LIVE: Obama giving a splendid lecture/scolding to American peasants on guns! BANNED private sales!

[OKTexas]

So the dear leader trots out victims of gun violence in an emotionally charged dog and pony show with fake tears and all.

Says if you're in the business of selling guns you must get an FFL, of course speaking in his normal platitudes and bumper sticker slogans he provided no detail as to what constitutes "being in the business of selling guns".

Wants more funding for mental health access after saying mental health is a benefit of maobamacare, so why is more money needed?

Wants to update the background system, that would require congressional action to provide funding.

Wants more FBI and ATF agents, once again a move that would require congressional action.

So what did he really say, well not much, just a lot of emotion, not much common senses, even though he used the phrase often.

My thoughts, **** off dear leader.

Your thoughts?

He is making a political statement to appease his audience.
Two other people said the 2nd Amendment arguments are empty pacifiers
to lend false security to calm false fears. Maybe the same can be said here?

The liberals use Obama like the Catholics use their Pope.
To issue public statements to establish what they are supposed to do, but make it official.

As long as liberals use Government as their God, then whatever
media coverage can be used to establish their beliefs and agenda,
that is what they keep using the President, Courts and Congress to do.

It's the liberal political religion to use Govt this way.

I say we need to divide this by party, so each party can have and practice (and fund and follow)
their OWN beliefs about govt, using their party and party leaders, structures, elections and policies that way.

And leave all parties to their own beliefs, to keep these out of federal govt.
by "separation of church and state" or "equal protection of all persons from discrimination by creed"

What do you think of THAT idea OKTexas ?
Calling for a Constitutional conference this year on an AGREED process how to identify
and SEPARATE political beliefs by party that are otherwise causing discrimination by creed.

Call it out for what it is. And get this conversation going in the right direction. Where are you in TX? Let me know, let's get it started. PM me and I'll invite you to some meetings to map out how to organize this. Texas is used to leading the nation in political DIY. Why not uphold that tradition?

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

Hempstead?

Nope if you look just below my avatar it says near Magnolia.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Is he or is he not trying to ban private gun sales right now?

If he really is, that's ******* unconstitutional.

Banning the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be near impossible. Adding further regulations, not so much

 

[PredFan]

Is he or is he not trying to ban private gun sales right now?

If he really is, that's ******* unconstitutional.

What he's doing is making it very difficult to privately sell a gun. If he had any power to do this, it would mean that I would have to find a FFL person to run a background check on my daughter to give her the gun I bought her for Christmas. Not impossible, not illegal but clearly an infringement on my rights.

 

[PredFan]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Without gun registration, how will they know?

 

[OKTexas]

So the dear leader trots out victims of gun violence in an emotionally charged dog and pony show with fake tears and all.

Says if you're in the business of selling guns you must get an FFL, of course speaking in his normal platitudes and bumper sticker slogans he provided no detail as to what constitutes "being in the business of selling guns".

Wants more funding for mental health access after saying mental health is a benefit of maobamacare, so why is more money needed?

Wants to update the background system, that would require congressional action to provide funding.

Wants more FBI and ATF agents, once again a move that would require congressional action.

So what did he really say, well not much, just a lot of emotion, not much common senses, even though he used the phrase often.

My thoughts, **** off dear leader.

Your thoughts?

He is making a political statement to appease his audience.
Two other people said the 2nd Amendment arguments are empty pacifiers
to lend false security to calm false fears. Maybe the same can be said here?

The liberals use Obama like the Catholics use their Pope.
To issue public statements to establish what they are supposed to do, but make it official.

As long as liberals use Government as their God, then whatever
media coverage can be used to establish their beliefs and agenda,
that is what they keep using the President, Courts and Congress to do.

It's the liberal political religion to use Govt this way.

I say we need to divide this by party, so each party can have and practice (and fund and follow)
their OWN beliefs about govt, using their party and party leaders, structures, elections and policies that way.

And leave all parties to their own beliefs, to keep these out of federal govt.
by "separation of church and state" or "equal protection of all persons from discrimination by creed"

What do you think of THAT idea OKTexas ?
Calling for a Constitutional conference this year on an AGREED process how to identify
and SEPARATE political beliefs by party that are otherwise causing discrimination by creed.

Call it out for what it is. And get this conversation going in the right direction. Where are you in TX? Let me know, let's get it started. PM me and I'll invite you to some meetings to map out how to organize this. Texas is used to leading the nation in political DIY. Why not uphold that tradition?

