Wow, you are going to make me say it huh? OK fine. I am a puss, I am uneducated, I have a tiny pecker, and like the rest of us, I support gun control.

Let's slow this down a bit. San Fran, Boston, and LA are on the brink of economic collapse? Yea... $1000/sq ft cities in the same breath as st Petersburg, Oakland, and Detroit.
Da fuc??

Ah, you are just practicing your victim mentality? I can understand that.

Property values have little to do with a cities budget.

No, but they do reflect the desirability of living in a community based on market perception.

I have to agree with Vic on this one, since when is Boston, LA or SF on the verge of economic collapse? I'd like to see the metric used to decide that.

+ property values have a bit to do with a cities' budget pretty directly actually ...
my property taxes go straight to the city of Boston for misappropriation 4 times a year!
but ya, boston, la, and san fran are in no way, on any standard or metric, on the verge of economic collapse or even depression ...

Cities can be in various stages of collapse. Desireability only drops after collapse. I believe his point was if the feds lost the Texas income strained cities would be over the edge.

All large cities are strained right now.

Again, not sure what his point was ... but what he did say was that San Fran, Oakland, St Petersburg, St Louis, Boston, LA, Philly and Detroit are "all cities that are on the brink of catastrophic economic collapse already"

you can look at it sideways or upside down but it doesn't change a thing. San Fran, Boston, and LA aren't on the brink of any collapse, they certainly aren't on the brink of a 'catastrophic economic collapse' and they aren't even in any remote stage of collapse, depression, or any other negative economic existence. not going to speak further than that

Well that sounded like an emotional butthurt denial lol.

lol as if!

Heh, well yes, it is said mostly tongue-in-cheek because Texas makes a lot of stupid decisions and I often dislike being associated with them. But that aside, I don't think the economic impact of secession is really as big as mdevol or you make it sound. They still have plenty of incentive to trade with U.S. states whether independent or not. It isn't like we hold their oil "captive".

https://wallethub.com/...-federal-government/2700/
http://www.theatlantic.com/...-which-are-takers/361668/

By most measures TX is pretty middle-of-the-road. By some they are net "takers". Along with the loss of federal income taxes would go all our federal spending there. To be taken seriously it would require a much deeper analysis of the impact on things like corporate/employment law, tariffs (or lack thereof), etc.

But its more fun to just thumb my nose at them, so lemme have my fun. :)

What about the cost of creating all those new international borders?

What about having to replace every flag in murica! You want us to just duct tape one of them there stars off? You suggest we bring in Puerto Rico to keep it legit?

Mexico will own several of the southern states by the year 2100, including Texas, so this conversation is moot.

Comming from the country that harbors an ENTIRE french colony! Dont even sting.

Atleast we let a hurricane wipe out our french.

I was down in New Orleans like 2 weeks ago. It's still very much there :p

Also, without the French America would still be using a U in Harbour. You owe them your freedom!

The American Revolution was merely a proxy war for France against Britain, I don't know why Americans are so high on themselves for it. The more I think about, the more you guys sound like a North American Taliban, right down to the religious fundamentalism.

The colonies would have eventually won on logistics alone, but the French sped the process up.

Doesn't mean they havnt been surrender monkeys ever since.

Its a little known fact that french tanks have their thickest armor on the back . . .

French army knife has 2 tools. A corkscrew and a white flag.

Well, that means that we need MORE laws, right? Then, when we do bust them instead of them shooting themselves, or being shot, we can lock them up for longer since there would be MORE laws broken. Holy Hell, how come I didn't see that before?

At least, that's the narrative of the left, and to a lesser degree the right. The problem is no one wants to look at their neighbor, or family member and just step up and say it out loud that the sucker is crispy enough to have to serve with slaw, and make sure they get some mental illness assistance.

https://youtu.be/ggCRx8gh0eE

Ride with a true legend in a kick ass ride. fluff uber Hola.

Here is what some of our illustrious police officers think on this issue:

http://forums.officer.com/t201906/

Oh no, we're much more insidious than the Taliban could ever be. You see, the colonies knew a few things:

1. The longer an Army could be kept in the field, the more the British would be drawn in.

2. The more the British were drawn in, the more likely another European power (likely France) would be to take advantage.

3. Once other European powers were drawn into the conflict, Britain would have much bigger problems than the colonies.

4. As soon as the tide started favoring France and company, Britain would become eager to make peace with the colonies before France could win peace for the colonies.

