[MartinSE]

On another note about this school shooting, I see students that are too young to vote are walking out of schools across the country in protest. Good for them!

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Maybe all of today's Texans have lost the spirit of "Remember the Alamo".

From what I can see, most present day 'Texans' were on the other side at the Alamo!

[MartinSE]

///

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

And that country would be overrun and taken over by men with guns. Majority of women are motherly and can not do what has to be done for protection of All. Now I agree for few cold blooded killers, but most are what we think of—- moms, nice, warm, and nurturing.

Women fight alongside men in the Israel Army and as Top Gun pilots in the US Air Farce.
........The idea of women being allowed to own guns and NOT men was more of a hypothetical thought experiment than any suggestion of reality. The only important idea was that from a STATISTICAL standpoint women are involved in almost zero mass murders as compared to men ( and adrenaline-fueled YOUNG men mostly).
.........I found the idea interesting (even though not practical) because my opinion of the main cause of US mass murders is based on STATISTICAL comparisons of all countries in the world. Which leads to easy GUN availability being said cause.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Which leads to easy GUN availability being said cause.

I agree it is at least A cause. Whether it is the root cause, I don't know. I think the root cause is more like cultural. Where we used to have a thriving middle class, and people (my parents and grand parents) were obsessed with working hard so I could have a better life than they did. There was a sense of manifest destiny and it seemed even politicians worked together and worked out their disagreements.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our dream. Making money became the preferred religion and everyone was "out for themselves. From there we have just spiraled downhill. I think the violence is just frustration and anger expressing itself.

We began our long list of "wars" - war on drugs, war on poverty, war on whatever the current thing someone wants to pour our tax dollars into and the only qualification was you had to guarantee to need MORE money if you want to get the grant.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sherry8bal

You can blame the libs on this one. It's NOT the guns that kill, it's the people and/or nut jobs behind them. I'm sick of "mental health" calling. These kind of people need long, long prison terms but they don't want to do that. It's like revolving door prison reform for them. At least this person was killed and taxpayers don't have to waste anymore money on him. It was shameful what Beto did in the TV conference with the grieving families in the audience and he's trying to grandstand for his own benefit. What a loser! Why anyone would vote for something as callous as he is beyond my comprehension. Such a tragic ordeal but, once again, you can't blame the guns!

Beto O'rourke just asked the right questions. Because the Texas governor was avoiding talking about ease of GUN availability. It was supposed to be a problem-solving address and citizen meeting.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, two things. I can't find a single reference to support this. I have read the Patriot Papers several times (debates between them about how to form eh government and there was little to no reference to what you say) From what I can find, it appears 3 Framers were practicing Christians.

So, I call false, unless you can provide evidence.

Second. I don't care what religion or lack of it the framers practiced in their lives. They did not include it in the Constitution, the only mention of it BANS it from government. If they were practicing Christians, why would they do that? That means to me, that ANYONE promoting religion in the government is anti-constitution.

Just saying...

I will leave it to smarter people here who have already debunked this too do it again.

I see, if you can't find it, then it's false?

Show me where in the Constitution it "BANS" religion from the government. Maybe you read it differently? It "bans" the establishment of a gov based religion or the free exercise of it. Guess someone missed the part where Congress starts their session with a prayer. But, that don't count, right?

It is not the Constitution that bans religion from anything. It was uncomfortable powers that be that continue to ban religion from everything. Not going any further because I do not wish to have my "thoughts" misconstrued and get punished on here.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Beto O'rourke just asked the right questions. Because the Texas governor was avoiding talking about ease of GUN availability. It was supposed to be a problem-solving address and citizen meeting.

Beto was totally out of line.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Beto O'rourke just asked the right questions. Because the Texas governor was avoiding talking about ease of GUN availability. It was supposed to be a problem-solving address and citizen meeting.

whoops, sorry, that got too political fast. I had to remove it.
////
I agree.

[Scbang]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

If restricting gun ownership is the answer to gun violence, why is it that the states/cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun related violence? Does anyone REALLY think that by eliminating gun sales to honest, decent citizens we are going to eliminate gun related violence? Does making marijuana illegal actually keep folks from obtaining marijuana? Yes, decent law abiding folks will not have guns, but is that what you really want? I don't know the stats on gun ownership to gun crime, but I would suggest that over all, it has to be pretty low. If there really is over 300 million guns owned in America, then the gun crime to gun ownership is pretty low. So, do we penalize decent folks because of a very minute amount of lawlessness related to possession of guns? How about we ban automobiles because a very few car owners drive under the influence? Take all cars away from decent folks. How about banning all alcohol sales because a very few abusers drive under the influence? Oh yeah, that was tried already and how did that work? Maybe we should make laws that prohibit murder....oh...right....done that.
Now, we get to the common argument that will undoubtedly come up (as always) about rate of fire. "Oh, but a semiautomatic firearm can kill lots of people." Yep, but so can a bomb, so can poisonous gas, and so can a truck or car. Do we penalize the majority for the actions of the minority? Like someone else said, how many murders by firearm in the Villages?
Take away the cause, not the method.