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Without gun registration, how will they know?

EXACTLY!

 

[PredFan]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Without gun registration, how will they know?

EXACTLY!

So the next step is gun registration right?

 

[emilynghiem]

So the dear leader trots out victims of gun violence in an emotionally charged dog and pony show with fake tears and all.

Says if you're in the business of selling guns you must get an FFL, of course speaking in his normal platitudes and bumper sticker slogans he provided no detail as to what constitutes "being in the business of selling guns".

Wants more funding for mental health access after saying mental health is a benefit of maobamacare, so why is more money needed?

Wants to update the background system, that would require congressional action to provide funding.

Wants more FBI and ATF agents, once again a move that would require congressional action.

So what did he really say, well not much, just a lot of emotion, not much common senses, even though he used the phrase often.

My thoughts, **** off dear leader.

Your thoughts?

He is making a political statement to appease his audience.
Two other people said the 2nd Amendment arguments are empty pacifiers
to lend false security to calm false fears. Maybe the same can be said here?

The liberals use Obama like the Catholics use their Pope.
To issue public statements to establish what they are supposed to do, but make it official.

As long as liberals use Government as their God, then whatever
media coverage can be used to establish their beliefs and agenda,
that is what they keep using the President, Courts and Congress to do.

It's the liberal political religion to use Govt this way.

I say we need to divide this by party, so each party can have and practice (and fund and follow)
their OWN beliefs about govt, using their party and party leaders, structures, elections and policies that way.

And leave all parties to their own beliefs, to keep these out of federal govt.
by "separation of church and state" or "equal protection of all persons from discrimination by creed"

What do you think of THAT idea OKTexas ?
Calling for a Constitutional conference this year on an AGREED process how to identify
and SEPARATE political beliefs by party that are otherwise causing discrimination by creed.

Call it out for what it is. And get this conversation going in the right direction. Where are you in TX? Let me know, let's get it started. PM me and I'll invite you to some meetings to map out how to organize this. Texas is used to leading the nation in political DIY. Why not uphold that tradition?

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

 

[OKTexas]

Is he or is he not trying to ban private gun sales right now?

If he really is, that's ******* unconstitutional.

What he's doing is making it very difficult to privately sell a gun. If he had any power to do this, it would mean that I would have to find a FFL person to run a background check on my daughter to give her the gun I bought her for Christmas. Not impossible, not illegal but clearly an infringement on my rights.

The fact is, congress has rejected changing the definition of a gun dealer and have rejected background checks for private sales multiple times and this POS has no constitutional authority to do it on his own. The courts will ***** slap him in short order.

 

[emilynghiem]

The fact is, congress has rejected changing the definition of a gun dealer and have rejected background checks for private sales multiple times and this POS has no constitutional authority to do it on his own. The courts will ***** slap him in short order.

Thanks OKTexas
maybe instead of "***** slapped"
he will get "pistol whipped"

 

[bucs90]

The "gun show loophole" sales pale in comparison to the "ghetto loop hole".

 

[OKTexas]

So the dear leader trots out victims of gun violence in an emotionally charged dog and pony show with fake tears and all.

Says if you're in the business of selling guns you must get an FFL, of course speaking in his normal platitudes and bumper sticker slogans he provided no detail as to what constitutes "being in the business of selling guns".

Wants more funding for mental health access after saying mental health is a benefit of maobamacare, so why is more money needed?

Wants to update the background system, that would require congressional action to provide funding.

Wants more FBI and ATF agents, once again a move that would require congressional action.

So what did he really say, well not much, just a lot of emotion, not much common senses, even though he used the phrase often.

My thoughts, **** off dear leader.

Your thoughts?

He is making a political statement to appease his audience.
Two other people said the 2nd Amendment arguments are empty pacifiers
to lend false security to calm false fears. Maybe the same can be said here?

The liberals use Obama like the Catholics use their Pope.
To issue public statements to establish what they are supposed to do, but make it official.

As long as liberals use Government as their God, then whatever
media coverage can be used to establish their beliefs and agenda,
that is what they keep using the President, Courts and Congress to do.

It's the liberal political religion to use Govt this way.

I say we need to divide this by party, so each party can have and practice (and fund and follow)
their OWN beliefs about govt, using their party and party leaders, structures, elections and policies that way.

And leave all parties to their own beliefs, to keep these out of federal govt.
by "separation of church and state" or "equal protection of all persons from discrimination by creed"

What do you think of THAT idea OKTexas ?
Calling for a Constitutional conference this year on an AGREED process how to identify
and SEPARATE political beliefs by party that are otherwise causing discrimination by creed.

