Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

Just now, EltonJohnson said:

 

Was Cruz known to authorities for  being violent?

There were warning, but nothing actionable.  If we had a national database, Cruz could have been stopped.  NRA opposed that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I've been listening to the news.  Florida tries to restrict gun sales, and the NRA sues.

 

Nothing on my list "restricts gun sales" . . . 

 

2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

CDC tries to investigate gun violence, The NRA successfully lobbies against it.  etc...

 

The tired story that the CDC is banned from all gun research is a lie.  They have always been free and clear to research anything regarding injuries and deaths from gunfire . . .

 

What they are banned from doing is using scientific research to advocate for gun control.

 

The law that that you are talking about -- NOT-OD-17-075: Notice of Legislative Mandates in Effect for FY 2017 -- (that you have believed the lies about) funds the CDC's National Institute of Health and all it says is, "none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.”

 

That's it . . .

 

If the effect of that is that the CDC is prevented from collecting and studying gun violence, that speaks more to the CDC's inability to be impartial and objective data collectors, it sure isn't forbidden by law.

 

So, the question isn't why can't the CDC examine gun violence, THEY CAN!

 

The question is, why can't the CDC just collect and report the data and let the policy be driven by Congress?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jeerleader said:

 

 

And again, SCOTUS has held for going on 140 years that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. 

 

That means that "interpreting" words that the right does not depend upon, into creating conditions and qualifications on the right, is illogical and anti-constitutional.

 

Why do you feel that "well regulated militia' has any import?  Why do you ignore and violate the clear, longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?

Because I think that the Supreme court determinations never intended for children to be easily killed by someone with easy access to guns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeerleader said:

 

Nothing on my list "restricts gun sales" . . . 

 

 

The tired story that the CDC is banned from all gun research is a lie.  They have always been free and clear to research anything regarding injuries and deaths from gunfire . . .

 

 

 

It's not a lie.  Their funding was cut 96% to prevent them from recommending gun control laws.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

There were warning, but nothing actionable.  If we had a national database, Cruz could have been stopped.  NRA opposed that too.

 

Where has the NRA ever opposed a national database of prohibited people? 

 

The NRA has been pressing for holding agencies accountable for failing to report records to NICS.

 

The NICS was the NRA's idea . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Because I think that the Supreme court determinations never intended for children to be easily killed by someone with easy access to guns.  

 

The Supreme Court is there to decide constitutionality of challenged law / policy.

 

Your spin has nothing to do with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BIGTEX said:

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

The solution is to send all third-worlders back to the hellholes whence they came!

  How about we allow honest, law-abiding citizens that live in the inner-city (read that African-Americans, mostly , to be able to buy guns and to conceal-carry those guns, to protect themselves and their families.

  THAT is where most of the gun-violence happens and where the murderous gangs control the city streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeerleader said:

 

The Supreme Court is there to decide constitutionality of challenged law / policy.

 

Your spin has nothing to do with reality.

The Supreme court has ruled that there are certain restrictions on the first Amendment too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bgr39 said:

  How about we allow honest, law-abiding citizens that live in the inner-city (read that African-Americans, mostly , to be able to buy guns and to conceal-carry those guns, to protect themselves and their families.

  THAT is where most of the gun-violence happens and where the murderous gangs control the city streets.

I agree.

BigTex is a simpleton,  the epitome of shallowness and xenophobia.

 

More guns are demonstrably unlikely to cause fewer shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Because I think that the Supreme court determinations never intended for children to be easily killed by someone with easy access to guns.  

 

So, children will not be murdered if we ban guns.

 

BIGTEX does not know what you ingest that makes you so stupid, but it is POWERFUL, POWERFUL stuff, indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bgr39 said:

  How about we allow honest, law-abiding citizens that live in the inner-city (read that African-Americans, mostly , to be able to buy guns and to conceal-carry those guns, to protect themselves and their families.

  THAT is where most of the gun-violence happens and where the murderous gangs control the city streets.

BIGTEX has no problem with that.  However, they already have that right under the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BIGTEX said:

 

So, children will not be murdered if we ban guns.

