead of 40 where experienced teachers can cope
but many students fail without individual attention, especially if they have issues which many do.

I'm not sure what the effective ratio would be for cops.

BULLDOG what do you think of the idea of requiring gun owners to go through
the same oath and training as police and military? Wouldn't that be good to have
more Constitutional education and enforcement on an AGREED basis?

In Houston, last I checked the only City employees required to uphold the Constitution were police.
The County is the last level officially governed under the Constitution, and the City
is a private municipality, similar to a huge corporate interest that you have to sue to order
Courts to MAKE them follow Constitutional standards if they violate them.

How can the govt expect the average person to respect laws in advance,
instead of what the City does which is violate them first, then require lawsuits after the fact.
Setting the wrong standard opens the door for all violators to do anything until stopped
by a lawsuit or a gun.

So until we have an agreed standard of defending Constitutional laws,
the problems crimes and abuses go rampant until they land on courts or police.

That's why our systems are so backlogged, from govt to prisons, because there is
not enough deterrence or prevention.

What do you think of that idea, of requiring Constitutional training and enforcement
if people are going to bear arms for the purpose of defending laws, principles and property,
similar to police?

See also Welcome to The Armed Citizen Project | Armed Citizen Project
What about expanding on programs such as this nonprofit
to promote Constitutional law enforcement as an educational requirement?