Join the fight

[Timmy!]

If we are going to go on stats, we will need to eliminate baseball, according to the FBI latest data baseball bats is the number one weapon of choice by murderers.

Source? Please post it up, I love data! Must be a huge rise given the link I posted to the FBI's site shows that in 2011 there were 8,583 murders by gun and only 496 by "Blunt objects(clubs,hammers,etc.)". What you are saying is that the current laws have suddenly started working if there are more murders by baseball bat than guns in only one year.

[chpthril]

Just yanking your chain on the Republican and Nickypoo thing.

In all sincerity one of the main "root cause" is based on the deterioration of the family. The social institution of the family is extremely crucial to a healthy society. I have invested a very large sum in the past 2 years to help fund a new 501C4 social welfare corporation (Social / Political Movement in short) that spearheads family court policy in the 6th circuit. As I may seem contentious to many, to your surprise I am deeply involved in the "social cure".

For those that might have questions, our family court system is based on policy, not law, of which is adversarial based. A system designed to keep divorced parents in a endless state of conflict. The antidote is collaborative policy that seeks to find amicable resolve versus endless nothingness that gets resolved when both parties are bankrupt. This is not another "angry dad" movement, it core supporters is the BAR and the mental health community. Secondary supporters are the public educators, social welfare community, and lastly the religious community. In short, we want policy that open and serves the communities best interest and policy that seeks the best interest of the families and their children. We actually have it, but our chief judge and family court executive put their middle finger up to the supreme court and the family and children steering committee's rulings.

We will be the 2nd PAC (political action committee) in the US that's geared towards the judicial community.

Politics is fun if (and only if) you can remain objective, rational and seek compromise. Thus, board members cannot currently be involved in litigation.

The answers require us to put down our partisanship.

I must be under the weather, cause I agree with you....twice in one day

As a society, we want Gov-Co to raise and discipline our kids for us, yet we want discipline removed from school. We want to ban McDonald's cause its the reason our kids are fat, yet we have taken recess and PE out of school. If your 9 year old has a weight problem, then take away his credit card and drivers licence so he cant go by the fast food joint twice a day.

We have WAAYYYY too many young men running around without positive male role models in their lives. We have too many young girls running around without a positive mother figure in their lives. Too many kids are being "raised" and I use that term lightly, by an Auntie or Grandmama and not the actual parents. The baby-daddy is nothing more then a sperm donor and the baby-momma is out looking for the next one. Community leaders make it into a racial problem, then place blame on one particular sector and NOT the actual people. Again, it comes down to taking responsibility for ones self.

This is where Gov-Co needs to get out of our lives and stop being the enabler. If the Gov would stop supporting people from the cradle to the grave, people would become self sufficient and responsible.

I know this is off the course for the gun debate, but its still relevant to the fact that we have TOO much Gov in our lives.

[Timmy!]

Very well said Mike!

[IDBoating]

This is where Gov-Co needs to get out of our lives and stop being the enabler.

Won't happen, though, because politicians have figured out that they can buy votes with government programs for which the bill will come due long after they have retired from a "successful" political career. In other words, they can buy their way into office with promises that someone else will have to pay for. They have precisely ZERO motivation to stop that gravy train.

That is the true cause of the current economic crisis. Yes, the nation as a whole became aware of it due to the latest "scandal" (Wall Street/CDO's/whatever) but that is literally just the tip of an unimaginably large iceberg. Current estimates have our outstanding unfunded obligations at ~$100 TRILLION dollars. The "national debt" that "scares" everyone is but ~$16T of that. The other ~$84 Trillion is SSA, Medicare, un(der)funded pensions at the local and state level (which are backed by the fedgov!), etc.

As just one example, it is estimated that California's state pensions are underfunded to the tune of $500 Billion. Instead of putting that money away to fund their pension obligations, the politicians have spent it over the decades on whatever got them the most votes. Guess who is on the hook for that $500B? Hint: It's not the State of California.

I am waiting for someone, ANYone, to propose a realistic plan for covering $100T of obligations. We could impose a 100% tax on the 1%'ers and it wouldn't even come close. There is absolutely no possible way we can cover $100T. And the vast, vast majority of that number comes from government programs (read: political promises) made over several decades by politicians who knew they would be long out of office before anyone had to deal with the fallout of their irresponsibility.

In their day, when the politicians made those promises, they were hailed as heroes to {insert special interest group d'jour}. It sounds just wonderful that we would "do something" for children/elderly/handicapped/veterans/homeless/injured/underfed/underclothed/undereducated/underprivileged/you-name-it. But those dollars add up... those programs get expanded to include more and more people... the good intentions pile on top of each other... until today we're staring at $100T in promises and an entire nation of people who have been duped into believing that we can afford to keep all of those promises.