5. Peace with Britain before winning the war alongside France would mean actual independence.


There was nothing proxy about this war between Britain and France. This was a world war between Britain and France/Spain. Battles were fought in the Pacific Ocean as a result of the opportunity created in British North America. The same thing that protected America until ~the Mexican-American War also gave America our independence. In a one on one fight, many European powers could defeat the United States, but they would never have the opportunity to face the US one on one. It goes back to what mrford said, logistics.

Historically, there has only been one country that has ever fought on two oceans, simultaneously, in an active conflict and come out on top. Even then, the United States did not fight alone, did not equally divide the resources (or even proportionally divide the resources), and did not have the problem of securing safe harbors in hostile lands.

World War Two would be a very different history if even one of these elements was not in place:

1. Britain fending off a Nazis invasion.

2. The Soviet Union sacrificing millions to combat Hitler in the Eastern fronts.

3. The US turning out a military-industrial miracle.

4. Australia/New Zealand holding off Japanese attacks and keeping their mainlands secure.

5. China keeping the fight going on the Asian mainland.


1-3 are basically co-equal top factors in the history of WW2. 4-5 are hugely important supporting factors.



Here's saluting getting off topic,

Well said. Mearsheimer couldn't have explained it better himself.

well Harvard law grads have repeatedly proven to the news that they couldn't pass the simple questions on the immigration test too.

OH and apparently can't beat a bunch of cons at a debate either.


How well are them toughest gun control laws in the country working out in Chicago?

They are working really well in Chicago. No deaths this year to gun violence. Chicago literally proves that if you make strict gun laws, criminals will unanimously abide by it. Discussion over. Period.

No defensive advantages. harvard.

matt damon

Some of the statements made on this post are completely in line with what the current crop of politicians, let's redefine that term, shall we. Let's call them Political Animals instead.

The Political Animals believe that they need a Constitutional Scholar to interpret the constitution, and this is deadly wrong.

The founding fathers of the United States, wrote the Constitution in language that ANY one who is reasonably fluent in English could understand it. Having grown up in Philadelphia, the whole concept of the revolution was a primary interest of mine. I spent quite a bit of time visiting those sites where all this occurred, and reading the writings of these men beyond what is included in the constitution itself or the declaration of independence.

Thomas Jefferson was a genius and an honorable man in every sense of the word despite the modern medias attempts to portray him in a "politically correct" unseemly light.

These were men of true character, and they KNEW what they were up against. Thus, they wrote the Constitution of the United States in language that they expected that EVERY American Patriot of the time could understand.

This attitude MUST be lost, or they will redefine us out of our liberty and freedom to choose.

The end game is always the same with these people. They want to maintain power, and the only way to do that sometimes is to take away the enemies (us) ability to oppose them.

And I know that some of you are going to jump up here and start ranting about my tinfoil hat and all that, but let me tell you this, just in case that's not enough for you to decide that I'm crazy, I also am working on building a faraday cage large enough to include my whole room. :)

Now, you idiots that simply want to be spoon fed what "reality" is, can resume your daydreams.

https://mises.org/...hibition-modern-lawmakers

"Many gun-control advocates really do believe that government regulation and management can solve every social ill. They ignore the realities behind failed experiments such as alcohol prohibition or the war on drugs, and instead move on to the latest sexy prohibitionist drive because they sense an opportunity to control one more aspect of daily life."

+1 Very well written description of the problem for sure. Thanks, buddy.

The key metric being the "murder rate", not the "gun-related murder rate". Laying this at the feet of the general public, aka the middle class has some psychological evidence on it's face, but I think that in the long run, those in the lower half of the "middle-class" will eventually wake up and take control of our government once again, and it's likely going to involve a bit of violence since those in power NEVER want to relinquish that power, and evidence of THAT FACT is everywhere in history, and that includes the Bible for those of you who have faith.

You know, there was a period of time that it was illegal to have a Catholic Mass in the British Empire, and the first one in America happened in Philadelphia, shortly after the revolution. The founding fathers were not "Catholic".

The Pope has recently claimed that you cannot claim to be a Christian if you have a gun, manufacture guns, or sell guns. This is completely a political statement, and has nothing to do with religious canon other than the Catholics belief in the "infallibility" of the Pope.

The Pope also claimed that you cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ outside of his Church, aka, The Roman Catholic Church. And that is the vilest of lies. The very idea that someone can "buy indulgences" from the Holy See is completely outside Jesus teachings. You cannot, by virtue of wealth and influence break the laws of God and get out of paying for those sins to God himself, who will be our judge in the end, no matter what.

