GeorgiaDon

Which decisions to play fast and loose are you referring to? The decision to keep the senate "in session" with a sham campaign to have one senator come in every couple of days, gavel the session "open" and then close it 30 seconds later and go home (and yes I know that both sides have done this)? The decision to use "secret holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee, effectively blocking the ability of departments to function? Or the decision to treat the Senate as if it was in recess (which it was in effect if not in name) and proceed with the appointments? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the link: ""It encourages parents to make sure they store their guns safely in their home, it also gives the school districts the opportunity to help encourage gun safety in the community and in the household," says the Senator." I can't imagine any way that knowing what people have in their homes would have any impact on either of those goals. I also think school districts have enough to do without becoming involved in "encouraging gun safety in the household". Just another piece of useless window dressing so someone can say "Look at me! I got a law passed!" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If someone gives you a beer at the DZ, does that mean they are obligated to keep you in beer perpetually? To make is as clear as possible for you, tax holiday = temporary reduction in tax. Holidays come to an end. Returning to the usual tax rate is not an increase. But of course you know that, you just like to complain. Never let facts stand in the way of a good rant and all that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Incorrect information. Sgt. Castellano was working as paid armed security at the theater at the time, she didn't "just happen to be there". Your source is also wrong in asserting that the gunman killed his girlfriend at the nearby restaurant, she was not there at all and the gunman wounded one person but killed nobody. So we have a situation where a gunman went after some people in a restaurant, for reasons that are not clear from the news stories, and when people ran from the restaurant and towards the vicinity of the theater, the gunman chased them until a paid security person shot him. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the scenario popularized by those who are blatantly twisting the story to exploit it for their everybody-must-be-armed agenda, who would have us believe that an armed private citizen who just happened to be in the right place at the right time stopped an Aurora-style mass killing. If the case for mass arming the public is so strong, why do people have to invent lies to justify it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True. It's more like the way they give out small-game hunting licenses: i.e., a small fee and minimal training. You have obviously never taken a Texas ccl course. Correct. So tell me, how many weeks does the training program last? How many hours per day are we talking about during those weeks? You can google the answer just as easy as anyone else. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm "An original (first time) CHL applicant must complete a minimum 10 hour class, taught by a DPS certified CHL instructor. The class includes classroom and a proficiency demonstration (shooting)." Like I said, minimal training, similar to a small-game hunting license in some states. Vastly better than Georgia, which requires ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL other than passing the background check. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just curious if you [and beowulf too] see any wars as worth fighting? Are there any values that are worth defending, or should countries just capitulate whenever challenged? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The problem isn't Joe Sixpack - Joe Sixpack didn't steal a cent. The legislators, though. There's the problem. Why are you blaming Joe Sixpack versus blaming those who actually are stealing? I agree that the legislators are the actual thieves. Nevertheless, political candidates who run on a platform of "you've got to pay for the services you receive" always lose to candidates who promise that they can cut taxes without cutting services. "Joe Sixpack" either is too stupid to recognize a fiscal impossibility when they see it, or they don't give a shit if someone else is victimized. I rather suspect the latter, especially when I see the vitriol directed against "greedy state workers" who selfishly expect their employer to actually pay them what they contractually agreed to. Politicians have a history of finding one or another target group to use as a whipping boy so they can deflect blame for their fuck-ups. In the past it's been the Jews, or communists, or feminists. Today it's government workers. And "Joe Sixpack" eats it up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just a thought here, ...vote for people that understand math while you still can. The problem is that "joe sixpack" expects the government to maintain services while cutting taxes, and doesn't give a shit if that can only be done by robbing state workers and turning them into indentured servants. I'm always astonished at how many people are perfectly comfortable with the idea of taking pension payments from workers, absconding with the money, then mocking the workers and blaming them for "allowing" their pension to be stolen. What has happened here is thievery, plain and simple, and in any fair world the perpetrators would be in prison. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not the best example. What if one of the guys was an undercover cop? What if one or more of the students ccing responded, which guy do you shoot? What is people responding were even worse shots and more people got hit in the cross fire? I think that falls under "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out". Also "Freedom is not free" and "Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It is if you shoot like this girl. (Repost, I know, discussed in [url "http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4336887;search_string=%26quot%3Blookit%20this%20chick%26quot%3B;#4336887"]this thread.) Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

