Gun control debate (merged)

#1,851
#1,851
Grand Vol said:
It's not. However, with the remainder of the list being pretty detailed in profession, I'd hazard a guess as it's someone who's been in government service in some form or fashion. The list would be pretty long if it listed "Congressional Aide" or "County Commissioner" so on and so forth for each "public servant" on the list. So the catchall being public servant.

You'll likely argue against my reasoning here, but I don't believe you could come up with a better explanation since it already lists LEO, military and firefighters as separate jobs.
Click to expand...

Not arguing, I'm just trying to figure out why lawyers and "public servants" are being lumped together.
 
#1,852
#1,852
ClearwaterVol said:
Not arguing, I'm just trying to figure out why lawyers and "public servants" are being lumped together.
Click to expand...

Honestly? Because a lawyer is one of the quicker paths to politics IMO. A prosecutor gets noticed, gets elected to DA, gets a few big cases and into the House or State Legislature/Senate. So on and so forth. Some lawyers probably see the legal career field as a logical path into politics. And the numbers show I'm probably correct on that assumption.

Public servants probably started off as aides and/or into governmental positions to start a career in politics. And moved up from there.

Two paths that run parallel to each other with the same outcome. Ivy League blue bloods bucking to get junior appointed to Senator X's staff when they graduate from Harvard with their political science degree or a lawyer that goes to school with aspirations to hold an elected office. I lump them together since both desire the same outcome IMO.
 
#1,853
#1,853
I don't particularly disagree with the career paths, but I'm not sure the goals are always the same. I'm sure there is overlap, but lumping them together and labeling them collectively as the problem is done without much analysis.
 
#1,855
#1,855
FWIW Grand, i think you and i would agree on how to address many of the problems found in Congress. We may disagree on some policies, but i have a feeling that we would be pretty close when it comes to fixing dc. I'll give a few. ..

Term limits
Get rid of pensions for Congress
One bill, one purpose
 
#1,856
#1,856
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't particularly disagree with the career paths, but I'm not sure the goals are always the same. I'm sure there is overlap, but lumping them together and labeling them collectively as the problem is done without much analysis.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll ever come up with any good analysis on the situation and/or career path of politicians. But I'd be willing to bet pennies to dollars it's generally in the mind of those once they graduate college. The fact those two make up the overwhelming majority of Congress shows me two careers generally lead into politics.

The business professional is the other angle that's interesting. I'd like to see a breakdown of the businesses they were in prior to being elected. Just as a curiosity.
 
#1,857
#1,857
ClearwaterVol said:
FWIW Grand, i think you and i would agree on how to address many of the problems found in Congress. We may disagree on some policies, but i have a feeling that we would be pretty close when it comes to fixing dc. I'll give a few. ..

Term limits
Get rid of pensions for Congress
One bill, one purpose
Click to expand...

Reformation of the entire legal code and back to simple laws with no hidden provisions for special interests.
Reformation of the tax code with no hidden provisions or loopholes.
No more Executive Branch traipsing into the areas they shouldn't. (I have a serious beef with the State Department and ITAR)
No more SCOTUS making policy (Roe v Wade should have been a legislative issue)

I'm sure there's more when I get the chance to think about it...
 
#1,858
#1,858
Grand Vol said:
Reformation of the entire legal code and back to simple laws with no hidden provisions for special interests.
Reformation of the tax code with no hidden provisions or loopholes.
No more Executive Branch traipsing into the areas they shouldn't. (I have a serious beef with the State Department and ITAR)
No more SCOTUS making policy (Roe v Wade should have been a legislative issue)

I'm sure there's more when I get the chance to think about it...
Click to expand...

The first two are enough to keep congress busy for 50 years. :)
 
#1,859
#1,859
ClearwaterVol said:
The first two are enough to keep congress busy for 50 years. :)
Click to expand...

Easy fix to the problem.

874073_74154609.jpg
 
#1,860
#1,860
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is testifying before Congress to defend Obama's EO on gun control. It is on Cspan
 
#1,867
#1,867
I wonder how many commanders will actually take the initiative to push this through:

AF Reminds Commanders: Authorized Conceal-Carry, Open-Carry OK on Base | Military.com

The attack last July on a recruiting office in Tennessee has prompted the Air Force to remind commanders they may authorize qualified airmen to carry weapons on base while off duty and out of uniform.

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter. Three programs authorize commanders at all levels -- as long as they have authorization from the base commander -- to allow conceal-carry or open-carry on the installation.

