There is no idea like an idea whose time has come: It is time to amend the Second Amendment.

[Esdraelon]

The new blm mayor in Chicago has stated he is going to cut police funding

Let it burn! Democrats deserve all the hell they can vote for.

 

[Oldestyle]

The new blm mayor in Chicago has stated he is going to cut police funding

I feel bad saying this, 2 but the voters of Chicago had a choice between the same progressive policies that have turned their city into a shooting gallery or policies that would have made the streets safer and for some reason they chose the same old...same old! Sane people will continue to move out of that city and things will continue to get worse. But hey...it's a democracy. If they want idiotic policies then idiotic policies they will get!

 

[2aguy]

I feel bad saying this, 2 but the voters of Chicago had a choice between the same progressive policies that have turned their city into a shooting gallery or policies that would have made the streets safer and for some reason they chose the same old...same old! Sane people will continue to move out of that city and things will continue to get worse. But hey...it's a democracy. If they want idiotic policies then idiotic policies they will get!

Vallas would have done the same thing, just slower....he is nothing but a democrat party bureaucrat so his policies would have been just as destructive, just slower...the blm Mayor is going to auper charge the destruction

 

[Rumpole]

While we're at it, why don't we give the states more freedom to decide which religions we are allowed or not allowed to practice, or which opinions we're allowed to hold and express?

Why don't we give the states more freedom to enter our homes and search through our stuff without having to bother to get a warrant?

Why don't we give the states more freedom to just lock up suspected criminals, without giving them the benefit of a trial?

Which other essential Constitutional rights are you willing to give up, in exchange for a false sense of “safety”?

I suggest a thorough review of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, and scroll to the part about the 'slippery slope logical fallacy'

And the 'strawman argument'.

Yours is a text book example of both.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

So basically what you're saying is that you want to take away my ability to defend myself and my family in the short term,

No. I find it amazing you'd make a claim not made in the OP.

in the HOPE that your social programs deal with crime and mental illness sometime in the future? And you want me to do so despite a record of nearly sixty years of social programs that have made things worse rather than better? Why would any rational person sign up for that, Rumpole? While you're doing "research and data collection"...some deviant is very likely going to be harming myself or someone I love! That's not something I'm ever going to agree to. I'm sorry but it should be the god given right of everyone to be able to protect themselves from bad people and not have to depend upon a Government that never seems to get it right.

All programs have long term objectives. that doesn't mean we don't do them.

I understand that my idea for a 28th amendment to replace the second will meet substantial resistence

But, in time, as the country is inching more an more to the left, it's day will come.

I'm just planting the seed.

PS, anecdotal evidence isn't a good reason to base policy

 

[Rumpole]

As for your claim that liberals are not defunding the Police? I'm sorry but that's not true and the consequences have been dire.

The claim that Democrats want to defund the police gained traction during the 2020 election campaign in the United States, following the death of George Floyd and subsequent protests against police brutality and racial injustice. Some activists and progressive politicians called for reallocating a portion of police funding to other community services and social programs that address the root causes of crime, such as mental health services, education, and housing.

While it is true that some progressive politicians and activists within the Democratic party have supported the idea of defunding the police or reallocating police budgets, this stance does not represent the entire Democratic party or all of its members. In fact, key figures within the Democratic party, including then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have explicitly stated that they do not support defunding the police. Instead, they advocate for police reform, improved training, and investment in community-based programs alongside law enforcement.

The Republican party and some conservative media outlets have used the "defund the police" slogan to argue that Democrats broadly support this idea, often as a way to portray the Democratic party as weak on crime or public safety. They do this to enrage their base and persuade independents to vote for Republicans. However, it is essential to recognize that the Democratic party is diverse, and opinions on this issue can vary significantly among its members.

Moreover, key figures, Sen Matt Gaetz and Rep. Jim Jordan and others have called for a outright defunding of the FBI.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

There has ALWAYS been an "app for that". As soon as you can get a constitutional amendment passed, then so be it. The reality is that it would be impossible at this point to even manage to get a razor-thin majority to be in favor of your idea. No... the only way the guns leave our hands is AFTER THE FIGHT...

I realize many feel as you do. But, the country is slowly inching more and more to the left, and the day will come. Not soon, but it will come where this idea will gain more traction.

All I'm doing now is planting the seed.

We can agree to disagree on this point, and that is fine. I shall leave you with this quote, made anonymously by a fellow named 'Matt' who wrote a nice review on Adam Winkler's 'Gun Fight' the historical battle over the right to bear arms in America.


"....Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --Matt, anonymous


One more point; There are more guns per capita in America than any other western nation, and there are more gun related deaths and injuries per capita, as well. The correlation is inescapable, incontrovertible, and positively irrefutable.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

From 'Gunfight'

 

[Oldestyle]

The claim that Democrats want to defund the police gained traction during the 2020 election campaign in the United States, following the death of George Floyd and subsequent protests against police brutality and racial injustice. Some activists and progressive politicians called for reallocating a portion of police funding to other community services and social programs that address the root causes of crime, such as mental health services, education, and housing.

