rushmc

Hmmmm More people dropping out of the work force Wages staying stagnant Adding another trillion or two to the deficit. Weaker military. More terror hits in the US. Fewer in the middle class. Minority unemployment remaining at 25% or increasing. More race division in the US. Yes Just imagine. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

I dont know You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

***Adds an inconvenience factor and added cost to private sales, without actually having any impact of firearm related violence. In the Iowa model, the cost and inconvenience is borne by the buyer, who has a background check done by the police/sheriff who then issue a permit to buy any number of guns and good for a year (if I recall correctly). The only inconvenience to the seller is having to ask to see the permit. Rushmc also takes a photo of the permit and they buyer, which is smart but not legally required. On what basis do you say such a system could not have an impact on firearm related violence? Iowa is the only state I am aware of with such a system. Not only is the violent crime rate there low already (due to demographic factors such as small & primarily rural population), any possible benefit might also be reduced by the ease of buying in an adjacent state. The only way to test the effectiveness of universal background checks would be to apply them everywhere. I guess you could prosecute them before they illegally obtain a firearm, but that has obvious problems associated with it. People barred from owning firearms are going to obtain them. I am not saying make it easy for them. Increased police force size and budgets have been shown to be very effective in reducing firearm-related violence. Gun-control laws have been ineffective. The way forward is obvious. Spend the money, enforce the laws. Derek V Georgia (where I live) has quite strict laws regarding gun possession by felons, which are enforced, but this has not reduced the violent crime rate, at least not so you'd notice. Every evening the first 15-20 minutes of the Atlanta evening news is full of story after story of stupid senseless shootings. A few years ago two police officers were shot, and one died, at the hand of a felon who had been released from prison only a year before. This fellow (Jamie Hood, so you can google him and check my story) had no difficulty obtaining multiple handguns which he used in the course of his drug-dealing business. In addition to being convicted of murdering one officer (Buddy Christian) and wounding a second, he was convicted of murdering a city worker just to send a "message" to a friend of that victim. Where did he get his guns? No news story reported on any effort by the police to discover that, and certainly no-one was prosecuted for giving or selling him guns. Indeed it may have been perfectly legal for the seller to do business with him, as long as the seller was not aware of Mr. Hood's status as a convicted armed robber. So, what do people mean when they say "enforce the law"? If there is no background check requirement for private sales, anyone can sell to anyone. It's true the buyer has committed a crime if they are barred from possessing a firearm, but the police have no way of knowing that the transaction ever occurred. There are only a couple of ways they could find out. One would be if the buyer later committed a crime with that firearm, or at least did something dumb enough that could be stopped for probable cause. The other would be if a police officer was detailed to follow and observe every felon upon their release, for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that would be unconstitutional, not to mention prohibitively expensive. Many people believe that increased police activity suppresses crime, but that is not always easy to prove. See here for a discussion of the subject. Crime is also influenced by other factors, especially economic activity, and so it tends to cycle up and down. Typically communities will respond to periods of high crime by hiring more police, so police staffing will generally also cycle up and down, lagging behind crime by a couple of years. As a result police staffing will often increase just when crime is already peaked and starting to decrease, due to completely different factors, and it will appear that more police caused the crime to go down. This is not to say that a heavy police presence can't discourage crime, at least in local area, it just means a causal connection is not easy to prove. A problem (or so it seems to me) with the approach of a heavy police presence and strict enforcement of every law and ordinance (also known as the "broken windows" strategy) is that it tends to spawn other problems that end up being counterproductive. Such approaches are notorious for breeding unconstitutional practices such as stopping/searching people without probable cause to believe they have committed any crime. Often communities try to recoup the cost of the police staffing by creating a multitude of fineable offenses, which end up trapping especially the already poor in poverty when they are repeatedly arrested and jailed for being unable to pay hefty fines that result from "offenses" such as parking facing the wrong way on the roadside. Perhaps most insidious, entire communities end up with most of the adult male population in-and-out of jail, so kids grow up without any male parent, a situation that lends itself to future problems for those kids, especially the boys. This destruction of the two-parent family has been one of the worst effects of the so-called "war on drugs", in my opinion. Indeed, the "war on drugs" is the best example I can think of to show that strict enforcement and draconian penalties is not able to change well-established human behaviors. If that approach failed in the case of drug use, why should we expect it to work for people who have already shown their predisposition towards violent crime? I'm not saying that there is not a place for intelligent, community-oriented policing, there obviously is. I do think the problem is too big and complicated for simplistic solutions, such as overwhelming police presence, and the cost might be worse than the cure in many places. It needs to become much more difficult to buy a gun without a background check, I think, and that requires enforcement on both the buyer and the seller (as exists with alcohol sales). There needs to be a much higher level of trust between communities and their police, so the "code of silence" disappears and police can get the information they need to solve a higher percentage of violent crimes. I think we should also reconsider some of the life-long consequences of a felony conviction. It doesn't make sense to me to bar felons from many kinds of jobs, for life, if we expect them to stay away from future crime. In Georgia, felons cannot ever work at any career that requires a state license, such as teacher, contractor, or even a barber or beautician, even if the job has no relation to their crime. I also think felons should be able to have their voting and second amendment rights restored, if they can go a period of time (say, 5 years) without re-offending. Providing an opportunity to work, and an incentive to stay on the right side of the law, could go some way towards reducing the pressures that tend to steer felons back towards crime. Don Not a pic of the person but there drivers license. And of note, this process would not have stopped any of the shootings we have discussed here recently. And then there is not paper trail, which those who think more regulation is needed, will not accept. And lastly, I own about 10 guns. Only one of them is traceable to me at this time as that is the only one I purchased from a dealer. Some I inherited and some I bought privately after showing my carry permit. Again, the anti gunners (for the most part) will not accept this as registration and finally confiscation is the goal IMO. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