The true beneficiaries of those programs are the politicians who got (re)elected using them. The rest of us are stuck dealing with the mess they created and then walked away from. And I have no idea how we are going to do that cleanly and fairly.

[ricsha91]

Won't happen, though, because politicians have figured out that they can buy votes with government programs for which the bill will come due long after they have retired from a "successful" political career. In other words, they can buy their way into office with promises that someone else will have to pay for. They have precisely ZERO motivation to stop that gravy train.

That is the true cause of the current economic crisis. Yes, the nation as a whole became aware of it due to the latest "scandal" (Wall Street/CDO's/whatever) but that is literally just the tip of an unimaginably large iceberg. Current estimates have our outstanding unfunded obligations at ~$100 TRILLION dollars. The "national debt" that "scares" everyone is but ~$16T of that. The other ~$84 Trillion is SSA, Medicare, un(der)funded pensions at the local and state level (which are backed by the fedgov!), etc.

As just one example, it is estimated that California's state pensions are underfunded to the tune of $500 Billion. Instead of putting that money away to fund their pension obligations, the politicians have spent it over the decades on whatever got them the most votes. Guess who is on the hook for that $500B? Hint: It's not the State of California.

I am waiting for someone, ANYone, to propose a realistic plan for covering $100T of obligations. We could impose a 100% tax on the 1%'ers and it wouldn't even come close. There is absolutely no possible way we can cover $100T. And the vast, vast majority of that number comes from government programs (read: political promises) made over several decades by politicians who knew they would be long out of office before anyone had to deal with the fallout of their irresponsibility.

In their day, when the politicians made those promises, they were hailed as heroes to {insert special interest group d'jour}. It sounds just wonderful that we would "do something" for children/elderly/handicapped/veterans/homeless/injured/underfed/underclothed/undereducated/underprivileged/you-name-it. But those dollars add up... those programs get expanded to include more and more people... the good intentions pile on top of each other... until today we're staring at $100T in promises and an entire nation of people who have been duped into believing that we can afford to keep all of those promises.

The true beneficiaries of those programs are the politicians who got (re)elected using them. The rest of us are stuck dealing with the mess they created and then walked away from. And I have no idea how we are going to do that cleanly and fairly.

Well said!!!!!

[MoneyPity]

I firmly believe in the right to be able to bear and own arms. I do not believe that we need semi automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons with Hi capacity clips that can do the type of destruction that they do. I love going to rifle range or a pistol range and shooting off you clips. I relate to the hunting laws in Illinois were even though most automatic or semi automatic shotguns have the capability of five rounds are more that the law to preserve game has restricted the boded limit to be three Rounds.

Someone please convince me why we need assault rifles in the general public. I firmly believe we as a nation need to Do a much better job in regulating who can buy a weapon of mass destruction like an assault rifle. Background checks if they're done better may have a positive impact on what is going on but a background check this history is not current thinking of the human mind and in many cases and many states where there is no waiting. The background check really is not going to do a lot of good. Don't take me wrong I believe in Second Amendment rights and are right to bear and own firearms my question is what type of firearms should we be able to bear. I am very familiar with the A.R. 15 which is a Mattel toy as compared to many other weapons but it is so easy to convert that weapon to have the full capabilities of an M-16 it is sad to think that we put that weapon in the hands of anybody who wants to own one if they pass our current regulations and tests.

My Youngest daughter went through the Northern Illinois University shootings a few years ago before she graduated. Even Though her life was endangered I still believe wholeheartedly as an ex-military person as well as a general citizen that we do have the right to bear arms. But, I believe there should be some restrictions on what type of arm's number one nothing that can be easily converted into a fully automatic weapon weather is be an assault rifle or pistol or for that matter A Shotgun.

[dom w. forte]

Source? Please post it up, I love data! Must be a huge rise given the link I posted to the FBI's site shows that in 2011 there were 8,583 murders by gun and only 496 by "Blunt objects(clubs,hammers,etc.)". What you are saying is that the current laws have suddenly started working if there are more murders by baseball bat than guns in only one year.

My point was if you read all the FBI data there were multiple different types of weapons used besides guns and that banning any one type wasnt going to change our situation.
How many bullits comeing out of a gun will not change the number of how many can be killed by one person in a set time frame.
But again working on the issues causeing the person that is pulling the trigger to get help will, the last several post are going in the right dirrection.

[robert theisen]

Do you actually think a automatic rifle can do more damage in a school environment than a tactical shotgun or a 9mm semi automatic in the right hands? The people committing these crimes are mentally unstable.So we should punish everyone because some are unstable.Using the same logic we should ban riding lawn mowers because a mentally unstable person could do more physical harm with one than a person with a push mower.When are people going to realize guns don't kill people,mentally unstable people kill people.

