DaVinci

And you got the 40% from? And define "poverty level" HHS Poverty Guidelines? 10,830 for one and $3,740 for each additional person? Could work. But I'd really like to see where you got your 40% number.

Still waiting on this BTW: Especially in light of this: Article I, Section II, Clause I Amendment XV Amendment XVII Amendment XIX Amendment XXIV And still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"

You are speaking what you THINK is the language of conservatives... That could be a major part of the problem. You don't really grasp what that language is.... Myself, I prefer facts without insults...... It is clear you do not.

Interesting question.... If your uncle was doing that and you could get to a gun.... Would you be justified in killing him yourself right then? Would a cop be justified in killing him? Or would his actions have to actually constitute a more immediate threat to justify lethal action? And this example is a lot more accurate to what you are suggesting: Your uncle comes over and talks about aliens and being abducted. He has a 1911 at home. At the end, he says they're just misunderstood. Then he goes home. What to you do? Because in the case of a person that MIGHT have a mental issue and IS NOT currently presenting any kind of threat, you seem ready to take away his rights on an IDEA that he might present a threat SOMEDAY.

On December 13, 2005, Cho had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice Paul Barnett. Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness".... Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" he was detained at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia "Court: Cho ruled 'an imminent danger'". CNN. April 18, 2007. Retrieved April 19, 2007. CGA of 1968 states: It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; The Judge ruled him "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" He was committed, although the Dr decided an outpatient process was preferred. Fact is that VA law screwed up. They failed to report him, and they failed to follow up on why he never went back for outpatient treatment. But he WAS found to be "mentally deficient" and WAS committed.... A Dr decided on a different treatment. But both would have made him a prohibited person.... IF it was reported by the State. Negative.... Please read the CGA of 1968 with the the Lautenberg Amendment: A misdemeanor that could lead to a prison term of longer than one year would remove your right. Being addicted to a controlled substance. (Loughner) Judged mentally defective (Cho) Dishonorable Discharge Restraining Order Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence 18 USC 922(x) generally prohibits persons under 18 from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition and you must be 21 to buy a handgun. (Harris and Klebold) National Firearms Act 1934 made Harris and Klebold's sawed off shotguns illegal and made their 99 explosive devices illegal as well. Harris and Klebold got their weapons through several straw purchases.... A Straw purchase was made illegal by the GCA 1968 as well. The point being that in almost every case there are laws that made the actor illegal to own or purchase a firearm. And that even stricter laws like a handgun only every 30 days did not stop Cho. People with violent histories AND history of mental illness should be prevented from buying a firearm. BUT there should be a process to allow them to get the right back. I know several people that got into a fight with a brother and now due to the the "Domestic Violence" charge they got when their fist fight was called into the police are now prohibited from EVER owning a firearm.... That just does not really make sense.

You have proposed mental health screenings. You have proposed registration. Of course these were DRUG out of you over the span of several years. There are others, but BOTH of the above are additional regulations.

Ahh, unable to engage in intelligent debate?

No, you have said that it is a shame that people in the US go broke due to an accident. If you REALLY felt that way, you would prevent them from getting hurt if they were not insured. You do not do that however. And you just said it right there.... It might just have something to do with you being part owner of DZ. Not my logic. But the fact is that some people CURRENTLY think that skydiving is too dangerous and should be banned. I am on topic, you are fine with CERTAIN taxes going up... But only certain taxes and the reason had better match YOUR desires. It is normal, but at least be honest about it. BTW, my Congressperson is so liberal that she SUPPORTS taxing those bastard rich more. Her exact words were, "Those who can afford these expensive toys can afford to pay more to use them, 100 dollars is nothing to them"

Gun ownership did increase last year. The number of States that granted the right to carry went up as well. So, you may not be able to say the increase in guns and gun rights was responsible for the drop in crime.... But you can say that the increase in guns and gun rights didn't increase crime at all. Higher numbers of guns clearly didn't increase the crime rates.

Read it again. The gunman with the pistol was described as black, about 6 feet tall, thin and wearing a red hoodie, Davis said. A description of the man who was with him wasn’t available.

He died because a criminal shot him. Religion didn't save him. The police didn't save him. Gun laws didn't save him. Laws against shooting someone didn't save him. Faith in any of them saving you is foolish. Thinking he would be saved by: Praying harder/more faith More Police Another Gun law Another law against shooting someone Is also foolish.

That 82 Democratic Reps said was OK, and 29 Democratic Senators said was OK. If they had just said NO... Then it would have never happened.