Call it out for what it is. And get this conversation going in the right direction. Where are you in TX? Let me know, let's get it started. PM me and I'll invite you to some meetings to map out how to organize this. Texas is used to leading the nation in political DIY. Why not uphold that tradition?

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

Sounds nice on paper, wouldn't work in a community of 300 much less in a country of 300 million.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Without gun registration, how will they know?

EXACTLY!

So the next step is gun registration right?

Don't bother trying to bait me into some senseless argument. I'm sure you know what I said & what I meant. If not, re-read it with a touch of sarcasm to enhance the effect.

 

[emilynghiem]

He is making a political statement to appease his audience.
Two other people said the 2nd Amendment arguments are empty pacifiers
to lend false security to calm false fears. Maybe the same can be said here?

The liberals use Obama like the Catholics use their Pope.
To issue public statements to establish what they are supposed to do, but make it official.

As long as liberals use Government as their God, then whatever
media coverage can be used to establish their beliefs and agenda,
that is what they keep using the President, Courts and Congress to do.

It's the liberal political religion to use Govt this way.

I say we need to divide this by party, so each party can have and practice (and fund and follow)
their OWN beliefs about govt, using their party and party leaders, structures, elections and policies that way.

And leave all parties to their own beliefs, to keep these out of federal govt.
by "separation of church and state" or "equal protection of all persons from discrimination by creed"

What do you think of THAT idea OKTexas ?
Calling for a Constitutional conference this year on an AGREED process how to identify
and SEPARATE political beliefs by party that are otherwise causing discrimination by creed.

Call it out for what it is. And get this conversation going in the right direction. Where are you in TX? Let me know, let's get it started. PM me and I'll invite you to some meetings to map out how to organize this. Texas is used to leading the nation in political DIY. Why not uphold that tradition?

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

Sounds nice on paper, wouldn't work in a community of 300 much less in a country of 300 million.

We have to get rid of crime and abuse by working in communities of 300
before 3500 (the size of Rice U) and then 60,000 (the campus at UT).

If we are ever going to get govt in a manageable structure to represent whoever is paying the taxes.

By using a campus model for developing democratically managed infrastructure, businesses
and services http://www.houstonprogressive.org
this can accommodate any size, and string communities together to form a cohesive network,
that retains BOTH the advantages of collective larger govt AND the local accountability and participation in democratic processes.

The Parties already do this: have local elected leaders and conventions on Precinct scales, all the way to state and national. Why can't that structure be used to support health care coops and discounts FOR MEMBERS WHO AGREE instead of trying to establish one policy for the whole nation.

 

[PredFan]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Without gun registration, how will they know?

EXACTLY!

So the next step is gun registration right?

Don't bother trying to bait me into some senseless argument. I'm sure you know what I said & what I meant. If not, re-read it with a touch of sarcasm to enhance the effect.

I countered your snark with a baited comment. You think you should just get away without being punked back? You aren't special.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Dear JustAnotherNut and PredFan
If people don't agree to the law or to follow it, that's the whole problem.
People need a sense of ownership in the contract if it's going to be respected, it has to reflect their
interests and consent.

The federal level is not the place to try to "impose" order from the top down.
They key is working on the level of people and communities
to FORM an agreed social contract and standard of law.
Then there is vested interest in making sure all parties agree to follow that in order to participate in THAT community.

Teachers do this all the time, set up the classroom rules and have students AGREE to it at the beginning of the school year.

We should at least require the same of anybody turning 18 and becoming legally responsible as a citizen.

We should make sure they can pass a test on what the basic laws are, what the police and prison procedures
are if they are apprehended or commit a crime, and how much this costs taxpayers for prosecution or conviction, and AGREE to follow laws or else pay the costs for violations and infractions and restitution, if they want privileges and rights as a citizen in this society. Otherwise, get a sponsor to co-sign for legal and financial responsibility.

If someone else is always in charge of paying the costs or making the laws,
where is the respect and ownership for the laws?

We need to raise responsible independent adults, not teenagers forever depending on parental
authority to make the rules, and charge the costs for infractions to taxpayers paying for this experiment.

 

[martybegan]

The Dear Leader Obama is currently live on global television giving an epic lecture/scolding to all us peasants about gun control! It's splendid.