But, that's a discussion for another time. The bottom line is if we let the government restrict our RIGHT to own weapons to defend ourselves from anyone bent on harming us, or our families, or even our property to a degree, which is the ONLY degree that should EVER even come up for discussion. We will be well and truly enslaved to the Elite, who will then be able to control EVERY aspect of OUR lives, and strictly make everyone do what will benefit them the most, no matter the personal cost of the slave. You want to be master's of your own destiny, then you need to have access to weapons, if you only wish to be a slave and be spoonfed what is now defined as "reality", then you can vote away your own rights, but Don't think for a second that I'm going to give up mine willingly.

Could you please link the pope comments on guns and christianity? I know lost of catholics. Im their friend and want them to keep their relationship with catholicism and jesus. Might be able to get the blood off their hands and buy their weapon fluff.
If i found the link myself, i would feel like a total bigot, because of trife and tella. Thanks in advance.

think this is it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...an-says-Pope-Francis.html

Thanks
I will disappear to spread the pope gospel.

Probably not much of a christian if you are molesting little kids a la catholic style...

I'm telling you right now, right here. Satan is sitting on Peter's Throne, make no mistake about it. The Roman Catholic Church is simply the old Roman Empire in disguise. LOL

Thank You for looking that up for the masses, dude. :)

You've got to realize that the Roman Catholic Church is more of a political organization rather than a spiritual one. For example. It's the wealthiest organization in the entire world. NO ONE has more MONEY, Power or Influence than they do, and they preach that we should be generous to the poor, right? Well, How Come the Pope doesn't get off a few hundred million to help the poor? What about that? Huh? Where is his Christian Charity? Where is it? Has anyone seen Christian Charity coming from Vatican City? Anyone?

Don't be shy, pony up your information for us. We're very interested and curious about it.

http://www.martingrandjean.ch/...ted-states-guns-and-wars/

Not at all relevant and certainly not important.

#1 they included suicides, #2 they didn't distinguish between murder and self defense.

I could throw any statistic together to prove any point as long as I use the right data set to illiterate my predetermined point.

Notice that suicides are included in the non-warfare related gun death statistics. Why leave those in unless you're attempting to pump up the numbers on that side of the chart?

Its kind of like mentioning that "there are more guns than people in the US". Statements like that are absolutely meaningless, and are only intended to shock people.

Between Bill and I, we own (or co-own, as we recently inherited some guns) 4 shotguns, 7 pistols, 6 modern rifles, 5 muzzleloader rifles and one German sniper rifle which our grandfather brought back from WWII. In our two households combined, that works out to a rate of almost 4 guns per person. Somehow though, even despite that startling and horrifying per capita gun rate in our homes, those guns have been used in zero violent crimes.

The pastor from our church came with us on our recent elk hunting trip. I let him use one of my muzzleloaders - without a background check (!) - and he managed to avoid committing any violent crimes. I don't know how he did this. Our elk camp had a 2:1 guns:people ratio. I thought for sure we were all going to die, but we made it back alive.

And BTW tellarion, what you've done in this thread is a pretty good example of why many reasonable and rational gun owners will oppose pretty much any proposed gun regulations, especially at the Federal level.

Even though you're smart enough to know better, you will quote meaningless statistics and flawed studies... whatever your "side" wants to feed to you. Whether that's because of laziness on your part, trust in the people who bring you these false/misleading data, or your own agenda... none of that matters. What matters is that the people you choose to believe will scream "EPIDEMIC" and "CRISIS" over and over, and you will parrot them.

We know that criminals are not going to obey gun laws. EVER. The only people affected by gun laws are people who.... *obey the law*. The politicians writing and proposing these laws also know this. Its what they count on. They don't want to solve crises... they live for the crisis. Any crisis they can concoct will give them the power to buy votes with fear. So when the "common sense" gun laws fail -and they always will fail - the politicians will proclaim that there is still a CRISIS. You'll again parrot them. You'll claim - and possibly honestly believe - that individual gun rights are not the target, but that more stringent checks and controls are needed. You're intelligent and well spoken, so people will believe you without checking whatever flawed study your favorite misinformation source has fed you.

And eventually the anti-gun crowd will get what Obama wants right now. The elimination of private gun ownership.

Now along will come Trife or someone else who supports the 2nd amendment, but who also supports the democrat party, to make fun of me for saying that Obama wants to take our guns, but..... will he (or anyone) actually listen to what our Liar in Chief really says? In the same speech, he'll talk about the need for "common sense gun control", and then he'll go on to praise the efforts of the UK and Australia. Without coming out and saying it, he's telling you he wants to end private gun ownership.

Just like when he said we could keep our health insurance plan if we like it. He was being intentionally deceitful then, he's being intentionally deceitful on this and most other issues now.