At the time, power for industrial production was supplied almost entirely by water wheels. The North had such power supplies in abundance, and so manufacturing centers grew up in places such as Harper's Ferry. The South is much flatter; few rivers of any size exist that have the steep grade needed to drive a large water wheel, and this was a major impediment to manufacturing on a large scale. Also, Southern port cities were burdened with significant rates of malaria, and frequent summertime epidemics of yellow fever. These diseases were a major reason for the reluctance of Northern industries to expand into the South, before and after the war. Yellow fever remained a scourge until the early 1900s, and malaria remained prevalent up through the 1930s. In addition, much of the rural population suffered from parasitic diseases such as hookworms. The North generally regarded the South as a cesspool of disease, and rightly so. Manufacturing and investment in Southern factories had to wait for the development of coal and later electrical power sources, and to a considerable degree the removal of the specter of disease epidemics. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Or Canada! Just imagine the United States of Canada. Manifest destiny in reverse,as it were. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle. Polishing the Predator, eh? Has a nice ring to it. Choking the bishop, spanking the monkey, polishing the predator... Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey davjohns, should the people who are trying to shut down Mile Hi Skydiving (discussed in this thread; also this is their facebook page) be allowed to arm themselves with stinger missiles if they want? What are the odds that people who are irrationally angry about noisy planes would use the missiles to solve their "problem", compared to the odds they would use them to defend against the government? Should DZs have to install anti-missile devices on all their jump planes? What would that do to the price of jump tickets? The idea that everybody should have access to the same weapons as the military is just nuts, IMHO. Personally, I trust our military to refuse to go along with any attempt by the White House or Congress to order the blanket confiscation of guns, or universal implantation of mind-control microchips, or whatever other paranoid fantasies the tin foil hat brigade might conjure up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions at least to say that I don't support registration, but I do support background checks even for private sales. Rushmc described the system they use in Iowa, which puts the onus on the buyer. Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must obtain a certificate from the sheriff, who does the appropriate background check before issuing the certificate. The seller needs only to verify that the buyer has an in-date certificate. Other solutions to the problem can be imagined, but the Iowa example does show that it is possible to add background checks to private sales with minimal inconvenience to the seller. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm pretty sure this is another staged conspiracy,brought to you by the same secrete Obama task force that staged the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings. After all, we have heard over and over from our esteemed 2nd amendment defenders that the "gun show loophole" is a lie,because there are no private sales at gun shows, only licensed dealers. Needless to say, dealers would never sell a loaded weapon. Ergo, the story must be false and intended to feed the lie that it is possible to buy guns without having a background check. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Semantic games, JohnRichJohnRish, nothing but semantic games. What I'm hearing from you is that you don't want anyone to interfere with your "right" to sell guns to convicted felons, or anyone else that the legal system has determined should not have guns. I'm sure you are well aware that law enforcement agencies have access to the same database that dealers use, as they have to be able to determine whether or not people who are arrested and possess firearms are legally allowed to have those guns. Note that we are not talking about banning any weapons or ammunition here, we are just talking about ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who are legally barred from possessing them. Apparently, even that is too much of an intrusion on the 2nd amendment for some people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's just bullshit. Rushmc described (in post #72 of this thread if you care to look it up) how things are done in Iowa. The buyer must obtain a certificate from the sheriff's office that documents that they have passed the background check. No work/expense is incurred by the seller, other than to ask the buyer to show that they have the permit. Is the system perfect? Of course not, no system can be devised that can't be gamed by a sufficiently determined criminal. Nevertheless, it makes it more difficult for a felon, or someone who is under a restraining order, or anyone who is legally prohibited from having guns to just go to Craigs list to find a private seller. And, private sales are perfectly legal in Iowa with no burden on the seller. But of course BATF doesn't have the resources to monitor every private sale, and if they did come by to question you about how often and to whom you sell guns we all know you'd be whining about harassment and government intimidation. Unenforceable laws do, however, nicely serve the function of providing a convenient dodge to those who wish to ensure that nothing will be done to keep guns out of the hands of those people who are legally barred from having them. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

