Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The Las Vegas Shooting -- Political Version

lovedogs said:
@Kath thanks for posting. The hypocrisy is what I find most infuriating. Making legislation to limit the rights of women? GREAT! Making legislation that limits the rights of gun owners to have high caliber weapons with shit tons of bullets in each clip? NO NO NO! CANNOT HAPPEN! THE HORROR!

Goes back to @deejay's point. I've always said that if middle class white men were the ones who wanted abortions, it would have been freely legal without restrictions decades ago.
Click to expand...


If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion clinics would be easily accessible. Heck there would probably be one on every corner considering how many men feel about using birth control.


Can't say that surprises me @t-c
 
Considering how much money the medical industry spent developing Viagra I'm sure the world could have used that money to solve so many other medical issues but no old white dude's getting it up has to be a major medical priority. And don't get me started about the irony of the same men wanting to control women's reproductive choices.....
 
Dee*Jay said:
I've heard many times that the way that AIDS would have received adequate funding for a cure to be found is if it affected middle aged straight white men. I fear this is the same thing -- unless the violence is turned upon that same group nothing will be done. (To be clear: I am not wishing violence on any one or any group, I am speaking illustratively.) That group, ironically, is the one calling for controls to remain unchanged or even loosened (silencers anyone?), and also the least affected in many recent mass murder situations (Sandy Hook and Columbine [children], Orlando [gays], a number of college campus shootings). And also (to clear up any obtusity), I am not saying middle aged straight white men weren't affected by extension due to these deaths, but they as a group, were not the main recipients of the violence. If that were indeed the case I truly believe there would be ALL SORTS of gun control passed in a New York Minute.
Click to expand...

It seems you're correct, @Dee*Jay. One of the performers, Caleb Keeter has changed his mind about the 2nd Amendment after he thought he was going to die in the Vegas shooting.

The first response listed on Twitter is from @mondosalvo: "While I'm glad you and yours are alive, it took a personal assault to change your mind? It's called empathy. You had none until today."

Untitled.jpeg
 
t-c said:
It seems you're correct, @Dee*Jay. One of the performers, Caleb Keeter has changed his mind about the 2nd Amendment after he thought he was going to die in the Vegas shooting.

The first response listed on Twitter is from @mondosalvo: "While I'm glad you and yours are alive, it took a personal assault to change your mind? It's called empathy. You had none until today."

Untitled.jpeg
Click to expand...

Being "right" in this instance just makes me sad...
 
I wish I would have thought of this one.
Screen Shot 2017-10-04 at 1.00.31 PM.png
 
I can't believe that some people fear gun control means "taking away [my] guns".

The first amendment has restrictions/limitations. Right? Nobody (well someone might) thinks that it's illogical/unreasonable that you shouldnt proclaim that you have a bomb while in an airport. And if you do, you will be detained. Because your right to free speech does not override the right of others to be safe/alive/unmaimed. If you could seriously say whatever you wanted "because it is [my] right" there could be no slander/libel. Nobody could get in trouble for yelling "fire" in a theater, etc. these limitations on the first amendment are generally accepted as reasonable (and necessary) by most persons.

Why, then, must the second amendment (seemingly) mean unfettered access to as many and whatever kind of "arms" one desires because "it's [my] right". And eff everyone else's rights?

Personally I'm not opposed to (responsible) gun ownership .... but agree with (how bout that?) Ronald Reagan's quote about Assault weapons are not required to protect one's property/family.

Could one (of the believers) not argue that it is then also their right to have/own/sport their own personal Hbomb or RPG? Nuke? How numerous and pervasive are those varmints, anyway?

When does [your] right need a limitation? As with the other amendments, it would seem when the rights of others are affected negatively, then it's acceptable to limit (control). EXCEPT for this amendment, which seemingly must remain in place literally.

It's a shame the gun lobby is so so powerful. Silencers? Wow.
 
This was just reported on CBS news.

Last year the NRA donated over $54,000,000 to the Republicans in advertising and donations

Last year the NRA donated $265 dollars to the Democratics

Since Sandy Hook there have been at least one mass shooting of four or more people per day.
 
Calliecake said:
This was just reported on CBS news.

Last year the NRA donated over $54,000,000 to the Republicans in advertising and donations

Last year the NRA donated $265 dollars to the Democratics

Since Sandy Hook there have been at least one mass shooting of four or more people per day.
Click to expand...

WOW. Sickening indeed.
 
Calliecake said:
This was just reported on CBS news.

Last year the NRA donated over $54,000,000 to the Republicans in advertising and donations

Last year the NRA donated $265 dollars to the Democratics

Since Sandy Hook there have been at least one mass shooting of four or more people per day.
Click to expand...

The only thing that surprises me with your post is that the NRA donated ANY dollars to the Democrats.
 
Again, just looking at the actual numbers- there are apparently 5 million NRA members. How is it that 1.5% of your population exerts such sway over the lawmakers?? It is almost unbelievable.

What do you do in the US if you really disagree with politicians? Is there anything, apart from voting in the Presidential election?
 
Snowdrop13 said:
Again, just looking at the actual numbers- there are apparently 5 million NRA members. How is it that 1.5% of your population exerts such sway over the lawmakers?? It is almost unbelievable.

What do you do in the US if you really disagree with politicians? Is there anything, apart from voting in the Presidential election?
Click to expand...
Given the apparent ease of access to long-range personal weapons (that has so unfortunately been demonstrated in the incident this thread references) I'm actually surprised the US hasn't had a repeat of the JFK incident.
 