OK then, why are we not allowed M50 machine gun? It's just another method of killing.

Sad

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

I see, if you can't find it, then it's false?

Show me where in the Constitution it "BANS" religion from the government. Maybe you read it differently? It "bans" the establishment of a gov based religion or the free exercise of it. Guess someone missed the part where Congress starts their session with a prayer. But, that don't count, right?

It is not the Constitution that bans religion from anything. It was uncomfortable powers that be that continue to ban religion from everything. Not going any further because I do not wish to have my "thoughts" misconstrued and get punished on here.

I have no idea what you mean by, "if you can't find it is must be false." I didn't say I couldn't find anything, I said I wasn't going to bother finding it, since it has been proven false so many times - even a couple posts in this thread.

Wrong, it bans the establishment of a preferred religion. Someone must have read it wrong. And yes, there are people like me that lobby for the opening pray to be discontinued. Since I don't recall any Jewish Rabi, or Muslims ever holding the office of Senate Chaplin, hence the use of "Christian" Chaplins is enduring a specific religion.

[Scbang]

Originally Posted by ldj1938

Guns do not shot themselves...

Very true. But if no gun, no shooting, no killing at least not as many nor as fast.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Scbang

OK then, why are we not allowed M50 machine gun? It's just another method of killing.

Sad

You think so small - why not an M1 Abrams. (sarcasm/joke)

The Argument that the 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to take back a rogue government would require that the citizens be as well equipped as the government.

And no where does the constitution list any limitations on the weapons we are Allowed to have, so according to the recent SCOTUS leaked decision on abortions not being as an enumerated right - so it isn't covered, I can only assume ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is not covered.

I want my M1 Abrams NOW. and I think I will take a few Cruise missiles to go along with it.

[Scbang]

Originally Posted by Cyndee@twc.com

Guns cant shot them selves some one has too pull the trigger. Take away guns -if they want to kill they do so another way , baseball bats, cars knives . anything/. We had a killer drive into a parade, In New york they push you in front of a on coming train. We need to have stable families and teach respect. Bring GOD back into the schoo;ws

Yes you can not stop all the killings but why do we make it so easy to kill so many so fast?

Sad

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Women fight alongside men in the Israel Army and as Top Gun pilots in the US Air Farce.
........The idea of women being allowed to own guns and NOT men was more of a hypothetical thought experiment than any suggestion of reality. The only important idea was that from a STATISTICAL standpoint women are involved in almost zero mass murders as compared to men ( and adrenaline-fueled YOUNG men mostly).
.........I found the idea interesting (even though not practical) because my opinion of the main cause of US mass murders is based on STATISTICAL comparisons of all countries in the world. Which leads to easy GUN availability being said cause.

Interesting that cities with the strictest of gun control laws, have the highest violations. But, that has been repeated consistently and there is always an excuse. We can't stop the use of drugs, so let's make them legal. Easier that way. So, stopping the sale of guns and banning them will miraculously make them go away. I think that only works with good, law abiding citizens, not the bad guy.

No one considers the fact that banning guns, just increases more crime. If you can't purchase a gun, then someone will "print" one out. Guess what? No serial number for tracking.

Heaven help us if someone actually suggested enforcing existing laws and THEN executing those penalties associated with said violations. But no, we can't have these fine young individuals sitting in jail. It might hurt their self esteem.

You will always have evil and you will always have violence. Even deterrents won't stop that fact. It may keep the lesser focused upon evil from committing to their nefarious ways, but you will always have mentally disturbed that will slip through the system. It's a shame, but it will always happen. And don't bother telling me that other countries don't have crime. They all do. Some focus on punishment or treatment. Ever been to a place of confinement in Turkey? You do not want to be confined there. Want to visit the jails of Mexico? Not quite the holiday of choice.

A gun ban only makes criminals of decent citizens. Buy back all the guns you want, but I bet you won't see one AR-15, Kimble pistol or any other expensive guns in the buy back bin.

Good luck on your gun free country fantasy, folks.