That second crap was supposed to be "childish and unhelpful". I made a personal resolution for this year that I have too little time, and too little patience. And I am not willing to engage with people who are mean, or parrot talking points, or are belittling of others.
Not that those people don't have valid points of view, just that I don't have the time or patience to get past those issues into substance. Time and patience are too precious. And unfortunately, I expect this resolution to keep me out of a LOT of discussions. Thank God and Google for "mute" on gmail. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hear hear > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I won't engage with you at all. > > > > You lost me with your "anointed one" crap at the beginning. > > > > I think that is crap. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Sorge <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So Biden said that the anointed one might enact executive action and > > > tighten gun control in the U.S. This means no vote in Congress. The AG > is > > > trying to figure out the details of whether or not this can be done, > and > > if > > > so how to legally go about doing it. And the chosen one is also > > endorsing a > > > renewal of the assault weapons ban, improving background checks as well > > as > > > restricting the size of high capacity magazines. > > > > > > What I find interesting is that he would consider executive action. I > > > mean, almost 50% of American's own weapons (according to 2010 data from > > > http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). I imagine that the number is a > > > little higher now. That's a LOT of potentially pissed off people if > this > > > happens. > > > > > > What I also find interesting is that he wants to ban military assault > > > weapons which is silly since according to another study ( > > > http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) assault weapons > > account > > > for a mere .20% of all violent crimes that involved a gun. To be > honest I > > > don't know what good will come out of an assault weapons ban. I mean, > > guys > > > like Tim and I can clear a room just as easily with a Remington .223 > > Ranch > > > as we can with an M-4 or M-16. And they fire the same caliber of round. > > > It's silly to assume that just because Bushmaster .223 rifles were used > > in > > > the Washington DC shootings and Newton, that banning these weapons will > > > stop shootings. What if the shooter in Newton could not get his hands > on > > > this type of a weapon? What if his mother only had lets say a 30.06? I > > > would imagine that he would have used that one instead. Of course we > > won't > > > ever know for sure. > > > > > > And of course let's look at a great example of how gun bans/control > DON'T > > > work - Chicago. I do not need to go into all the details since pro-gun > > > activists are all over this and there are countless stories about this > on > > > the interwebs. And let's not forget Washington D.C. The murder rate > there > > > fell 25% once the gun ban was lifted according to the Washington Times > > back > > > in 2010. Oh, and it rose up considerably when the gun ban was enacted. > > > > > > I am all for tighter background checks (meaning more thorough). This is > > > not an issue for law abiding citizens who are allowed to own a weapon. > > What > > > I also think should be done is to take a look at the silliness of some > of > > > the restrictions that are in place to allow people to own a firearm who > > are > > > in particular situations such as Tim's (apologies if I spoke out of > line > > > Tim). But, I feel that regardless of what laws may come, guns are here > to > > > stay and banning certain weapons and tightening control will not help > > since > > > criminals have always found a way to get a gun the same as they were > able > > > to get booze and make millions of dollars during prohibition. And > > besides, > > > no criminal ever saw a sign stating that an area was a gun free zone > and > > > decided to move on to where there were guns. When is the last time you > > read > > > about a mass shooting at a gun show or firing range? > > > > > > And speaking of making certain weapons illegal, I am sure cocaine, > meth, > > > acid, certain mushrooms, ecstasy and the like are still illegal, but > yet > > > tons of the stuff end up across our borders. Making something illegal > > will > > > not make it go away. > > > > > > The study done on justfacts.com is interesting, especially the part > > where > > > it shows how many citizens (not law enforcement and the like) > > successfully > > > defended themselves and/or their property with a weapon. I just wish > the > > > prez and others behind him would stop with the knee jerk reactions and > > > starting talking about things more important, like what's going to > happen > > > to administration officials who are responsible for four American's > dying > > > senselessly four months ago. Or actually passing a budget. Or stop > > > defunding the military and systematically dismantling it as is always > the > > > case post war. Or reducing our national debt. Or taking care of > domestic > > > issues. LIttle things like that. > > > > > > These are just my thoughts. Let the debating and name calling begin. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359823 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