While it is true that some progressive politicians and activists within the Democratic party have supported the idea of defunding the police or reallocating police budgets, this stance does not represent the entire Democratic party or all of its members. In fact, key figures within the Democratic party, including then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have explicitly stated that they do not support defunding the police. Instead, they advocate for police reform, improved training, and investment in community-based programs alongside law enforcement.

The Republican party and some conservative media outlets have used the "defund the police" slogan to argue that Democrats broadly support this idea, often as a way to portray the Democratic party as weak on crime or public safety. They do this to enrage their base and persuade independents to vote for Republicans. However, it is essential to recognize that the Democratic party is diverse, and opinions on this issue can vary significantly among its members.

Moreover, key figures, Sen Matt Gaetz and Rep. Jim Jordan and others have called for a outright defunding of the FBI.

Cheers,
Rumpole

With all due respect, Rumpole? You just totally ignored a number of Democrat controlled cities that did in fact defund the Police. Would you like me to cite examples of that? Of course SOME Democrats have said they don't support defunding the Police...it's idiotic policy driven by ideologues! The fact remains however that many Democrats DO support taking money from actual policing and putting it into "social programs"! The Democratic Party used to be "diverse" but it's increasingly being led by the far left progressive wing of the party and whoever is actually running the country from this White House and telling Joe Biden what to say is a part of that far left wing of the party!

 

[Oldestyle]

No. I find it amazing you'd make a claim not made in the OP.


All programs have long term objectives. that doesn't mean we don't do them.

I understand that my idea for a 28th amendment to replace the second will meet substantial resistence

But, in time, as the country is inching more an more to the left, it's day will come.

I'm just planting the seed.

PS, anecdotal evidence isn't a good reason to base policy

If a program has "long term" objectives that require me to put my loved ones in peril on the "hope" that those programs might work and history has shown us that over the past 60 years those very same "social programs" have been abject failures...why would anyone think that was a good idea, Rumpole? Society has NOT been improved since LBJ's Great Society programs were ushered in back in the 60's! It can be argued that they have made things much worse. Yet you want to double down on what's not worked while you ask people to give up their means of protecting themselves?

 

[Mac-7]

Fuck him.

He has no standing whatsoever with regard to any rights of any Americans. No American needs his permission to do anything.

I rarely even respond to Donald H posts

His opinion does not matter

 

[ralfy]

There's no need to amend it because the right to bear arms is based on the natural right of self-defense. If any, 2A is not necessary because militias have been replaced by police and the National Guard.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I suggest a thorough review of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, and scroll to the part about the 'slippery slope logical fallacy'
And the 'strawman argument'.
Yours is a text book example of both.
Cheers,
Rumpole

No, not at all.

You propose to seriously undermine one of the American people's most essential Constitutional rights, under the false claim that doing so will make us safer.

If your bullshit argument is a valid argument for stripping us of one right, then how is it not equally a valid argument for stripping us of other rights, that are equally inconvenient to a corrupt government that wants to exercise unrighteous dominion over us under the fraudulent guise of making us “safer”?

The great Benjamin Franklin had something to say about idiots such as yourself…

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”​

 

[Rumpole]

With all due respect, Rumpole? You just totally ignored a number of Democrat controlled cities that did in fact defund the Police. Would you like me to cite examples of that?

Provide URLs if you dont mind, thanks.

Of course SOME Democrats have said they don't support defunding the Police...

The leaders of the party most certainly do not. They are for demilitarizing the police and reallocating funds to improve their standing in the community which will allow them to perform their jobs more effectively., but that is much of what republicans are accusing of 'defunding.

But Republicans are calling for OUTRIGHT defunding of the FBI.

it's idiotic policy driven by ideologues! The fact remains however that many Democrats DO support taking money from actual policing and putting it into "social programs"!

"social programs" is a spin. See above.

The Democratic Party used to be "diverse" but it's increasingly being led by the far left progressive wing of the party and whoever is actually running the country from this White House and telling Joe Biden what to say is a part of that far left wing of the party!

 

[Donald H]

I realize many feel as you do. But, the country is slowly inching more and more to the left, and the day will come. Not soon, but it will come where this idea will gain more traction.

All I'm doing now is planting the seed.

We can agree to disagree on this point, and that is fine. I shall leave you with this quote, made anonymously by a fellow named 'Matt' who wrote a nice review on Adam Winkler's 'Gun Fight' the historical battle over the right to bear arms in America.


"....Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --Matt, anonymous


One more point; There are more guns per capita in America than any other western nation, and there are more gun related deaths and injuries per capita, as well. The correlation is inescapable, incontrovertible, and positively irrefutable.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

From 'Gunfight'

View attachment 774703

There's no possibility of any gun control until the people who need them change their attitudes. The 'culture' demands more and bigger and more deadly guns.

Measure it by the increase in traffic to ranges where they can shoot at human silouette targets.

 

[Rumpole]

If a program has "long term" objectives that require me to put my loved ones in peril on the "hope" that those programs might work and history has shown us that over the past 60 years those very same "social programs" have been abject failures...why would anyone think that was a good idea, Rumpole? Society has NOT been improved since LBJ's Great Society programs were ushered in back in the 60's! It can be argued that they have made things much worse. Yet you want to double down on what's not worked while you ask people to give up their means of protecting themselves?