@Snowdrop13 Aside from voting we can call and/or write our state Senators and House representatives. When the Republicans tried to pass their Healthcare plan to replace Obamacare, I called every republican senator who were planning to vote no or were undecided basically saying that there votes would affect the whole country and asking them to please vote no. The Democrat Senators were all voting no

In this country it's your constructional right to have a weapon that can shoot 600 people in 9 minutes. The NRA is very powerful. I lost hope of things ever changing with gun control when nothing changed after 20 children were killed at Sandy Hook.
 
I think what your country needs to work out is that the safety of the 80% or whatever % it is of the people that don't have or don't need to own guns is more important than an outdated set of so called "rights" that the other vocal politically charged 20% have. And the % of people that don't have guns or are happy to get rid of them all band together political to force change to happen and force the NRA and other pro gun lobby groups that have controlled the conservative right for so long to engage in agreements that the safety and security of all is far more important than owning a truckload of guns irrespective of how much they like them. There should be a strong push to limit how many and the types of guns people can have, what they can and cannot do with them (ie modify them) and who can and cannot own certain types of guns.
 
Last edited:
Did you all see the NRA announced they will support the restriction of Bump-Fire stocks ie the things that can be added to semi automatic guns to make them into rapid fire weapons. Me, I'm sitting at home thinking one small step for man.......
 
Snowdrop13 said:
Again, just looking at the actual numbers- there are apparently 5 million NRA members. How is it that 1.5% of your population exerts such sway over the lawmakers?? It is almost unbelievable.

What do you do in the US if you really disagree with politicians? Is there anything, apart from voting in the Presidential election?
Click to expand...

I think the issue is much more complex than the money that the NRA provides.

If we look at this issue from the perspective of the Congress People who are funded by the NRA...the Republicans, many are voted into office and supported by gun owners. There are a few issues with these Congress People. First, yes, they are backed by the NRA. Second, because of gerrymandering laws, they hold secure seats. They can't be voted out of office. So, at that point, what do we do? If these people refuse to bring gun control laws to the floor or refuse to even bring to the floor a study as to why mass shooting are happening AND we can't vote them out of their seat, we are powerless as voters. We are held hostage by both the mass shooters and by our law makers.

And there is no term limits by the way. So they never leave office until they die or decide to retire.

Do you see?

Now, they say their constituents want them to vote to keep guns laws relaxed, but I don't know if that is true because surveys state that 80% of Americans want stricter gun laws. I believe that because congress people are always campaigning and always fundraising, these particular politicians need that NRA money.

This is the problem I see.

Our Supreme Court just heard a case on Tuesday regarding gerrymandering laws. It is a very.big.deal. If they decide to change things, we may have a chance to incite real change in our nation. The odds are slim, the one justice that is actually up in the air is conservative, but doesn't like the way our current gerrymandering laws are written. So, we shall see.
 
What I don't understand is how the incredibility litigious society of the US where everything is someone else's fault marries up with the individual's rights to own and carry guns.

I'm fascinated by Columbine. It happened during my formative years just as was getting ready to register to vote and leave for college. The Klebold and Harris families were sued for over $2.5 million USD. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to believe that guns are for protection and they have a right to keep them in their house, unsecured because that's the only way they can reach them in time, but hey, if other's do the same and their families members die because the guns got into the wrong hands they're going to sue them into bankruptcy.
 
Snowdrop13 said:
Again, just looking at the actual numbers- there are apparently 5 million NRA members. How is it that 1.5% of your population exerts such sway over the lawmakers?? It is almost unbelievable.

What do you do in the US if you really disagree with politicians? Is there anything, apart from voting in the Presidential election?
Click to expand...

Actually, voting sometimes doesn't make a difference. I'm sure you've heard that Trump is in the White House despite not winning the popular vote. Our Electoral System gives more weight to the votes of people in less populous states, which generally lean conservative.

Also, grotesquely gerrymandered districts, such as Wisconsin, ensure that one party (in Wisconsin's case the Republican party) wins a number of seats that are disproportionate to the votes they receive. A picture is worth a thousand words, but see WaPo's article on How the Supreme Court Could Decide Whether Your Vote Would Count.

wisgerrymander.jpeg


House Cat said:
Our Supreme Court just heard a case on Tuesday regarding gerrymandering laws. It is a very.big.deal. If they decide to change things, we may have a chance to incite real change in our nation. The odds are slim, the one justice that is actually up in the air is conservative, but doesn't like the way our current gerrymandering laws are written. So, we shall see.
Click to expand...

YES! This is an extremely important case, unfortunately I think we will soon see the result of blocking Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court and one consequence of Clinton's loss.

During the oral arguments, Gorsuch absolutely telegraphed (he well nigh graffitied it on the dais) his vote against intervening in Wisconsin's redistricting. We are once again at the mercy of Anthony Kennedy. I can only hope that Neil Gorsuch annoys Kennedy enough to make him disinclined to vote with him -- not that SC justices let such pettiness affect their opinions.
 
t-c said:
Do you think we would get the same reaction if the guy killed 527 instead of 59? Is it simply a matter of hitting the right body count or will nothing get the gun-lovers to reconsider their position?
Click to expand...

Nothing. It is an obsession. Today many young kids come to internet media to discuss the angle of the gun and what he did technically wrong. It is sickening. Even if it were their relatives, I am sure they'd find an explanation. This is the worst part of it.
 
I don't think this is a one party political party issue. The democrats have blood on their hands too. Democrats have been in charge and nothing has been changed. We all knew we had a problem when Columbine happened and our country did not do the right thing. That was 20 years ago and look where we are today. Why is it crystal clear to other countries that our country has an obsession with guns, and our country can not face up to this truth and begin making significant changes?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top