Quick said three programs established by the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense team enable commanders to beef up security through conceal-carry. The programs are the Unit Marshal, Security Forces Staff Arming and Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act programs. Under the Unit Marshall Program, unit commanders can have airman to train under Security Forces personnel and open-carry an M9 pistol at their duty location.
Click to expand...

And of course, there's always that one guy...

Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead | Fox News

“As far as I'm aware, it's always been in the power of military commanders to make decisions of this nature,” Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence tells FoxNews.com. “But the men and women leading our military understand their mission and the risks that come with barracks and mess halls full of guns.

"Don't hold your breath waiting for them to embrace America's degenerate gun culture. They won't, and
thank God given the potential implications for national defense."
Click to expand...

Which tells me this wafflecock has never seen a mess hall in a deployed location. But of course, he can sleep better at night knowing those detailed to protect him while he sleeps are defenseless to those who just don't care about our gun laws.
 
#1,868
#1,868
Grand Vol said:
I wonder how many commanders will actually take the initiative to push this through:

AF Reminds Commanders: Authorized Conceal-Carry, Open-Carry OK on Base | Military.com



And of course, there's always that one guy...

Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead | Fox News



Which tells me this wafflecock has never seen a mess hall in a deployed location. But of course, he can sleep better at night knowing those detailed to protect him while he sleeps are defenseless to those who just don't care about our gun laws.
Click to expand...

I've been in a couple AF mess halls and I could see it getting dicey with a bunch of armed young'uns when their fillet isn't cooked to perfection. Lord forbid something happens to the dessert tray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,869
#1,869
hog88 said:
I've been in a couple AF mess halls and I could see it getting dicey with a bunch of armed young'uns when their fillet isn't cooked to perfection. Lord forbid something happens to the dessert tray.
Click to expand...

You got tossed out of AF mess halls because they made you actually use flatware and sit at a table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,872
#1,872
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yet, they want expanded background checks on us. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, heaven forbid you have to wait a few extra days or weeks for your next assault rifle or handgun. How will you live without that gun for a few weeks? The 100 you already have isn't enough when Obama turns us into a Muslim State you will need that extra gun and waiting a few extra days or expanded background checks is not an option (blue font). Your 2nd amendment rights aren't being infringed by having to wait a few extra weeks or undergo expanded background checks before you buy your next gun. If those additional protections help save one life, then isn't it worth it? Damn people, get a grip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,873
#1,873
bnhunt said:
Yeah, heaven forbid you have to wait a few extra days or weeks for your next assault rifle or handgun. How will you live without that gun for a few weeks? The 100 you already have isn't enough when Obama turns us into a Muslim State you will need that extra gun and waiting a few extra days or expanded background checks is not an option (blue font). Your 2nd amendment rights aren't being infringed by having to wait a few extra weeks or undergo expanded background checks before you buy your next gun. If those additional protections help save one life, then isn't it worth it? Damn people, get a grip.
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree. But, I'll play.

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. Just call a cop, I'm sure you're witty enough to survive till they get there.

As far as infringing on my rights, I believe the magic parchment paper says "shall not be infringed" Now, I don't know how you take that, but I take it as no restrictions whatsoever. The simple mindedness of you ****s is truly insane. You honestly believe you can use the state to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own property and bodies. Here's a clue, worry about you and yours, the rest will take care of itself.

And stop lumping me in with the rest of these partisan hacks. I'm an anarchist, I don't give a damn what you do, as long as you're not hurting someone else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,874
#1,874
bnhunt said:
Yeah, heaven forbid you have to wait a few extra days or weeks for your next assault rifle or handgun. How will you live without that gun for a few weeks? The 100 you already have isn't enough when Obama turns us into a Muslim State you will need that extra gun and waiting a few extra days or expanded background checks is not an option (blue font). Your 2nd amendment rights aren't being infringed by having to wait a few extra weeks or undergo expanded background checks before you buy your next gun. If those additional protections help save one life, then isn't it worth it? Damn people, get a grip.
Click to expand...

And if having waiting periods prevents someone from getting a firearm in time to defend themselves? When you're playing games with people's lives, you had better make damn sure it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,875
#1,875
Love how this idea of a longer wait will somehow deter the person who is deadset with a plan to commit any atrocity. The most absurd concept ever muttered and goes to show just how clueless the people who provide this as a solution are.

OR, they will get them "illegally" which in and of itself shows the ridiculousness of trying to impose a "more stringent background check" or time frame to wait as it has no baring on the evil doer's ability to get a gun.

Get it through your brain that MAN, the human being, the animal, whether with male or female genitalia, is going to do as they please when it comes to doing whatever it is their little brain, and lack of self control and lack of consciousness decides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top