[Nobody]

I firmly believe in the right to be able to bear and own arms. I do not believe that we need semi automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons with Hi capacity clips that can do the type of destruction that they do. I love going to rifle range or a pistol range and shooting off you clips. I relate to the hunting laws in Illinois were even though most automatic or semi automatic shotguns have the capability of five rounds are more that the law to preserve game has restricted the boded limit to be three Rounds.

Someone please convince me why we need assault rifles in the general public. I firmly believe we as a nation need to Do a much better job in regulating who can buy a weapon of mass destruction like an assault rifle. Background checks if they're done better may have a positive impact on what is going on but a background check this history is not current thinking of the human mind and in many cases and many states where there is no waiting. The background check really is not going to do a lot of good. Don't take me wrong I believe in Second Amendment rights and are right to bear and own firearms my question is what type of firearms should we be able to bear. I am very familiar with the A.R. 15 which is a Mattel toy as compared to many other weapons but it is so easy to convert that weapon to have the full capabilities of an M-16 it is sad to think that we put that weapon in the hands of anybody who wants to own one if they pass our current regulations and tests.

My Youngest daughter went through the Northern Illinois University shootings a few years ago before she graduated. Even Though her life was endangered I still believe wholeheartedly as an ex-military person as well as a general citizen that we do have the right to bear arms. But, I believe there should be some restrictions on what type of arm's number one nothing that can be easily converted into a fully automatic weapon weather is be an assault rifle or pistol or for that matter A Shotgun.

I agree with moneypity, even thought he can't read my reply.

[Ewok]

The way I see it, we've already started down the slippery slope and we need to be careful. The reason the second amendment exists is so that the people as a whole can defend themselves from a corrupt tyrannical government. Many say that should not matter anymore since average citizens with an AR-15 cannot stop an army tank, and that is true. So we've already started down the slope where the government has banned the type of arms the people would need to stand up to the Army. But the way I see it, people in the military have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the sitting government, and should be trained properly to only obey lawful orders. I would hope that a group of citizens fighting for their rights would give pause to the tank commander and make him/her question the lawful status of those orders. I hope it never comes to that but those are some of the protections we have in place in our constitution.

As far as background checks, I think there are a few who should not be able to purchase a gun but that is a slippery slope too. For starters if you are declared mentally incapable and not allowed to vote, then you should not have a gun as well, that is easy. Now comes the tougher part, if your declared by a mental health professional to be a danger to yourself or the public, no gun, but who are the mental health professionals and how do we monitor them to ensure they do not abuse their power and deny guns for all their patients. If it comes close to that I think people who need mental healthcare might not seek it for fear of loosing their rights, not just guns but any other rights they might tack on as well.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope, we are already on it and knee jerk reactions to a tragedy is not going to fix the problem.

Guns have been around a long time, and semi-automatic handguns and rifles have been around since WWI, but ask yourself, what has changed, what is new in the last 30 years in society that could have some influence on gun violence?

[konajay]

Well said Ewok

[konajay]

The only difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto is that the AR looks different cosmetically. If the powers to be ban AR's, and a few years down the road the statistics remain unchanged, the govt will then decide that they need to expand their list to include probably about 80% of the guns on the market. This is what anti gunners want, the eventual disarming of America. Everyone knows that this cannot be achieved at once, so they will chip away at our rights a little at a time.

[IDBoating]

Guns have been around a long time, and semi-automatic handguns and rifles have been around since WWI, but ask yourself, what has changed, what is new in the last 30 years in society that could have some influence on gun violence?

That is exactly the question. Kids and guns have co-existed since before our Republic was founded. Grandpa kept his loaded shotgun behind the kitchen door. Heck, when I was in elementary school in in the 60's in San Diego **California** kids brought their Dad's rifles, sidearms, and ammunition to school for show and tell - and nothing happened.

So it's not the firearms. Something else has changed. "Banning" firearms is treating the symptom, not the disease. And until we treat the disease we're just kidding ourselves.

[IDBoating]

The only difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto is that the AR looks different cosmetically. If the powers to be ban AR's, and a few years down the road the statistics remain unchanged

We already have this data. The 1994 Clinton Gun Ban, which lasted for ten years, tested this exact theory. The data shows that there was no significant reduction in gun-related crime while the ban was in effect.

What was the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah - "Doing the same thing again, but this time expecting different results."

[Timmy!]

The way I see it, we've already started down the slippery slope and we need to be careful. The reason the second amendment exists is so that the people as a whole can defend themselves from a corrupt tyrannical government.

That is definitely the reason it is there but unfortunately our incessant need to dominate everyone else has allowed our Govt to have the largest and most powerful military in the world and no matter how many guns the citizens have, we would be crushed in an instant if the govt turned on the people. Couple of drone strikes here, some daisy cutters or other bombs there, tanks, jets, Humvee's, etc. What we really need to do is scale back our military so the citizens have a fighting chance.
This should really stir up some comments