JoeBob

Every now and then, when I get all lathered up, I think that I'm trying to get a forum member to 'ignore' me. It would make me feel more at home. You know, like my wife was online....

Someone suggested requiring teachers to take firearms training. I think that's a complete no-go. But allowing school personnel who are comfortable with firearms to take additional training to certify their competence, and then carry at school should almost eliminate the problem. It's the element of uncertainty that deters the Bad Guys. They don't go to police stations and gun stores to kill people. They go where they know that no one will be shooting back: schools and 'Gun Free' theaters. The proposal to increase the penalties for carrying a gun near a school is just bass-ackwards. In NONE of the mass shootings on record would a longer jail term have deterred a shooter from choosing that particular target. The Dems are just making it damn sure that schools are safe targets for future crazies. **** Has the thought occurred to anyone else that maybe the Gun Control people won't consider common sense approaches because if the problem gets solved without to total elimination of guns, they won't have reached their goal?

Beavah, what parameters would 'reasonable legislation' include for you? I'd be willing to forego 30 round magazines. I can't defend them, except on principle. 20 rounds was plenty back in the day. I can see 20 rounds getting winched further down to 10. If you want to completely ban full-autos and drop-in sears, I can certainly agree to that. I'll even be willing to talk about returning to the failed 'assault weapons' ban. --BUT-- I'd only be willing to surrender those rights in exchange for legislation that would 1- Guarantee that this is as far as it goes! (Gun control advocates have a proven history of mission creep: today, assault weapons, next, high-powered ammo, then semi-autos... etc.) 2- Contain some useful items, like allowing concealed carry by school personnel. You know, something that might actually achieve a result. *** When Lanza was turned away trying to purchase a gun on his own the week before, I think some sort of notification should have gone out: "Crazy kid tried to buy a gun; somebody check it out!"

Beavah, I totally disagree with your assumption that TAXES should be a vehicle for cultural change. We have too much government as it is. Mass shootings in schools have increased five-fold since schools were made 'gun free zones. For what it's worth, I agree with you that armed guards aren't a good solution. Allowing school personnel the option of concealed carry would be much more effective, and cost nothing.(This message has been edited by JoeBob)

Admittedly a right wing source; but their argument is still valid: "it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on or just recently coming off of psychiatric medications." http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/ Where are the conspiracy guys comparing the profits of the drug companies to the profits of the gun industry?

Back to the OP: "If the media were honestly looking for solutions to gun violence, they should have jumped on the San Antonio to show the difference a good person with a gun can make." http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14071-the-san-antonio-theater-shooting-the-media-ignored "the recent San Antonio theater shooting should be more than enough to persuade all but the most hardened and determined enemies of the Second Amendment that the best thing is for more people to be armed and enabled to resist threats like these, rather than fewer. But the media aren't listening. Those incidents dont fit the narrative." And: "Mass shootings in schools increased five times after the legislation mandating gun free zones around schools was enacted in 1990. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia/news/congressman-introduces-audit-the-fed-act-safe-schools-act-to/article_96d036c2-579b-11e2-b588-0019bb2963f4.html http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Since when does "Guns present in home" belong in my medical records?

As you wish!

Skeptic, you're completely right. (Er; correct?) Every individual's 'facts' are colored by their own experience. I think that posts to the 'Issues & Politics' forum fall into the following categories: 1- Camaraderie: Getting support for your own 'facts' from like minded individuals. 2- Practice: Working out the language phrasing for an idea in order to best be able to convince others (in the real world) to join your point of view. 3- Sparring: Trying out your sharpened ideas on mental opponents. 4- Socializing: Got nothing better to do. (And can type almost as fast as they can think.) Notice that I did not suggest that folks posted to this forum seeking to have their 'facts' proven false. I don't know if that personality type exists. People seldom are moved to post when mostly they agree with a topic. They will add subtleties, if they think they're important. And they'll always jump in if they have major information to add if their side seems to be behind! Or if they feel that a group with they identify is being seriously maligned. The subtlety that I'd like to add to your OP is that most serious busy people don't take the time to add to a topic unless they are already emotionally invested in the subject. And people thinking emotionally never have open minds; so we may as well acknowledge that we'll never change someone's position. Accept that, and you can enjoy the sparring!

"According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29 New Laws we gotta have: License all assault hammers. Ban high capacity hammers 10 day "cooling off" period for semi-auto hammer purchases. No hammer zones around schools. Require background checks for 'Hammer Carry Permits'

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky has the largest Orthodox congregation in Teaneck, New Jersey: The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didnt get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues the traditional American virtues of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the loss leader or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obamas America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who courtesy of Obama receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible. The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which 47% of the people start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money free stuff from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game they dont care about high taxes, promoting business or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone elses expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes and for President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it. That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters the clear majority are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person! Stevenson called back: Thats not enough, madam, we need a majority! Truer words were never spoken. Obama could get away with saying that Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the rich should pay their fair share without ever defining what a fair share is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to fend for themselves without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. Obama also knows that the electorate has changed that whites will soon be a minority in America (theyre already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it,and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won. Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his negative ads were simple facts, never personal abuse facts about high lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devils bargain of making unsustainable promises. It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan people of substance, depth and ideas to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy of class warfare never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe is paved. For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obamas future at Americas expense and at Israels expense in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. The Occupy riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution. If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

OGE: If you can smell me over the internet, that's a good computer!