A few early Cliff Notes for all you racists who didn't tune in for the lesson:

- Obama said "tens of thousands of gun deaths in America each year". They must not teach math in Hawaii. America sees on average less than 10,000 per year. Not "tens of thousands" plural.



- Mass gun violence apparently doesn't happen anywhere else in the civilized world and "it's not even close"!! (Although we're 8th...behind Norway, Belgium and others in deaths from mass shootings)

- He is a constitutional scholar and knows what he's talking about. NO....he really said that....he reminded us how smart he is. That was actually part of his lecture...spouting his resume to remind us he's brilliant.

- Rights can be limited once we are civilized. He used the example of how we have to go through scanners to fly on planes (thanks to his Muslim cousins). But....failed to mention that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to FLY or fly armed on a PRIVATE company's airline.

- He apparently ignored that most gun violence is done by black ghetto criminals. Yeah....start there and you eliminate 70% of gun crimes Mr. President. But....you kinda demoralized cops who do exactly that.


- He brought up knife attacks in Asia...and said thanks to the killer not having a gun...fewer died. Yay. Just so happens the murder rate in medieval times was triple today's and they only had knives.


- He still hasn't mentioned the majority of gun deaths are done in black ghettos.


- He just outlawed private sales. Bam. Your grandpa wants to sell you his old hunting rifle? Cant. It's illegal now. Has to give it to a FFL now and have them sell it to you. A knife or bow and arrow? Sure that's ok. Just not a gun.

When he started his speech I went and took a shit. Appropriate tribute I think.

Appropriate picture of where you are and where he is....he's president and you produce nothing but shit.

Are you wearing kneepads? Don't want to chafe those caps....

 

[emilynghiem]

At last, a politician offering more than "thoughts and prayers". Background checks work. More stringent checks will work better. Makes sense.

Apparently not. We've had murders right ? Background checks didn't stop them.

We also have speeders. Should we let anyone drive whatever speed their car can reach? We've had shoplifters too..should we just allow anyone to take whatever they want off of shelves at a store?

Dear candycorn
Oh, but just mention ID checks for voters.
And suddenly Voting Rights takes precedent over any proposed regulation to try to curb abuses "because it's all a political ploy to erode Voting Rights"
(not to mention any regulation proposed to abortion rights, another sacred cow
that can't be touched regardless of the intent of such regulations)

When the shoe is on the other foot....

 

[PredFan]

I have no doubt private sales will continue without background checks. Breaking the law, thumbing your nose at authority and being a rebel is what being an American is all about. Right? I won't tell if you don't and as long as we don't get caught, who's going to know any different?

Dear JustAnotherNut and PredFan
If people don't agree to the law or to follow it, that's the whole problem.
People need a sense of ownership in the contract if it's going to be respected, it has to reflect their
interests and consent.

The federal level is not the place to try to "impose" order from the top down.
They key is working on the level of people and communities
to FORM an agreed social contract and standard of law.
Then there is vested interest in making sure all parties agree to follow that in order to participate in THAT community.

Teachers do this all the time, set up the classroom rules and have students AGREE to it at the beginning of the school year.

We should at least require the same of anybody turning 18 and becoming legally responsible as a citizen.

We should make sure they can pass a test on what the basic laws are, what the police and prison procedures
are if they are apprehended or commit a crime, and how much this costs taxpayers for prosecution or conviction, and AGREE to follow laws or else pay the costs for violations and infractions and restitution, if they want privileges and rights as a citizen in this society. Otherwise, get a sponsor to co-sign for legal and financial responsibility.

If someone else is always in charge of paying the costs or making the laws,
where is the respect and ownership for the laws?

We need to raise responsible independent adults, not teenagers forever depending on parental
authority to make the rules, and charge the costs for infractions to taxpayers paying for this experiment.

Um, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

 

[PredFan]

At last, a politician offering more than "thoughts and prayers". Background checks work. More stringent checks will work better. Makes sense.

Apparently not. We've had murders right ? Background checks didn't stop them.

We also have speeders. Should we let anyone drive whatever speed their car can reach? We've had shoplifters too..should we just allow anyone to take whatever they want off of shelves at a store?

Dear candycorn
Oh, but just mention ID checks for voters.
And suddenly Voting Rights takes precedent over any proposed regulation to try to curb abuses "because it's all a political ploy to erode Voting Rights"
(not to mention any regulation proposed to abortion rights, another sacred cow
that can't be touched regardless of the intent of such regulations)

When the shoe is on the other foot....

Post Of The Year so far.