Anyway, those who look with skepticism at politicians (and remember history) know that the real goals are always only to ensure reelection, and to increase the power of the politician. So, while laws like Washington State's recent successful gun initiative do make sense and pose very little threat to actual gun rights, people like me will still vote "no". Because we know that the politicians will never stop inventing the next CRISIS, and that there will be people like you out there spreading their false message.

When the hell are we going to stop worrying so much about the tools used to implement murder, and focus on the motivation. If you're mentally ill with a message you want to spread. Go out and commit mass murder. The media will make sure your message gets out loud and clear.

It's interesting how incredibly defensive you get by me just simply posting a visualization of data. The data itself is not political. It is not trying to prove a point. THAT depends on how the data is characterized and reacted upon. All I did was post it; I didn't add my opinion. I didn't try to tell you how to interpret it. I thought it was interesting and had a place in these types of discussions.

Instead of attacking me for blindly reposting what 'my side' is mind-controlling me to post, why not use the data to support YOUR points, as well as mine? Yes, those numbers include suicide. But why should we just toss those numbers out and not consider them? One of the common defenses of the pro-gun side is that it's mental illness and the PEOPLE, not the tool. Ok, so why would you make that argument, and then ignore gun-related suicides? I do not know for certain(as in I have not looked up the numbers), but I would guess that the attempted vs successful suicide rates are altered heavily by the involvement of firearms. Again, I have not researched that, so don't attack me for it. Simply a logical insight.

These numbers have an important place in these discussions. As many have pointed out, we spend inordinately more money on terrorism and wars than we do on public safety issues, of which guns are a large contributor. I don't claim to know what the proper solution is, but simply waving your arms in the air and saying this is a liberal conspiracy to TAKE UR GUNZ is absolute lunacy. These same events are repeated year after year in our country, and far far less frequently in others, and yet NOTHING CHANGES. You just slam the brakes and refuse to admit that there is an issue at all. That is the very definition of insanity.

So, given the logical starting point of something needs to be changed, where do you suggest we go?

So far only one catholic has given me a maybe. The rest said the pope is not catholic and full of fluff.


People need to watch their friends and loved ones and take some responsible precautions. Thats the most effective thing to do.
When the government and the healthcare system becomes trustworthy and corruption free, i personally would be open to more proactive measures. Until then, its stfu about it. Not fluffing happening.

add in per capita and we're more like 6th. *points at norway*

Is there any argument so bad, so inane, so far gone - that cannot be made worse by adding Cerb and Tella?

Is that your way of avoiding the points I've been making? I think I've been pretty on point here and managed not to resort to ad hominem attacks. In fact, I've been listening to people's opinions and trying hard to formulate the response they deserve. I also notice I managed to shut down counter-arguments in two other threads without people responding to the core of my points. Not bad, imo.

Besides, you're just pissy about team, despite the recent changes.

You, young fool, have just proved your own point.

i like how tella posts sensationalist stats, then complains when the other side is sensationalist, then says he doesnt have a solution, then asks the other side for a solution.

keep it up!

How is it sensationalist? If it were meant to be that, I would have gone to some mass media site to explain how those numbers mean America is a failed state or some other nonsense. I didn't even add my own opinions or insight to it, I literally just added it and you guys took off from there. Sure, I heavily implied that it was something to look at and think about. Beyond that, I didn't make any claims, but YOU guys did.

But hey, if you'd like to ignore all my points as you usually do and then try to tell me how stupid I am, be my guest. It takes a lot of confidence and intelligence to admit when a situation is beyond one's ability to solve, and ask people with opposing viewpoints for their input. Something you aren't very capable of.

I don't have to say what my solutions would be, since they would instantly be rejected by everyone here, regardless of how I phrased it. So instead of defending my viewpoint and attacking yours, I'm all ears to hear what you have to say.

Given a blank check, how would you fix this issue?

And Heston, I think that's a great point and something to think about. It also dovetails into issues like bullying which have increased in recent years.

That being said, these types of issues are endemic to most cultures around the world. Hell, the country I live in has an even more massive problem with this than the US. Nearly every day, one of the train lines I ride on is delayed because someone decided to jump in front of them down the line...suicide here is the leading cause of non-medical related deaths in this country. But there have been no mass shootings in my lifetime, and even the police are incredibly hesitant to use firearms for fear of public backlash.

http://www.nydailynews.com/...fe-guns-article-1.1223065

So obviously this solution wouldn't work in the US without a Constitutional Amendment, and that would never get even close to passing unless(and even if) something even more drastic takes place. Still, you can't dispute the effectiveness of these policies.