Moose, "Try looking for ways to cut in places that do not take pleasure in hurting the poor and middle class." If you really believe that anyone is looking for ways to hurt the poor and middle class, then I'm not sure you're worth talking to. JoeBob

Hey Moose, This is not an attack on you personally; this is an attack on your credibility as a college professor who should be able to use correct grammar. 1/2/2013: 3:47:45 AM "But, your of the Republican poll watchers" you're "lenthening the ballot to rediculous lenthens.. All voter suppression." lengthening ridiculous lengths "they came out to vote in a larger percentage then any other group," than 1/3/2013: 5:01:29 AM "Right now their is a civil war within your party" there "the Democratic party start to evovole and change soon" evolve 1/3/2013: 8:27:33 AM "find a way to rise up to take it's place" its ""Your on your own"" You're on your own. Mistake repeated twice. "civil rights is accredited to the President we had when it was created," credited Moose, all the above are careless errors you've made just on page 11, not counting obvious typos, tense errors, and subject verb mismatch. How about taking a little 'personal responsibility' for your abuse of the English language?

Moose, Do you teach Political Science, or Political Indoctrination? Your outlook is incredibly one-sided. It is a tad scary to think that you actually believe the twaddle you type. The bright side is that intelligent college kids usually rebel against what they're taught once they get their grade... "I can site you many people who do state this about your party though." I believe you meant 'cite'.

Qwazse, I'm curious: Do you think this is adults bridling at useless national box re-checking, or just really busy people? Or a little of both. A possible third option: they may have renewed YPT and it's not showing up. I had to eMail a screen grab of the 'View Certificate' when I renewed this year.

The reflection? I am UGLY! But resigned to living with it. So I try to make up for my horrific visage with my good works. Helping the boys makes me feel good. So I do it; because I'm selfish enough to like feeling good. ;^)

Basement, At least I tried to add something to the discussion beyond ad hominem warbling.

Mac! Delete Duplicate Post (This message has been edited by JoeBob)

Oh Heck. More grenades? I think the alleged 'point' of Prisoner's Dilemma is wrong. It's okay to admit that you are looking out for yourself, number one. Selfish is just fine, greed is good. We are all that way. But some of us were raised to enjoy helping others. When we volunteer in 'selfless service', we do so to make ourselves feel good. Ain't no big thing. But it is a huge thing for a national organization that prospers from the free labor of volunteers to instill in those volunteers a culture of working for free. Harumph. Six, seven, eight.........

Yep; and now this Scout Troop will be a target on their deep woods outings after the growers get out of jail. Unless those leaders think that spending two to three years in prison will make better people of the drug offenders? I'm sure that they will want to thank those Boy Scouts for turning them in. Any reason here for a leader to be carrying concealed?

I'm having fun watching the undercurrents of this discussion. There are arguments based on logic, experience, and realism: "people with CCW permits have some of the lowest crime rates of any demographic. That CCW holders frequently save lives." "How long is it going to take for a Park Ranger to come to your aid when your boys are threatened" "Just because I am Scouting doesn't mean the world suddenly became less dangerous." "I laughed for years when G2sS prohibited anything resembling a firearm while the top prize for selling popcorn was a marshmallow shooter." "I worked at a Scout Camp where we were confronted by a group of vandals with knives, and other improvised weapons." **** And there are arguments based on emotion: "I fear people I meet who DO pack heat" "I am just alarmed at the number of adult men that can not go on a scout outing unarmed." "I had no idea how insecure my fellow scouters are. I am just mystified at the lack of confidence,fear and hiding behind the "Being Prepared" to carry a gun." "yeh just don't have enough experience so your imagination is runnin' wild, or it might be a more serious mental health condition" "People who are that stupid shouldn't be allowed to carry." "Maybe we need to add a course in self esteem and confidence to the BSA leader training list" Whichever type of argument you are making, it is FUN to watch it lather up!! BTW: Merry Christmas, y'all!

Anybody else ever had the joy of bushwhacking into a garden patch of marijuana? Surprise! The first time I was scouting for bow season in a year old national forest clear-cut. You know where all that fresh green growth attracts deer? And there is plenty of sunlight in a remote location... I was carrying, but I figured that the 'gardeners' would have me over-matched. The hair on my neck didn't lay down for a couple of miles! The second time we found a patch on our hunting lease. Reported it; watched it; made note of any strange tire tracks. It went away one night.

Responsible Concealed Carry is tantamount to accepting some of the responsibility for the safety of those around you. Be it in the woods, in the mall, in the movies, or in the elementary schools. You can deride the CCW permit holder as a paranoid lunatic here. But he'll still let you say "Thank you." after the fact.

Guns exist. Sorry, that is the way it is now and always will be. Can anyone think of a tool or piece of technology that has been legally banned and then disappeared? But the existence of guns is a good thing: "Yes, the handgun is one of the most equalizing pieces of technology ever made without a doubt. The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The firearm is the best tool ever invented to remove the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. The firearm is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable." God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.