CDZ Guns, Culture & Politics

[Mac1958]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

 

[Mac1958]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

Capitulate what?

 

[Mac1958]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

Capitulate what?

I pointed it out in the OP: "If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners."

If your response is "no, we can't give an inch", that's my point.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

Capitulate what?

I pointed it out in the OP: "If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners."

If your response is "no, we can't give an inch", that's my point.
.

I've asked you twice now, what should be given? What new law would have prevented Parkland?

 

[Mac1958]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

Capitulate what?

I pointed it out in the OP: "If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners."

If your response is "no, we can't give an inch", that's my point.
.

I've asked you twice now, what should be given? What new law would have prevented Parkland?

None. Nothing could have prevented Parkland. You win. Never mind.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

This is what I'm talking about. As long as this is the debate, those who are enabling our decaying culture continue to win. Sometimes a smart overall strategy has to include a little capitulation here and there.
.

Capitulate what?

I pointed it out in the OP: "If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners."

If your response is "no, we can't give an inch", that's my point.
.

I've asked you twice now, what should be given? What new law would have prevented Parkland?

None. Nothing could have prevented Parkland. You win. Never mind.
.

Exactly...the left's ultimate goal is a gun ban. They will use incremental tactics, first the ARs, then all semi autos, then hand guns.

They think we don't realize .....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

My definition of reasonable likely differs from yours.

Why SHOULD I give an inch? Every time an inch is given, they come back in six months for another inch. Time to take the inches back.

I agree in general with your assessment of the culture.

 

[Mac1958]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

My definition of reasonable likely differs from yours.

Why SHOULD I give an inch? Every time an inch is given, they come back in six months for another inch. Time to take the inches back.

I agree in general with your assessment of the culture.

It's a matter of priority. The culture is a much bigger issue to me. A law can be changed or removed.

As we wrestle over this, another hyper-violent video game is being played, another cop-killing song is being recorded, another bloody movie is being watched.
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

My definition of reasonable likely differs from yours.

Why SHOULD I give an inch? Every time an inch is given, they come back in six months for another inch. Time to take the inches back.

I agree in general with your assessment of the culture.

It's a matter of priority. The culture is a much bigger issue to me. A law can be changed or removed.

As we wrestle over this, another hyper-violent video game is being played, another cop-killing song is being recorded, another bloody movie is being watched.
.

The market will decide. You cannot legislate morality without totalitarianism, and we're not going that way. When people tire of it, it will go the other way quite naturally.

 

[Mac1958]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

My definition of reasonable likely differs from yours.

Why SHOULD I give an inch? Every time an inch is given, they come back in six months for another inch. Time to take the inches back.

I agree in general with your assessment of the culture.

It's a matter of priority. The culture is a much bigger issue to me. A law can be changed or removed.

As we wrestle over this, another hyper-violent video game is being played, another cop-killing song is being recorded, another bloody movie is being watched.
.

The market will decide. You cannot legislate morality without totalitarianism, and we're not going that way. When people tire of it, it will go the other way quite naturally.

The market is definitely deciding, and here we are.
.

 

[Taz]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

 

[Mac1958]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

My definition of reasonable likely differs from yours.

Why SHOULD I give an inch? Every time an inch is given, they come back in six months for another inch. Time to take the inches back.

I agree in general with your assessment of the culture.

It's a matter of priority. The culture is a much bigger issue to me. A law can be changed or removed.

As we wrestle over this, another hyper-violent video game is being played, another cop-killing song is being recorded, another bloody movie is being watched.
.

The market will decide. You cannot legislate morality without totalitarianism, and we're not going that way. When people tire of it, it will go the other way quite naturally.

The market is definitely deciding, and here we are.
.

And by the way, I didn't say anything about legislating morality. A culture changes and decays within the rules, and that's why it's so difficult to reverse.

Look at how many changes we've seen that had nothing to do with legislation. This culture has become diseased over time and through our society, and that's the only way it can be healed. By "popular demand". Not with laws.
.

 

[Taz]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a whole class of people be refused that right.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a class of people be refused that right.

A Constitutional right is not a strawman...good gawd

 

[ChrisL]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

But they can't drink alcohol. Why is it that they are entrusted with all of these important responsibilities at 18, yet they are considered too immature to be able to have a drink?