Wanna compare legal gun owners to criminals that illegally own a gun? All I see here is once again the GOVT failed to be able to stop a crime EVEN WITH ADDITIONAL STEPS. BTW, you do know that: 1. He broke the law since he didn't have a permit to carry 2. He broke the law by robbing a store. 3. He broke the law by shooting someone. So he broke 3 laws..... You think for one second that he would not have broken a 4th to get an illegal gun?

No, it means it should not be an issue that the Govt concerns itself with.

Well except that when the current income tax rates were put into place in 1913(?) the top rate was 7%. But by 1944 it was 94% So any tax that is new, WILL be raised as soon as the Govt can. The Govt has a spending problem. They need to quit spending out of control. I am a fan of a flat rate tax. Some uber economic genius figures what we need to run the current spending, adds in an amount that will reduce the deficit in say 10 years. Then adds all the income from ALL sources of ALL Americans and then figures out what % they all would have to pay to cover that number. Any deficit would be added to next years number, and surplus would be reduced. I have seen numbers years ago that would put that number around the 20% mark.... It might be higher now that the deficit has doubled. EVERY citizen needs to pay some amount of tax. Only then will they actually care how the country is run. If you continue to allow over half the country to pay nothing and reap the benefits of the other 50%... You are asking for trouble. There could be some deductions.... 401k's, medical expenses... But the tax code SHOULD be so simple that a guy with a High School education a blank piece of paper and a calculator should be able to figure it out. A flat RATE is the only "fair" tax.

"Whats makes Texas so different?" Well, mainly just your opinion of the place. If we go with reputations then the English all have bad teeth and love to get pissed and start fights... All of them. The Germans all have pet monkeys, wear spandex in dull colors, and have no sense of humor. The French are afraid of everything, the Polish are stupid, the Aussies are criminals that all dress like Dundee, the Russians are all alcoholics that are all fat. People from CA are all airheads that speak like, fer shure mannn. People from FL are all nearly dead Jews, people from Alabama are all related and dating each other. NYers are all named "Vito"....... You get the point? I can't tell you the number of times a person from another country has told me that when they first came to the US that they were amazed they didn't see a shootout or at least hear one. So I tend to try to avoid assuming that the stereotypes are correct till I have personal experience there, or at least have talked to a person from there at some length. I found TX to be one of the FRIENDLIEST States I have been. In fact, I have found most places I have been to be very friendly.

In almost everything you post. Shame, you might be worth having a discussion with if you refrained from dodging and lying about your positions.

You have time after time suggested additional regulations to control gun ownership. You do know that everyone already knows your position and can see right through your current claims right?

If you were really concerned about people being healthy, you would not let them engage in higher risk activities without HC. If you were really concerned about people going bankrupt due to an injury and not having HC, you would not let them engage in a higher risk activity. So, you either: 1. Don't really care if a person is injured and can't get medical care or goes bankrupt. 2. Care, but not if it will hurt your pocket book.

It was a question for someone else... If you are going to jump in, why don't you ANSWER it?

Really? You tried to call others "Travelers", tried to insult people as being "bubba".... When you call people a redneck when they don't own a truck and have never been hunting.. But YOU DO AND HAVE. That IS being a hypocrite. When you want OTHERS to not be armed, but are fine with you being armed... That IS being a hypocrite. When you claim others are mentally deficient when you THINK they might shoot a person.... All while you had BEEN READ TO DO IT... You are a hypocrite. Sorry darling, but your own words prove you to be a hypocrite. that is not an insult, it is the very definition of the word. Another perfect example of your inability to refrain from insults.

Oh look, out of intellect, so now you are insulting. Typical.

Neither should have Cho been allowed (He had been committed). Neither should have Loughner (Arrest for drug paraphernalia, five incidents with police for disruption, drug use) Neither should have Harris and Klebold (They were charged with mischief, breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft in 1988. Both were underage, Harris had court-ordered anger management ) And if you look at the stats for gun crime... Most of the people that Kill or shoot someone (already illegal) have prior convictions that prevent them from possessing a gun. These are all just failures of the Govt to do what it said it is going to do.... New laws and regulations are not needed... We just need to actually use the ones we have.

INCORRECT YET AGAIN... You fight for MORE regulation about gun ownership. Wow, so out of content you try personal attacks?

Oh look, out of intellect, so now you are insulting. Typical. And you left out a whole bunch that showed you are full of it, BTW.