None of your fucking business, im here for a flu shot. DOCTOR! As if doctors have either the time or the interest to ask about guns when you're there about a flu shot. Your doctor must be seriously underemployed if they have time to focus on anything other than the complaint for which you made an appointment. On the other hand, how about a patient who comes in and tells the doctor "Yeah Doc, ever since my whole family died in that car wreck I wonder why God didn't take me too. I just don't feel there's anything left to live for." Should that doctor be prohibited from asking if there are any guns in the house? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This sort of thing seems like a reasonable idea to me. Is it backed up by any penalties for selling to someone without a permit, or for forging a permit? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What you are talking about is also known as "making the perfect the enemy of the good", which is a clever way to make sure nothing changes at all. No law can prevent the targeted actions from ever occurring at all, which is why they also have provisions for punishment for violators. Or are you suggesting we should repeal DUI laws because some people still drive drunk, so obviously the laws aren't effective? A couple of points here. You are speaking as though any mental health issue, no matter how unrelated to the potential for extreme violent behavior, would have to be reported. I'm not aware of any recommendation by anyone anywhere that people who are being treated for depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, or any of the myriad other mental diseases would have to be reported to anyone. Currently procedures exist to "flag" people, under very limited circumstances when they provide a specific and imminent threat, but it seems that information often does not make it to where it would show up on a background check. I'll concede that there are a lot of things that could be done to improve the process, for example I don't see why a short-term problem has to effectively become a lifetime ban. The process could be more like taking the car keys from a friend who's had a bit too much to drink, where they can drive as soon as they sober up. Also the reason for the restriction need not be accessible to all and sundry. And of course there has to be legal oversight, such as a court order, governing the process. Such problems can be addressed if there is a will to do so. No system of background checks can be expected to address every possible circumstance, and so it is quite likely that Sandy Hook and many other incidents would not have been prevented. I'll be curious to see what comes out the investigation/trial re the Aurora shootings, where it seems the perpetrator was under psychiatric care and had been flagged as of concern, but then the doctors lost the ability to intervene when their patient withdrew from the University and stopped being their patient (as I understand the situation anyway). There is however the bigger picture of 15,000 homicides annually in this country, the great majority committed by people with criminal records that should have precluded them from getting a firearm. Obviously these people are not buying from dealers or going through a background check at present. We can think in terms of one pool of guns, in the hands of law abiding people, and a second pool that circulates amongst the criminal elements. Guns can move from the law-abiding to the criminal pool through theft or by private sales where a seller may or may not know that the buyer is prohibited from having guns. If we can restrict the movement of guns from the legal to the criminal pool by requiring checks for all sales (enforced by penalties for circumventing the checks) perhaps over time we can decrease the availability of guns in criminal hands. Just impeding sales to convicted felons could have a beneficial effect, even without factoring in mental health issues. In the very long run there could be useful positive feedbacks in the system. Getting guns out of criminal hands could decrease the frequency of violent crime, reducing the perception amongst the law abiding that they need to be armed to the teeth, which might then reduce the pool of firearms available to be stolen and used by criminals. Of course there are a myriad of factors that play into the high rate of violent crime in the US. It would be useful to make a serious attempt to identify and address such factors, but I fear that any attempt to do anything at all would be attacked as "social engineering", "coddling the 47%", or whatever. It is clear that there are entities, such as the NRA and firearms manufacturers, who find the status quo quite profitable and would be reluctant to see any action taken that might lessen the climate of fear and so the market for their wares. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure an interdisciplinary approach is needed, but it seems to me that all sides to this debate are willing to consider only a few possibilities that don't step on their own toes; nobody is really ready to entertain an "interdisciplinary approach". Fire prevention involves measures to reduce the likelihood of fires starting in the first place, measures such as fire-retardant materials to limit the spread of the fire, and regularly practiced escape procedures to get people out of harms way when a fire does occur. Yet we hear that limiting access to guns by the mentally ill, absent a direct and very specific threat, is a violation of their constitutional rights. [For example, "sometimes I get so mad I feel like killing everybody" is not a specific threat, but "I got me an AR15 and a ticket to the movies tonight, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel" might possibly be specific enough to warrant action.] Similarly any discussion of limiting firepower by any measure whatsoever is off the table. How does this constitute an "interdisciplinary approach"? Isn't it like saying that avoiding schools fires is an important goal, but we can't do anything about the shoddy electrician who wires up a fire trap, and we can't consider flammability when selecting building materials? So what are we offered as a solution? Fire extinguishers in every classroom (= armed teachers), in every hallway and building entrance (= armed security guards), build and equip a fire station next to every school (= police departments specifically for each school district), and frequent drills (necessary, but also great for building a sense of paranoia). Maybe the constitution does create a situation where we just have to live with bad wiring and fire-starter logs for building materials, and the best we can do is to put a fire extinguisher in every classroom, build a fire station next to every school, and practice fire escape drills constantly. But don't tell me that that is an "interdisciplinary approach". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you even oppose background checks? Can you name even one measure you could support that doesn't involve making this country even more of an armed camp than it already is? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Debunked long ago. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)