 

 

Bigtex, Have I ever stated in this thread or any other thread that we should ban guns?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Lets clear the air here.  I won't address any personal attacks nor will I make any in this thread. 

I only got this far. I came in with a simple question.

 

Why is it always overtly partisan dick suckers with names like "TrumpBGoneSoon," or "Obamasux," who pretend they want to have "serious" discussions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Bigtex, Have I ever stated in this thread or any other thread that we should ban guns?  

Yeah yeah, shill. You don't want to SUCK our dick - you just want to la-la-la up and down the shaft a time or two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

It's not a lie.  Their funding was cut 96% to prevent them from recommending gun control laws.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

 

 

 

There was a one year earmark on 2.6 million dollars that shifted the money from guns to head trauma; this was done to instantly cease BS "science" grants that was already approved. 

 

You do realize we are talking about grants right? 

 

This isn't money that is spent internally within the CDC where their employees study the issue . . .   We are talking about funds given a small community of outside "researchers" in academia who are co-financed by CDC and The Joyce Foundation and other left-leaning POLICY DRIVEN operations.

 

No funds were cut to the CDC, the "96% reduction" was over 15 years and represents the reduction that CDC chose to reallocate from gun research . . .  because CDC couldn't trust the "gun violence" research community to be impartial and neutral.   Yes, the money that CDC chose to spend INTERNALLY on grants asked for by those "researchers", dried up because the CDC couldn't be sure the conclusions of these studies wouldn't be political advocacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BIGTEX said:

 

So, children will not be murdered if we ban guns.

 

BIGTEX does not know what you ingest that makes you so stupid, but it is POWERFUL, POWERFUL stuff, indeed!

In Japan, guns are effectively banned.

In Japan, ZERO children are killed by guns in a typical year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeerleader said:

 

There was a one year earmark on 2.6 million dollars that shifted the money from guns to head trauma; this was done to instantly cease BS "science" grants that was already approved. 

 

You do realize we are talking about grants right? 

 

This isn't money that is spent internally within the CDC where their employees study the issue . . .   We are talking about funds given a small community of outside "researchers" in academia who are co-financed by CDC and The Joyce Foundation and other left-leaning POLICY DRIVEN operations.

 

No funds were cut to the CDC, the "96% reduction" was over 15 years and represents the reduction that CDC chose to reallocate from gun research . . .  because CDC couldn't trust the "gun violence" research community to be impartial and neutral.   Yes, the money that CDC chose to spend INTERNALLY on grants asked for by those "researchers", dried up because the CDC couldn't be sure the conclusions of these studies wouldn't be political advocacy.

Which is nonsense because they would have admit the obvious: Easy access to guns has risks to the public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Which is nonsense because they would have admit the obvious: Easy access to guns has risks to the public.  

The more guns are in circulation, the more people will be shot or shoot themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The more guns are in circulation, the more people will be shot or shoot themselves.

 

It is a factor.  People can claim otherwise but it's a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The more guns are in circulation, the more people will be shot or shoot themselves.

 

LMFAO

Prove that statement...

Sorry you want to trample on someone's 2nd Amendment RIghts....

What's next?

Maybe it is time we start to trample on your 1st Amendment RIghts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

 

OK.   I see you are incapable of reasoned discussion. 

 

You say about Cruz, "There were warning, but nothing actionable.  If we had a national database, Cruz could have been stopped.  NRA opposed that too".  I say the NRA has always supported the NICS and advocated for all agencies to be held accountable for reporting but you then move the goalposts and declare the topic is universal background checks.

 

You are not an honest voice in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeerleader said:

 

OK.   I see you are incapable of reasoned discussion. 

 

You say about Cruz, "There were warning, but nothing actionable.  If we had a national database, Cruz could have been stopped.  NRA opposed that too".  I say the NRA has always supported the NICS and advocated for all agencies to be held accountable for reporting but you then move the goalposts and declare the topic is universal background checks.

 

You are not an honest voice in this discussion.

I provide links.  I would hope you could too.  I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.  In fact, I truly benefit from it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...