I do not see it through the partisan lens you are using to look at it .

Your reference to the Great Society programs is more evidence of your seeing it through a partisan lens, which is tainted.

Some of the notable accomplishments of the Great Society programs include the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, which provided healthcare to millions of Americans, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and gender.

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 created the Job Corps, which provided job training and employment opportunities for young people, as well as the Head Start program, which offered early education and health services to low-income children. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided funding for public schools serving disadvantaged communities.

In addition to these programs, the Great Society initiatives also led to the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which supported arts and cultural programs across the country.

So I reject your characterisation.

 

[Rumpole]

There's no possibility of any gun control until the people who need them change their attitudes. The 'culture' demands more and bigger and more deadly guns.

Like I stated, in the coming years as America gradually shifts more and more leftward, the idea will take root.

Measure it by the increase in traffic to ranges where they can shoot at human silouette targets.

So, you traffic in cheap shots.

Brilliant.

 

[task0778]

Like in stated, in the coming years as America gradually shifts more and more leftward, the idea will take root.

That very well might be, but that time for that is not now or any time soon. The democrats are not going to get 67 votes in the Senate and the House in the foreseeable future, and even then would all 67 Senate democrats or 67% in the House support the changes you support? They couldn't even get 51 Senate votes for their BBB Bill, what makes you think the democrats from red and purple states would risk ending their political careers by voting for this?

 

[Donald H]

Like I stated, in the coming years as America gradually shifts more and more leftward, the idea will take root.

So, you traffic in cheap shots.

Brilliant.

The left/right divide has little to do with the gun control issue. The Dem supporters merely have to suffer being on the side of gun control.
Nearly all of them have fallen silent on the issue.

Where are those who should be speaking out in support of you or me?

They're not yet ready to bravely speak the truth on their country's culture that is the cause of the 'shooting's problem.

To admit that eliminating some guns is not the problem, then calls for naming the problem.

 

[2aguy]

I realize many feel as you do. But, the country is slowly inching more and more to the left, and the day will come. Not soon, but it will come where this idea will gain more traction.

All I'm doing now is planting the seed.

We can agree to disagree on this point, and that is fine. I shall leave you with this quote, made anonymously by a fellow named 'Matt' who wrote a nice review on Adam Winkler's 'Gun Fight' the historical battle over the right to bear arms in America.


"....Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --Matt, anonymous


One more point; There are more guns per capita in America than any other western nation, and there are more gun related deaths and injuries per capita, as well. The correlation is inescapable, incontrovertible, and positively irrefutable.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

From 'Gunfight'

View attachment 774703

Yeah....that has no basis in truth, facts or reality....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
======

The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. both remain below their peak levels. There were 6.2 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2020, below the rate of 7.2 recorded in 1974.


What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

Paper...why crime declined in the 90s

https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
========
======

Over the past few decades, the number of guns in America has increased massively, so much so that there are now more guns than people in the United States. Yet federal crime statistics show that firearm homicides dropped about 40 percent between 1993 and 2018, from 7 per 100,000 people to 4.3 per 100,000 people (for nonfatal crimes involving guns, the decline was 71 percent).



Violent crime, including homicides, did spike during the pandemic, and while the most recent data is incomplete, it's clear that gun-related violence remains far below where it was 30 years ago despite more guns than ever being out there.

When it comes to schools, the 2020–21 academic year, the latest for which full data is available, did see the highest number of school shootingswith casualties this century. There are thankfully too few violent deaths to generate statistically significant conclusions, but the long-term trendsshow no increase in homicides or suicides among students, staff, and teachers.

Do 'more guns lead to more deaths'?
========
========


Bureau of Justice statistics...

The rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 persons age 12 or older declined 41% across the 26-year period of 1993 to 2018, from 8.4 to 5.0
homicides per 100,000 (figure 1). During the more recent 5 years from 2014 to 2018, this rate was between 4.0 and 5.2 homicides per 100,000 persons age 12 or older. A total of 150 persons age 11 or younger were victims of firearm homicide in 2018, resulting in a rate of 0.3 homicides per 100,000 persons in this age group (not shown).
-------
In 2018, there were 470,800 nonfatal firearm victimizations against persons age 12 or older, down 69% from 1.5 million in 1993 (table 2). Data on nonfatal firearm violence in this report are from
the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and include rape
or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault victimizations against persons age 12 or older in which the offender had, showed, or used a firearm.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

What changed in 2015?

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.

 

[Rumpole]

That very well might be, but that time for that is not now or any time soon. The democrats are not going to get 67 votes in the Senate and the House in the foreseeable future, and even then would all 67 Senate democrats or 67% in the House support the changes you support? They couldn't even get 51 Senate votes for their BBB Bill, what makes you think the democrats from red and purple states would risk ending their political careers by voting for this?

Not a point raised in the OP. Like I said, the point is a tree doesn't grow until a seed is planted.