Sorry You got nuttin honey. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

During Reagan's eight years. •20 million new jobs were created •Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988 •Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5% •Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27% •Real gross national product rose 26% •The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988 Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980. Oh And Obama double the deficit of all the previous presidents combined. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

All snippets posted with no context with the express intent to mislead. But then I think you already know that but, I will play the game too. During 1 quarter of the Reagan presidency the GDP grew 7%. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

GOVERNMENT EMAILS: WHITE HOUSE TOLD TWO HOURS AFTER BENGHAZI ATTACK BEGAN THAT RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUP CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emails-white-house-informed-within-two-hours-of-benghazi-attack-that-radical-islamic-group-claimed-responsibility/ Hillary's email to her daughter was in the first 15 minutes. In that email she states it was a terror attack. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

In a later post, you ask Prof. Kallend for a citation for his information. So what citation can you offer on what you say? We wait with the proverbial baited breath. Jerry Baumchen It is in her emails to her daughter and others during the first minutes of the attack. Facts suck huh.... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

And who typed up these "key findings". kallend will call you dishonest for not showing us where you got this. I think this is a better source for "key findings" You can pick them out yourself minus the spin you posted. http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

We kinda have a universal background check here in IA that everyone I know uses if they are selling a gun privately. So, I will sell you a gun if you can produce an active permit to carry or permit to purchase. For MY safety, I take a picture of one or the other with the buyers drivers license. I get support from many anti gunners here until I tell them that there is NO paper work that goes to any government agency. It goes in MY file and stays there (BTW, I have only sold two) then most of them back off of their support. Their ultimate goal, IMO, is a gun database to be used at a later date. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

You quote politico? Oh, never mind, it figures. Anyway, you are again swayed by the media (Hillary's super PAC) again. One thing in the report. Hillary and Obama knew within the first minutes that this was a terror attack and not a reaction to a video. Hillary purposefully and willing lied to the American public. Nixon went down for less. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

Dont believe their spin. This report is bad for Hiilary and Obama "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

When you claim that the people who disagree with you are uninformed or stupid and that you know what is best for them you are up on the high horse, being your normal elitist self. I do not claim that! YOU DO. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

When you 'return the favour' you lose the right to the high horse. Only elitists like you think you can do both. I stay off the high horse. Too many under those like you. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? There is your answer, Jerry Baumchen Yet again you show us you do not know what you are talking about "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

I am constantly berated in groups I am in by many posters here. Just returning the favor. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

Any laws restricting gun ownership is limiting constitutional rights. requiring a training class every 2 years places a hurdle to gun ownership that is not in place today. This limits the 2nd amendment. I am not saying it is a good idea to have gun owners that don't know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto pistol does not mean it has been cleared. I actually believe strongly in firearms training. I agree it would reduce accidents. If someone can barely afford a firearm and cannot afford the class as well, then the requirement has limited this person's right to own a firearm. Derek V You notice they have no issue with placing a 2 year training requirement on a right, but they think be forced to have an ID card to vote is too much of a limit. Hypocritical at best. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

And I CLEARLY could not give less of a fuck what you think. I will bet even YOU understands what I posted here

More typical Bill But then you would not wish to talk about the flawed and corrupt measurement system here, would you? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

Actually this is typical billvon Throw more shit in and see what sticks. BTW are you saying that the majority of those who vote to leave did not what the EU is or who is in it? Really? Bill We have people here in the US who cant tell you who the President is. Is that the majority too in your mind or would they just be the outliers you would drag in to try and obfuscate a point? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

That explains your position very well. You do not even know what an MSA is do you? Only an elitist would know what that is. Actually, anyone who claims to be in science or deals in statistics knows exactly what it is. Now you are calling them enlists? I learned about it during my Six Sigma training. It is very important when you are dealing with collected data and how good said data really is. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

Exactly, no-one knows what the big picture is. Will we save any of the money we pay to the EU, or will we keep paying it through different channels? No-one knows. Will we be able to stop migrant workers from the EU freely and legally taking jobs in the UK? No-one knows. Will our companies be free from EU legislation in any or all areas relating to workplace conditions and manufacturing standards? No-one knows. Look You are in the first of 4 stages regarding change. how you deal with this step will determine if you can come back from this (for you) horrendous change. BTW BIG picture is Briton may not be a part of the EU. See That was not so hard now was it

The elites are elite because theythink they are so much smarter than you. That's what you are missing. I inserted what YOU are missing. Seeing how you practice being one of them. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

That explains your position very well. You do not even know what an MSA is do you? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln