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

[BULLDOG]

There is a huge difference in what rational gun owners do and what gun nuts want. I know strapping a gun to my leg to go to Walmart is stupid. Gun nuts think it is a fashion statement. I'm not against guns. I'm against what the idiots of the NRA are trying to do with guns. Like I said before. Only a coward would want a gun for a security blanket and oppose all common sense, reasonable efforts to control who gets them and how they are used.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear Dhara
yes and no.
1. guns don't solve the mental illness issue or cure criminal illness.

2. but guns do deter or stop crimes in process, such as in the LA riots
where shops that let rioters know they were armed weren't attacked,
and the trained guard who killed a shooter in church before he could shoot any more people.
Jeanne Assam: The Forgotten Woman Who Stopped a Church Shooting-Truth!

And
3. we need to stop arguing about the political beliefs, recognize those differences,
and shape public policy to address BOTH concerns instead of "either / or"

it's ALL the above: addressing mental illness and medically proven diagnosis and cure.
a system of referring people to get help before crimes or dangers go too far.
safe standardized training and enforcement of laws for people who are going to use arms for that,
similar to police and military, so there is proper screening - one benefit being that all people
in govt could better be held to agreed standards if the public can agree on these standards.

It is important we agree on Constitutional standards
so we can hold govt consistently to the same.
see ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would teach all citizens
to enforce in order to hold govt accountable to the same and correct any grievances.

Otherwise politicians take this KNOWN conflict, and abuse it for political points.
Instead of solving the problem, by seeking solutions that satisfy both the rightwing
and leftwing way of looking at the gun issues, the parties keep PLAYING ON THE FEAR.

You may blame rightwing party members for using this issue as false security to appease their fear.
The SAME can be said of leftwing party members using their party to run policies through govt
to appease their fears.

Fear is on both sides. So if we solved the problems, then no more political games or points
can be made from the fear on either side, especially not the fear that the other party is dominating the show.

 

[kiwiman127]

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

Another gun thread by 2aguy? Is the NRA paying you?
Anyway, I happen to agree that the Dems should back away from the issue, it just plain doesn't have the support of the American public.
But then the GOP itself is guilty of ignoring public sentiment regarding raising the minimum wage (75% Americans support raising the minimum wage), Big Money in the American political system (and the Dems are also guilty)even (80% of Republicans support a Constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United) and their attack on Planned Parenthood has over 60% disapproval).
All of this shows just how much out of the mainstream both political parties really are.

 

[blastoff]

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.

Oh, duh! I get it now. The reason for the gun related carnage on our streets, predominantly streets in black neighborhoods, is because the criminal thugs doing all the shootings find the reams of existing gun laws unreasonable. So, yeah, as soon as we pass more reasonable gun laws the criminal thugs will be the first onboard and all will be hunky-dory in the hoods forever and ever.

 

[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.

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.

Oh, duh! I get it now. The reason for the gun related carnage on our streets, predominantly streets in black neighborhoods, is because the criminal thugs doing all the shootings find the reams of existing gun laws unreasonable. So, yeah, as soon as we pass more reasonable gun laws the criminal thugs will be the first onboard and all will be hunky-dory in the hoods forever and ever.

This Comic Sums Up the Double Standard Used to Excuse White Violence

Here look at THIS cartoon

 

[Dhara]

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

Dear Dhara
yes and no.
1. guns don't solve the mental illness issue or cure criminal illness.

2. but guns do deter or stop crimes in process, such as in the LA riots
where shops that let rioters know they were armed weren't attacked,
and the trained guard who killed a shooter in church before he could shoot any more people.
Jeanne Assam: The Forgotten Woman Who Stopped a Church Shooting-Truth!

And
3. we need to stop arguing about the political beliefs, recognize those differences,
and shape public policy to address BOTH concerns instead of "either / or"

it's ALL the above: addressing mental illness and medically proven diagnosis and cure.
a system of referring people to get help before crimes or dangers go too far.
safe standardized training and enforcement of laws for people who are going to use arms for that,
similar to police and military, so there is proper screening - one benefit being that all people
in govt could better be held to agreed standards if the public can agree on these standards.

It is important we agree on Constitutional standards
so we can hold govt consistently to the same.
see ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would teach all citizens
to enforce in order to hold govt accountable to the same and correct any grievances.

Otherwise politicians take this KNOWN conflict, and abuse it for political points.
Instead of solving the problem, by seeking solutions that satisfy both the rightwing
and leftwing way of looking at the gun issues, the parties keep PLAYING ON THE FEAR.

You may blame rightwing party members for using this issue as false security to appease their fear.
The SAME can be said of leftwing party members using their party to run policies through govt
to appease their fears.

Fear is on both sides. So if we solved the problems, then no more political games or points
can be made from the fear on either side, especially not the fear that the other party is dominating the show.

I do not have a problem with the Second Amendment. I think some people should not have guns. Those who show a propensity for violence toward spouses and children, for example.

I don't feel a lot of fear coming from the left about guns. It's the right that appears threatened constantly even when 75% of all gun owners are conservative. The right to own a firearm is in no way threatened.

The problem isn't even party politics, IMO. It's the misuse of media. Us versus them mentality.

We're all in the same boat as American citizens. Government isn't the problem. People are the problem. People who only care about "their side" of an argument.

Just my opinion, not worth much but it's all I have.

 

[Dhara]

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.

Oh, duh! I get it now. The reason for the gun related carnage on our streets, predominantly streets in black neighborhoods, is because the criminal thugs doing all the shootings find the reams of existing gun laws unreasonable. So, yeah, as soon as we pass more reasonable gun laws the criminal thugs will be the first onboard and all will be hunky-dory in the hoods forever and ever.

To your post, blastoff, criminal thugs seem to equal black people. Consider this:

About 41 percent of white households own guns, compared to just 19 percent of black households, according to a 2014 Pew survey. And white Americans (62 percent) are more likely than black Americans (54 percent) to say that gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety.

Those different experiences partly explain their divergent views: Whites (61 percent) are nearly twice as likely as blacks (34 percent) to say it's more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership, according to the Pew Research Center.

Most strikingly, black parents (39 percent) are nearly twice as likely as white parents (22 percent) to say they worry about their child getting shot, according to a recent Pew study.
The shocking difference in how blacks and whites are killed by guns

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Silent Warrior
unintentionally you brought up a curious point

Notice that when Constitutionalists demand enforcement of Gun rights as something IN the laws,
they just want the right to purchase and use.
They are NOT asking for govt to fund this or force it on people. EXACTLY!!

Now compare and contrast:
when advocates for "health care as a right" demand enforcement:
It's all about GOVT forcing it on and regulating it for all citizens.
This ISN'T about the rights of citizens to buy and access it freely.
It's the complete OPPOSITE approach!

Doesn't that show you the difference in how people view rights in relation to Govt?

One side depends on Govt to establish them by controlling it totally.
The other defends rights by keeping Govt OUT of the way and letting citizens exercise rights and freedoms.

Neither side feels their rights are protected UNLESS they see it done THEIR way.


(It is beside the point which of these rights is written into law and which is not, that's a whole other issue. I'm just pointing out the difference in how these are ENFORCED, one by pushing it through Govt the other by defending it FROM Govt. Doesn't that spell out the difference right there!)

 

[Dhara]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

 

[westwall]

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.

Guns aren't owned by people because they're paranoid silly person. They are just like insurance. I assume you have car insurance? Paranoid of getting in an accident are you? No? See, the same go's for people who own guns.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

 

[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.

Guns aren't owned by people because they're paranoid silly person. They are just like insurance. I assume you have car insurance? Paranoid of getting in an accident are you? No? See, the same go's for people who own guns.

Guns are not insurance. Maybe in your case they are. If you get in a car accident and another drive caused it are you going to shoot him?

 

[Dhara]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

We formed a government. You don't seem to get that.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

We formed a government. You don't seem to get that.

What you don't seem to get is governments are made up of people thus they are not static. They evolve over time, some times they evolve towards a freer more inclusive system, the majority of the time though they evolve in a more sinister direction. The reason why the USA is as good as it is happens to be is because the Founders of this country realized that the best way to ensure the freedom of the people was for them to be armed. Were the Founders paranoid?

Like I said, your understanding of the matter is rudimentary at best and juvenile in the extreme.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear Dhara
yes and no.
1. guns don't solve the mental illness issue or cure criminal illness.

2. but guns do deter or stop crimes in process, such as in the LA riots
where shops that let rioters know they were armed weren't attacked,
and the trained guard who killed a shooter in church before he could shoot any more people.
Jeanne Assam: The Forgotten Woman Who Stopped a Church Shooting-Truth!

And
3. we need to stop arguing about the political beliefs, recognize those differences,
and shape public policy to address BOTH concerns instead of "either / or"

it's ALL the above: addressing mental illness and medically proven diagnosis and cure.
a system of referring people to get help before crimes or dangers go too far.
safe standardized training and enforcement of laws for people who are going to use arms for that,
similar to police and military, so there is proper screening - one benefit being that all people
in govt could better be held to agreed standards if the public can agree on these standards.

It is important we agree on Constitutional standards
so we can hold govt consistently to the same.
see ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would teach all citizens
to enforce in order to hold govt accountable to the same and correct any grievances.

Otherwise politicians take this KNOWN conflict, and abuse it for political points.
Instead of solving the problem, by seeking solutions that satisfy both the rightwing
and leftwing way of looking at the gun issues, the parties keep PLAYING ON THE FEAR.

You may blame rightwing party members for using this issue as false security to appease their fear.
The SAME can be said of leftwing party members using their party to run policies through govt
to appease their fears.

Fear is on both sides. So if we solved the problems, then no more political games or points
can be made from the fear on either side, especially not the fear that the other party is dominating the show.

I do not have a problem with the Second Amendment. I think some people should not have guns. Those who show a propensity for violence toward spouses and children, for example.

I don't feel a lot of fear coming from the left about guns. It's the right that appears threatened constantly even when 75% of all gun owners are conservative. The right to own a firearm is in no way threatened.

The problem isn't even party politics, IMO. It's the misuse of media. Us versus them mentality.

We're all in the same boat as American citizens. Government isn't the problem. People are the problem. People who only care about "their side" of an argument.

Just my opinion, not worth much but it's all I have.

Dear Dhara and BULLDOG I think you both are trying and able to see both sides.
What you seem to dismiss is underestimating the real effect of these fears on govt and public relations.

A. Dhara you say you don't see a lot of fear coming from the left about guns.
But every time there is an incident, the rhetoric moves toward gun control.
Obama made statements, the politicians on the left use this for soliciting votes and campaign dollars.
Just like the rightwing uses abortion and the prolife issue to get votes and dollars without doing anything real.

The left pimps this fear of gun violence just as much.
How can you dismiss the fears that are exploited and hyped on both sides?

I think you DO see how this issue is blown up in the media for political gain.
What I don't think you see is how both the left and right do this,
same with the abortion issue. They don't solve it, they just pimp it for political hype to sway the masses.

B. BULLDOG I am also guessing that you are trying to make the distinction
between the real principle in practice and the way the issue is blown out of proportion in the media,
"playing on fears".

I think your approach of addressing both levels is needed and can be very effective
since you actually exercise your gun rights responsibly, and don't see it as any big deal to you.

However, trying to tell people their fears aren't real or have substance only pours fuel on that fire.
That is their worst fear, that people will play down and trust govt, so much, that they give up rights
until it's too late. So you play RIGHT INTO those fears the more you try to play them down as overboard.

I don't think that part of your approach is effective, but has the very opposite effect you intend.
I think you can be a valuable ally to both sides, but emphasizing the reality of both sides,
and pushing solutions that satisfy BOTH -- ie NOT downplaying either side but backing them both up fully.

You have the ability to do this, since you see both sides.
Instead of appearing to take sides and downplaying one,
I am confident you would succeed in your message by supporting both sides equally in working this out,
treating both views as equally valid and important to address. Otherwise it just multiplies fear on both sides.

I can see what you are both trying to say
so thanks for that: Dhara and BULLDOG

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

We formed a government. You don't seem to get that.

Dear Dhara Even with the govt we have, the Constitution we have, the Second Amendment as written,
there are TWO camps still going on since the beginning, the very founding that never agreed either
A. whether the point of govt is to have the power concentrated centrally in the federal level and use govt to establish the common will and welfare of the people, where all rights are established through govt
B. whether power and rights resides naturally with the people and with States as sovereign,
and the point of federal govt and Constitutional laws is to limit govt and only authorize duties that
are specifically prescribed so that govt is not abused

One approach, associated with Rousseau and labeled liberal today, maximizes the use of govt
The other, associated with Locke and labeled conservative today, minimizes dependence on govt

So we have one govt, one Constitution, and the Second Amendment in writing.
But we have two camps that interpret govt and Constitution EXACT OPPOSITE of each other.

We have always had this historical split, though we have one government.

Similar to historical denominations in Christianity: where there is one Bible,
one Jesus Christ, but some groups teach DEPENDENCE on church authority and joining a certain affiliation as required; and some teach independent governance by SCRIPTURE between people and God without depending on priests or institutions as the middle man.

In church history, there was a Reformation movement to teach people to govern their own lives by invoking scriptural authority directly and not paying to go through Catholic priest or "indulgences"; and the same is happening to this day with the state and political history, where people have been teaching to invoke Constitutional laws as direct authority to check govt.

As long as people depend on church or state authority to "dictate laws or interpretations for them" they remain DEPENDENT. The movement in both church and state is for people to LEARN THE LAWS themselves, and quit depending on outside authority, but to become EQUAL under law. This happens as people become EDUCATED on the laws, and directly involved in govt policies and process, instead of depending on church state or party leaders to run the show. Both church and state history show this trend toward democratization.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

Dear Dhara
Don't you think both left and right demonize each other equally?

I am a progressive Democrat who aligns more with Greens since they promote self-governing solutions
that are more sustainable without this political dependence on govt that has hijacked the Democrats base.

I tend to criticize my own Party because I believe I am responsible for what my colleagues do.
If I were a Muslim I would be publicly outspoken on those issues, as my responsibility for what fellow Muslims do. I can support Muslims who take this responsibility seriously.

I've got a full time job just fixing the messes made by Democrat leaders who abused taxdollars
to destroy whole communities. So that is my full time focus, since Democrats will only listen to fellow
Democrats.

The Republicans and Conservatives ARE busy organizing around Constitutional principles to check their own party leaders. I see them as more successful because they invoke the Constitution. There were even reforms to the GOP platform, pushed by the progay supporters, that successfully cleaned up very biased unfair language in the Republican principles. I applaud that, and wish the Democrats would invoke the same.

But over and over I run into the same weakness among Democrats and Liberals.
The lack of Constitutional education, experience and authority.
Because the tendency is to teach people they don't have this authority.
They have to depend on voting OTHER politicians into office to defend rights.
There is NO teaching going on about defending rights directly by defending Constitutional laws
and principles per se.

When I brought this concept to fellow progressive, liberal and Democrat leaders on a LOCAL level,
when I PERSONALLY share it with them, they respond. They tend to support it as a good idea.
But then they feel overwhelmed that too much political pressure is for getting party candidates elected.

So unfortunately all the resources, all the time to organize efforts and education goes into more politics.
More getting the votes out for the most electable candidates.

The focus is NEVER on liberating the people directly by teaching them the Constitutional laws.

So sorry but that is where I DO Give credit to conservative Republicans Christians and Tea Party
for at least TRYING to teach people the laws and how to use them to invoke authority to CHECK GOVT.

I see the opposite happening in the Democrat camp.

The Liberals and progressives pushing for liberation don't do this by citing Constitutional laws.
The Greens push for worker coops, health care coops, investing directly in green solutions and fair trade.
Very similar to the conservative idea of free market and self government to empower people.

So there is a movement WITHIN the liberal Democrats to stop the abusive politicking going on.
The bad guys within the Democrats are coming under fire from the grassroots progressives.

same with the Republicans trying to fight to stop the CAREER politicians from railroading
their way over the real Constitutionalists.

There are bad guys in both camps messing up the parties for everyone else.

If we can get the good guys with good ideas and solutions in BOTH camps
to ALIGN and invest campaign funds directly into empowering people to create develop and run their
own programs to solve political problems, maybe the good guys in BOTH camps can win.

 

[Dhara]

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

We formed a government. You don't seem to get that.

What you don't seem to get is governments are made up of people thus they are not static. They evolve over time, some times they evolve towards a freer more inclusive system, the majority of the time though they evolve in a more sinister direction. The reason why the USA is as good as it is happens to be because the Founders of this country realized that the best way to ensure the freedom of the people was for them to be armed. Were the Founders paranoid?

Like I said, your understanding of the matter is rudimentary at best and juvenile in the extreme.

I understand completely that government is of the people and not static. I happen to disagree with you that our government has evolved in a "sinister direction". Try and argue your position without the labels of "juvenile" and I will continue to debate with you.

Militias like the one in Harney County, Oregon at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge may be your idea of how to keep people free, but to me, they are paranoid kooks

Yeah, we get it emily. The RW are the "goodies" and the left are the "baddies".

What I think is downright goofy is the RW being anti-government. What the heck did we have a Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for?

A government "by the people and for the people." It didn't say just the RW people. It means ALL citizens.

The RW doesn't mind the government at all as long as their interests are served by it.

The revolution was fought to be FREE of government interference silly person. Our government is getting ever more intrusive in how we live our lives. Does that not concern you? Have you ever read a single history book which catalogues case after case of what happens when governments do that? I think you need to do some reading because you are powerfully ignorant of history.

We formed a government. You don't seem to get that.

Dear Dhara Even with the govt we have, the Constitution we have, the Second Amendment as written,
there are TWO camps still going on since the beginning, the very founding that never agreed either
A. whether the point of govt is to have the power concentrated centrally in the federal level and use govt to establish the common will and welfare of the people, where all rights are established through govt
B. whether power and rights resides naturally with the people and with States as sovereign,
and the point of federal govt and Constitutional laws is to limit govt and only authorize duties that
are specifically prescribed so that govt is not abused

One approach, associated with Rousseau and labeled liberal today, maximizes the use of govt
The other, associated with Locke and labeled conservative today, minimizes dependence on govt

So we have one govt, one Constitution, and the Second Amendment in writing.
But we have two camps that interpret govt and Constitution EXACT OPPOSITE of each other.

We have always had this historical split, though we have one government.

Similar to historical denominations in Christianity: where there is one Bible,
one Jesus Christ, but some groups teach DEPENDENCE on church authority and joining a certain affiliation as required; and some teach independent governance by SCRIPTURE between people and God without depending on priests or institutions as the middle man.

In church history, there was a Reformation movement to teach people to govern their own lives by invoking scriptural authority directly and not paying to go through Catholic priest or "indulgences"; and the same is happening to this day with the state and political history, where people have been teaching to invoke Constitutional laws as direct authority to check govt.

As long as people depend on church or state authority to "dictate laws or interpretations for them" they remain DEPENDENT. The movement in both church and state is for people to LEARN THE LAWS themselves, and quit depending on outside authority, but to become EQUAL under law. This happens as people become EDUCATED on the laws, and directly involved in govt policies and process, instead of depending on church state or party leaders to run the show. Both church and state history show this trend toward democratization.

Emily--

With all due respect, Emily, in my opinion, conservatives actually LIKE big government when it suits their interests. They love government when it produces by far and away the world's largest military and the profits that go along with supplying it. The love big government when it provides huge subsidies for the agricultural and fossil fuel industries. They love big government when it creates a huge, highly profitable, private prison system. They don't mind big government when it denies women the right to choose an abortion. They have literally extended the government into the vaginas and uteri of women seeking to have abortions. They certainly didn't mind using big government when they wanted to deny gay couples the civil right to marry.

Yes, you are historically correct that we've always been divided politically in this country. While I appreciate that you're trying to look at this issue broadly and fairly, clearing you lean right with how you describe the issue. That's ok with me. It's makes for an interesting discussion.

Whereas Democrats like to raise taxes on corporations and spend money on citizens, Republicans prefer to give tax breaks to corporations that offshore American jobs while slashing billions in food stamps for the people whose jobs they outsourced. It's a shell game. The only difference is who gets the cash: the idle rich, or struggling Americans who actually need the help?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Please…what reasonable gun control is being blocked…otherwise you are just posting crap.

Also, please be specific as to how your "reasonable gun control" will actually effect the problem………most of the time you anti gunners go blah blah…NRA….blah blah….gun control…blah blah blah……and then believe we have to take you seriously when you have proposed nothing, explained nothing and simply bitched about the NRA protecting a civil right...

 

[2aguy]

There is a huge difference in what rational gun owners do and what gun nuts want. I know strapping a gun to my leg to go to Walmart is stupid. Gun nuts think it is a fashion statement. I'm not against guns. I'm against what the idiots of the NRA are trying to do with guns. Like I said before. Only a coward would want a gun for a security blanket and oppose all common sense, reasonable efforts to control who gets them and how they are used.

Again….what is common sense and reasonable gun control…please list them and then explain how they will operate to achieve what you say they will achieve…..we are still waiting on at least one of you guys to do that…..