ih8music Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I don't know. I think they figure they can beat up on Bernie better. LouieBThere's definitely an element of "he won't be able to accomplish anything anyway" to their rationale, but I think they genuinely don't want Trump either and find Bernie to be at least an honest man. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I don't know. I think they figure they can beat up on Bernie better. LouieB This is exactly right. He is old (which has been brought up here), he is Jewish (non Christian which equals either secret Muslim or Satan Worshiper), he is a socialist (which is a dirty word for some reason). These are all things the GOP can hammer on and scare middle America. Precisely. Between the two, a Sanders presidency is much less troubling to them than having a "criminal" in the WH. That may be the perception, but Hillary Clinton represents the Washington Insider, back by corporations and Wall Street. I think having their choice the GOP would much rather have a person in power aligned with similar corporate views then someone like Sanders. Sanders represents a wholesale change in the way government and corporations function. Remember when the GOP lost their collective minds over ACA? How do you think they will react to single payer health care? What about his plan to reform Wall Street? Yes the GOP hates Clinton, but you all know the Benghazi and email stuff were all political theatre to knock her down as a candidate. Everyone knew she was going to run for president as soon as she lost in 2008. The GOP had nearly 8 years to craft and plan and use any slight misstep to take her down, solely because she was the perceived front runner for the last 7 years. The criminal talk is just talk and posturing. If the GOP had it's choice between Sanders or Clinton as President they would pick Clinton. If the had a choice of who to try to defeat for the White House of course they are going for Sanders. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Don't disagree with that assessment of the GOP as a whole -- I was talking about the motivation behind my friends' personal decision, in response to Louie's question. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2nd Amendment activists in the news: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/the-latest-florida-mom-shot-in-back-by-son-4-deputies-say/2268620 Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 Nothing says freedom like leaving a loaded .44 on the car seat within arm's reach of a 4 year old. God bless America. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Nothing says freedom like leaving a loaded .44 on the car seat within arm's reach of a 4 year old. God bless America.It wasn't on the car seat, it was under the driver's seat. Sounds like the mother should be charged for not having the kid seatbelted in a proper seat. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 The only defense against a child with a gun is a seat belt. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It wasn't on the car seat, it was under the driver's seat. Sounds like the mother should be charged for not having the kid seatbelted in a proper seat. Why should we have seat belt laws? It is obvious that the mother ignored it. No amount of seat belt legislation would have stopped this mother from not safely securing her child in the car. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Why should we have seat belt laws? It is obvious that the mother ignored it. No amount of seat belt legislation would have stopped this mother from not safely securing her child in the car. It's true. I wonder if her views on seat belt laws will change now that she has been directly impacted by reckless seat belt use. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Careless and irresponsible gun owner. What a sad situation. But what legislation would have prevented this? Handguns will never be illegal to own. I guess I just don't understand why this was brought up in the first place. Unless to just fight and beat the horse some more. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It's true. I wonder if her views on seat belt laws will changed now that she has been directly impacted by reckless seat belt use. Clearly seatbelt laws are unconstitutional. Any further restrictions on the non use of seatbelts will infringe on my rights as an American. Any freedom loving individual will not change their mind, because of this incident. These seatbelt incidents have become all too commonplace in today's society. I suppose we could argue about seatbelt laws and not change anyone's mind, until another seatbelt related tragedy comes up. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I see what I'm supposed to do! Damn hand guns! We need to make them harder to get. If only the gun show loop hole was shut down this might not have happened. Got it. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Why should we have seat belt laws? It is obvious that the mother ignored it. No amount of seat belt legislation would have stopped this mother from not safely securing her child in the car. I've never said that we don't need gun laws. I've said that we don't need additional gun laws that do little or nothing to reduce gun crime while punishing, inconveniencing or criminalizing responsible, law-abiding gun owners. This scenario would more closely parallel my stance on new gun legislation: We have seatbelt laws and they undoubtedly save lives, but some people flaunt them even though they are liable to be fined and lose their licenses. The vast majority of parents will put their child in an appropriate car seat, but some people are willing to break the law and risk their child's life. NEWSFLASH: KIM KARDASHIAN'S INFANT SON KILLED IN CAR CRASH! SOURCES REPORT THAT THE BABY WAS UNRESTRAINED AND KANYE WAS SNORTING COKE OFF KIM'S BREASTS AND DRIVING WITH A .25 BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED. Cue the nonstop media barrage: How could such a thing happen? When are we going to say enough is enough? How many more children must die before we enact sensible legislation to prevent highway deaths? And then the politicians get revved up in a desperate attempt to appear to be "doing something." Who cares if it's unworkable, expensive or invasive... And then new legislation is passed, with California and New York leading the way. All drivers will be required to install a $500 camera in their cars that will verify that all passengers are wearing proper restraints. Their vehicles won't start until a remote government monitor verifies that the passengers are buckled up. Vehicle owners will pay $150 yearly to cover the costs of the program. President Obama takes to the airwaves to remind us that it's all worth it if it saves even one child's life and, by the way, if he had a son he would have looked like Kanye's. But people who don't give a damn about laws or their child's safety just ignore the whole thing and continue to drive unbuckled in vehicles with no cameras. P.S. While the politicians were writing the new law they made sure that limousines and government vehicles were exempt from seatbelt requirements altogether, because they're just so uncomfortable and, you know, laws are for the little people. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The mother is vocal about gun ownership rights. I am certain that she would describe herself as a model gun owner. I am sure that she would call herself a law-abiding citizen, well-trained in gun safety, and a responsible gun owner. She created a situation where a 4 year-old child that "gets jacked up to target shoot", was able to access a handgun. If she properly and legally secured her son, properly and legally secured a firearm around a minor and didn't create prior environments where a 4 year old gets excited to fire weapons, then it's likely the son wouldn't have been able to find a gun under the seat, wouldn't have found a gun even if unsecured himself, or, upon finding an unsecured firearm while unsecured himself, would have said, "Mommy, I found a gun and am telling you about it like you taught me to do", instead of "getting jacked up" and shooting at the nearest available target, the back of mom's seat. My point being that many people who believe that they are a model of responsible gun ownership, are not. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I see what I'm supposed to do!Damn hand guns! We need to make them harder to get. If only the gun show loop hole was shut down this might not have happened.Got it. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that in case. I think what people are relishing in, is the irony that a pro gun person, was accidently shot because she did not take the care in securing her gun. No gun show loophole, or firearm restriction would have prevented this. Everyone can see that. However this woman broke the law by not having her handgun securely encased. This woman, who so clearly loved her firearms and America simply refused to obey a law and she suffered the consequences. I've never said that we don't need gun laws. I've said that we don't need additional gun laws that do little or nothing to reduce gun crime while punishing, inconveniencing or criminalizing responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I never said you felt we don't need gun laws. I think anyone who has read this forum knows your stance on guns, it has been hashed out over and over again. I found it ironic that the way to prevent this tragedy was for you to blame the mother for not using the seatbelt. But not blame the fact it was illegal for her to not have the handgun secure, as per Florida law. So I ran with the argument gun laws don't prevent gun crimes and replaced guns with seatbelts. It was a fun exercise in irony. As for your "Kayne scenario," you would have a point, if the current seat belt / car safety rules laws were not already effective. The car industry continually innovates to make cars better and safer. The car industry is heavily regulated by the government, with safety standards, licensure, etc. The costs of this are passed to the consumer and taxpayer. Because of this the number of traffic deaths have dramatically decreased in the last 15 years. Whereas, the gun industry and its lobbying arm the NRA have sought to weaken existing laws and oppose any new laws or government oversight. Gun deaths in this country has steadily gone up. That shows the current gun laws are not effective. My point being that many people who believe that they are a model of responsible gun ownership, are not. Exactly. If everyone was a responsible gun owner, there would be no need for gun laws. But not everyone is Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Why Kanye? Why not Mivhael J Fox or Tom Hanks? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Or Pauly Shore... Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 White privilege and overt racism obviously. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Gun deaths in this country has steadily gone up.No they haven't. They've been declining steadily for about 20 years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/ Why Kanye? Why not Mivhael J Fox or Tom Hanks?Kim Kardashian was the most tabloid-y celebrity with a baby that I could think of. Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I get jacked up to buckle up anyway. But just after I've just snorted a fat line outa Kim's cleavage, man I better be buckled down. I mean up. Where's my gun anyway? Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Heidi Kluhm has babies, Bristol Palin (a far more likely candidate for the scenario you propose) heck even Chelsea Cljnton. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Heidi Kluhm has babies, Bristol Palin (a far more likely candidate for the scenario you propose) heck even Chelsea Cljnton.I don't know who Heidi Kluhm is and I'm just assuming that Bristol Palin is one of Sarah Palin's kids. I'd rather have a root canal than watch a reality show or read a tabloid, but I'll be damned if I haven't somehow learned who Kim Kardashian is, who she's married to and when she had a baby. If it makes anyone happier, feel free to visualize Chelsea Clinton snorting coke off Kim's kans when you read my post. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 No they haven't. They've been declining steadily for about 20 years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/ I have heard it otherwise http://crimeresearch.org/tag/accidental-gun-deaths/ But regardless the automobile industry / government is far more open to solving issues and making their product safer for society. Whereas the gun manufacturers fight any hint of regulation. In fact is there any other industry so vehemently fights efforts to make their product safer? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I have heard it otherwiseThe FBI figures are clear. In fact is there any other industry so vehemently fights efforts to make their product safer?Gun manufacturers, the NRA and individual citizens aren't fighting efforts to make firearms safer -- they're already safe. They're fighting efforts to criminalize, confiscate and ban firearms. It's ludicrous that screwing a piece of plastic onto a standard hunting rifle can result in a felony conviction and the loss of the right to own a firearm and vote. Guns are perfectly safe. They're just hunks of metal, wood and plastic that are designed to do one thing: fire when the trigger is pulled. Gun manufacturers would have an obligation to improve the safety of their products if they fired without a trigger pull, if they exploded in a user's hands or if they shot bullets 90 degrees away from where they were pointed. Those things simply don't happen without negligence on the shooter's part. Guns are safe. If we want to reduce gun crime and suicide by gun we shouldn't point fingers at gun manufacturers, that's what law enforcement and mental health facilities are for. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Guns are safe. If we want to reduce gun crime and suicide by gun we shouldn't point fingers at gun manufacturers, that's what law enforcement and mental health facilities are for.Not for nothing, but the easy availability to procure a gun is directly related to suicide rates. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts