Ten oz

You aren't posting about how to solve the problem. You are posting about the way recommendations by others make you a victim. You are disagreeing with my approach much as I am yours yet I've not resorted to pity posts about being alienated. We are all equally entitled to our opinions. You can have yours, some will agree with it and others won't. From the posts I have read of yours on the issue the majority of arguments you've made are ones which have been long repeated for decades. Positions that have been respected and tried for decades and the situation has only worsened. The voices of those who own guns and like guns and believe themselves to be safe responsible gun owners are voices that received copious amounts of influence over this debate. Nothing has gotten better. The arguments and approach you advocate haven't helped. Obviously it is debatable if they've hurt but they clearly haven't helped. Time after time people have bent to their knees and politely asked for the most modest of reforms and been told "over my cold dead body". As John Cuthber linked the current administration rolled back a regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns. That is where we are at; negative progress. I intentionally do not discuss my experience with guns in these discussions. Because whenever a gun debates come up many people first rush to qualify themselves by listing the number of guns they have as if being a gun owner legitimizes ones position. We should not have to first either show support for or apologize to gun owners before we can proceed. Politicians are careful to be photographed with guns. It is unique to gun debates. When we discussing abortion the voices of those who have had them do not dominate discussion. To my knowledge there is not a single elected official in Congress who has admitted to being involved with an abortion. Likewise drug debates. We don't start off debate by having everyone first list all the drugs they've done. Yet gun debates always includes people talking about their guns, their training, and etc. It is a self re-enforcing loop. What I want: a ban on bump stocks to include language that would ban any comparable accessory, universal background checks, law enforcement to be authorized a database to collect information about the distribution and use of guns, a tax on all guns & ammunition to cover the implementation of changes to policy, and just as there are Congressional committees which regularly meet to discuss ethics, education, Armed Services, and etc there should be one for gun violence. I don't want to ban all guns, collect any ones guns, or stop you from owning guns. I want the modest stuff most approve of passed and then discussion to continue as the industry evolves in response to change. This is an interesting question. When Janet Napalitano was Sec.of Homeland Security she released an assessment indicating a threat from domestic grown extremist groups. Republicans aggressively rebuked the assessment claiming it unfairly criticized conservative groups. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/ Since that time we have seen a growing amount of violence related to such groups. From right wing militia members killing police officers in Las Vegas during the Bundy ranch standoff, Dylann Roof (Charleston Church) be a white nationalist sympathizers, the tikki torch Nazis in Chancellorsville, and now this shooting in Florida where the shooter had participated in paramilitary training with a white nationalist group it seems that Napalitano was on to something. However just as the President was careful to not be overly critical of the Nazis is Chancellorsville they is a lot of caution among Republicans to treat white nationalist militias as terror groups because those groups are such staunch supporters of theirs. If those groups were labelled as terrorist organizations in Congress law enforcement agencies like the FBI would have for more latitude to track and investigate them. In connecting the dots with respects to Nikolas Cruz his affiliation with white nationalists in combination with other warnings would have set off more red flags. So I do feel the FBI are being scape-goated a bit for what is actually the failure of Congress to act on the assessments they have been provided by experts.

Going into the 2010 midterms Democrats had the majority of the House and Senate well as the White House. In large part to the Tea Party Republicans took control of the House and gained 5 seats in the Senate. Today Republicans control every branch of govt. If not for the Tea Party the supreme court would be majority democrat nominated judges at this point. The Tea Party has been wildly successful at achieve goals conservatives care about. What have I proposed that alienates you? I have said everything should be on the table for negotiation. Why does allowing everything on the table for debate alienate you; it is actually the more inclusive way to do it. Insisting on starting from a compromised position alienates everyone that wants more. Seem best to lay all grievances out. Swap out hunting for driving and what's the difference. Should we buy cars for 10yr olds and start teaching them to drive because they are going to drive one day anyway and when they are teenagers it will be too difficult to teach them?

What I posted is in black white for anyone to read. There is no point is debating it. I find it hilarious your response has shrunken down to something entirely superfluous and off topic. The crux of my responses to you have been that entering political discussions from a compromised position has repeated failed. When bargaining the price of something it is stupid for a person to lead off with the absolute most they are willing to pay. Rather one leads off with a price significantly less and are negotiated up. For decades now those who seek change to gun regulations have led off discussion by asking for minimum then end up walking away with nothing. I feel it is time for a stronger approach. Lead off by asking for everything, the maximum everyone in the room can imagine, and then negotiate down from there. Perhaps then the minimum can be achieved rather than nothing at all.

"A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russians and three Russian entities in connection with the attack on the 2016 presidential election. The defendants are "accused of violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes," according to a statement from the special counsel's office. The indictment charges them with "conspiracy to defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft." Some of the people described in the court documents even traveled to the United States or "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with" President Trump's campaign "and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment says." https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/586500591/grand-jury-indicts-russians-linked-to-interference-in-2016-election Now that we have indictments of Russians who interfered with the election and were in communication with Trump's campaign is it possible for this thread to be merged back with Russian Collusion thread? I only ask because I would like to discuss these indictments but honestly am not sure which thread to do it in. I believe the issues have converged.

Exactly. We are told to come to the table with the obvious stuff every agrees on. Then after getting to the table light are told "oops looks like we can't get that done, oh well". Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Bump stocks have no purpose other than converting semi automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. Getting a ban on bump stocks should have been easy. One by one Politicians have come to the table with singular non-divisive requests that have majority support in polling and nothing happens. Time to be more aggressive. I didn't say "met". I said bring everything to the table. It is a better negotiating position. If what that leads to is a ban on bumps than great. As it stands now merely asking for a ban on bump stocks alone has led to nothing. I called your feelings redundant. I never said you weren't entitled to them. You're mischaracterizing what I've posted.

No, those who are in interested in change should stop compromising in advance. Stop acquiescing that certain goals need to be put on the back burner in the name of compromise s that never come to pass. Instead of taking a ton of stuff off the table for fear of complicating negotiations everything needs to be on the table. My point is the way you feel can apply to absolutely anything. That makes redundant. If you like Nuclear weapons and are safe with Nuclear weapons why can't you have Nuclear weapons? The proliferation of certain things needs to be considered.

That has been the approach for decades and led us to the place we are now. The compromise middle ground approach has failed in every measurable way. So now what? What wouldn't this statement apply to? Laws often limit the many because of what a few might do or have done. Anything can be safe if handle safely but that isn't equal to everything being safe. People buying guns at the volume we do here in the U.S. means gun producers are able to invest in optimizing their process and mass producing ever increasing amount at cheaper prices. That leads to more and more people having them. The more people that have them the more likely it is a crazy person gets one or ten.

It would also cut down on the total number of guns bought and sold each year. That potentially would inflate the cost of buying guns which would further reduce the number of guns bought and sold. That inflation would similarly impact the black market. If guns we're more expensive to get less criminals would have them especially considering those most people caught committing armed crimes are poor. I am sure there are a lot people out there who consider a parent taking their child hunting to be an important bonding and character building experience. So restricting it is probably Politically not doable. I think extra taxation would be a big step in the right direction. Just as federal and local govts pile on extra taxes for Alcohol and Cigarettes there should be many extra fees on both guns and ammunition. Enough to make the cost of each significant enough to influence the way each is treated by consumer. At a hundred dollars for a gun my parents might have bought me a gun if I wanted one badly enough and had someone to take me hunting. At a thousand dollars there is no way they would have considered it.

I don't see have the prevalence of guns in various communities is relevant. Something can be prevalent yet still have safety regulations and limits. Walking is prevalent in every community everywhere yet one isn't allow to just walk down the center of a freeway. Jaywalking is still illegal. Based on age one cannot even walk various places alone. Yes, lots of people have guns and everyone who has a gun isn't bad. That doesn't mean laws shouldn't be improved.

Having a car is very useful. If people didn't have access to personal transportation the whole economy would suffer. One still needs to be the right age, pass a test, have insurance, and be licensed to drive. Everyone isn't legally able to drive. People with very medical conditions, previous DUIs, and so on are not allowed to drive. Something being useful doesn't automatically mean everyone should have unlimited access.

1.Credibility is relative. Have pro gun advocates lost credibility by refusing to even entertain discussion? 2. It is funny you use drunk driving as your example. Numerous Bars have been sued and in nearly all states it is illegal to sell alcohol to intoxicated individuals. Laws use to be very lax regarding drunk driving up until the 1970's when groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) started suing and lobbying to get laws changed. They have been extremely successful. Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the long history of improving safety in industry through the courts. While it may seem like common sense in 2018 that cigarettes are unhealthy that wasn't always so. Tobacco companies were sued relentlessly and force to add warning labels and pay for public serve announcements educating the public regarding the harm of tobacco. Think about that; a business (Tobacco) actually has to warn people against buying their product. Google "Unsafe at Any Speed" and read about all the legal tussles it took to improve automobile safety. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cars can all still be bought and used in reckless or dangerous ways but the laws surrounding them have been significantly changed over the years and tipping points involved relentless legal action. Guns will continue to be sold but laws need to change. Pro gun advocacy groups have already proven repeated for decades they will not participate so the only recourse is to force them to participate. It worked for drunk driving, worked for cigarettes, worked for vehicle safety, and can work for guns.

"The suspect in one of the deadliest school shootings in modern American history arrived at the school in Florida in an Uber, according to a police arrest report released Thursday." "The F.B.I. on Thursday said it received information about a comment made on a YouTube channel which has been attributed to the gunman, but was unable to identify the person." "The AR-15 rifle used in the attack was purchased legally, at Sunrise Tactical Supply in Florida, according to a federal law enforcement official. " "The leader of a white nationalist group, Republic of Florida, said on Thursday that Mr. Cruz had also participated in paramilitary drills." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html?referer=http://www.google.com/ YouTube, Uber, Sunrise Tactical Supply, and the White Nationalist group Republic of Florida all should be taken to court and sued. Pro gun Politicians side step the issue so people need to start forcing discussion by dragging people into it court. Force Uber to review their policies and wonder if they have a responsibility to not transport armed people. Force YouTube to address whether they have an obligation to better moderate comments, force the store owner through expensive litigation, and force judges to answer whether hate groups that provide paramilitary training to mass shooters have some responsibility. I know a lot of the lawsuits would go nowhere but it is a way to force discussion. Be a squeaky wheel.

Gallup polling has it at 60% of the population wants more strict guns laws. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx 90% of the population supports Universal Background Checks. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

There is a lot exaggeration and blustering surrounding guns. People shout down any gun legislation as too soon or too anti American before it can even get going. Pro gun advocates have long since put their foot down and declared they absolutely will not be party to any discussion that in anyway shape or form burdens anyone who seeks guns; period. Not only have pro gun advocates declared they won't be party to such discussions but they actively work to prevent others from even having the most preliminary of discussion. They have hijack the process by simply refusing to participate in the process yet still demanding representation. To break the deadlock those who would like changes need to act alone and accept the full brunt of the backlash. There is no other way. Mayors and Governors need to have the Political courage to go as far in the opposite direction as pro gun advocates are going. It is the only to force compromise. That means banning all assualt weapons in cities and states, banning the sale of ammunition, creating registries that track gun owners, and etc. So as a court tosses the law just reword it and get back after it. Make the NRA bleed millions in legal fees suing cities and states until everyone agrees to sit at the table and have an actual conversation.

National Fire Arms Act 1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Gun Control Act of 1968 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 Firearm Owner Protection Act 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act We have had various law passed throughout history limiting who can have guns, what type of guns, how guns can be transported, and etc. Both parties had enacted legislation at different times. It is a relatively new political environment we are in where one of the 2 parties so vehemently supports the pro gun lobby. There are many reasons for this. 24/7 cable news put partisan punditry into millions of people home around the clock which has led to deeper partisan divisions and identity politics. The internet and social media has only doubled and tripled down on that. The NRA has spends millions a year lobbying the govt, marketing guns, and lacks any direct oppositions competitor. Republicans have found that it wins votes and politicians in general dial up anything that successfully is proven to win votes. The result has been an increasingly worsening situation. One thing I find amazing about the chart below is that despite all the national turmoil surround Civil Rights and the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's mass shootings were virtually nonexistent. Society is acting out their frustrations and mental health issues in a more violent many today.

The average of all polling on election day had Trump at 43.6 and Clinton at 46.8 (Clinton +3.2). The election ended up 48.2 Clinton to 46.1 Trump (Clinton +2.1). Polls were basically accurate within their margin of error. Currently Trump's approval is 41%. It is fair to assume, based on the long term performance of polls, 41% is accurate give or take a point. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump gets caught bold face lying a couple times a week. Below are a couple examples from this week alone. Meanwhile his approval rating is 41%. That might seem low but he only won 46% of the popular vote in the first place. That means 90% of those who initially supported him still approve. That is actually a very high number when one considers the narrative that many voted Trump simply to vote against Hillary Clinton. If that were true I would suspect he'd lost at least a third of his support by now with all the revaluations we have had regarding Russia, lack of qualified staff, lies, and etc yet that isn't the case. His support remains very strong among his base. They support him unequivocally and were not merely voting against Clinton. The MeToo movement like the BLM movement before it is already drawing backlash. The words "witch hunt " are starting to be tossed around. I think among certain conservative groups the MeToo movement will rally them to turn out and vote Trump just as BLM was for many rural conservative bigots. As for the GOP choosing someone who can govern; that isn't a goal of theirs. Republicans don't believe people should be governed. At least not rich people. They believe in a wild west styled free for all where one can do as they please. If you are poor, oh well, work harder to get rich. If you are rich, applause, you earned it. So to answer your question I do not think anything has happened yet which will beneficially increase voter opposition against Trump. A couple of this weeks exposed lies: "A personal lawyer for President Donald Trump told NBC News on Tuesday night that he paid $130,000 to pornographic film star Stormy Daniels, who has in the past said she had an affair with Trump. In a statement late Tuesday, the lawyer, Michael Cohen, confirmed a report in The New York Times that he made the payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, a month before the 2016 presidential election."Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly," Cohen said." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-lawyer-michael-cohen-says-he-paid-stormy-daniels-n847866 "FBI Director Christopher A. Wray testified Tuesday that a background check on former White House staff secretary Rob Porter was completed months before he resigned over domestic abuse accusations — contradicting accounts given by the White House in recent days. Mr. Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the FBI submitted a partial report on Mr. Porter in March 2017, and a completed background investigation in late July. He said the White House requested follow-ups, and the FBI finished that inquiry in November. “We administratively closed the file in January,” Mr. Wray said, although he added that the FBI gave “additional information” this month to the White House. He didn’t elaborate. His testimony seems to conflict with the White House, which said the background check into Mr. Porter was still ongoing as late as last week, when two of his ex-wives publicly accused him of abuse. As White House staff secretary, " https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/13/christopher-wray-contradicts-white-house-timing-ba/

Those of us who live in capitalistic societies are indoctrinated that it is the best and most prosperous. Like wise those living comfortably in theocracies or under socialism feel the same way. It is all just perception based on environment. Different systems priorities different things. At one point or another in history everyone from the Mongols to the Romans thought they had figured out the best structure from society. A few hundred years from today people will consider whatever system they have as superior to previous ones including capitalism. That is just the nature of the beast.

My guess is Trump is not impeached but is indicted for crimes by Mueller. Then in 2020 he stands as good a chance of being re-elected as he stood to be elected in the first place.

"Coats says that Russia utilized social media as a relatively "cheap and low risk" opportunity to sow dissension in the U.S. He said in the eyes of Russia, it "offers plausible deniability and is proven to be effective at sowing division." He said that Russia will "continue using propaganda, social media, false flag personas and sympathetic spokesmen to build on its wide range of operations and exacerbate social and political issues in the U.S." Coats noted that Russia perceived its past influence as "successful" and aims to use the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target. Director Pompeo added that intelligence officials have yet to sees a "significant decrease" in Russian activity as it pertains their influence in U.S. elections and social and political issues. " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-wray-mike-pompeo-dan-coats-testify-on-worldwide-threats-live-stream/ Both Dan Coats the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Mike Pompeo the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were appointed by Trump. They are not Democrat deep state plant. Both acknowledge under oath both the Senate today to Russia perceives their influence in the 2016 election successful and have continue to seed division. Meanwhile Trump himself continues to challenge whether Russia did anything a lot with regards to the 2016 election. Even if a person choose to ignore the fairly obvious fact that at a minimum Trump's campaign willfully and knowingly accepted help from Russia propaganda they should still be upset that Trump continues run defense for Russia to this day.

"WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's No. 3 attorney had been unhappy with her job for months before the department announced her departure on Friday, according to multiple sources close to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand. Brand grew frustrated by vacancies at the department and feared she would be asked to oversee the Russia investigation, the sources said. She will be leaving the Justice Department in the coming weeks to take a position with Walmart as the company's executive vice president of global governance and corporate secretary, a job change that had been in the works for some time, the sources said. As far back as last fall, Brand had expressed to friends that she felt overwhelmed and unsupported in her job, especially as many key positions under her jurisdiction had still not been filled with permanent, Senate-confirmed officials. Four of the 13 divisions overseen by the associate attorney general remain unfilled, including the civil rights division and the civil division, over one year into the Trump administration." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-official-brand-leaves-partly-over-fear-she-might-n847156

@ Raider read my response to CharonY.

To be clear I NEVER actually claimed one way or another regarding the amount of people dying in this century vs a specific previous one due to violence. Rather I said I don't know if that was the case and asked for clarity as to what time frame(s) were being referenced. My responses have been mischaracterized. I am not attempting to prove more people die violently today than in medieval times. As such there is nothing for me to take another swing at. Area54 ignored several points I made in a early post and has fixated all conversation onto this one issue which in my opinion has already be resolved and provides nothing useful to support the OP. "LONDON (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain’s leading polling groups" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey/iraq-conflict-has-killed-a-million-iraqis-survey-idUSL3048857920080130 This thread isn't about how many people died in Iraq. I only linked this to illustrate that I didn't make the number I listed up. We don't need to start a link war over which numbers we believe. Correct, which is why I asked Area54 to qualify what he meant by the past. Clearly loads died in the World Wars. For me, having grandparents who fought in WW2 and lived through both world wars, I consider that relatively modern times. A qualifier for what "the past" referenced was needed.

No I am not. If you read my post I said had you referenced medieval times or either World War I would have agreed with you from the beginning. What is ambiguous about that? My complaint was that you cited the same work 5 times in one reply to make it seem like you have more extensive citation than you did. Citing the same work 5 times is redundant. This is nonsense. Now you are just making stuff up. I acknowledged that the world is more peaceful today than medieval Europe or either world war. What are you carrying on about? Please quote where in my response I denied the data.

Without any frame of reference for time how would I have known where to start? You provided 5 links but all are of the same person's work; Steven Pinker. You are chastising me indicating how easy it was to find citations but truly you found the work of a single individual. You are overstating what you found a bit. Additionally Pinker discusses violence during medieval times in Europe and references the incredible amounts of violence during both World Wars. Had you previously posted that it is more peace today than medieval Europe of during either world war I totally would have agreed with you. Hence my point about specificity. The world is definitely more peaceful today than during WWI or WWII; I think we all agree with that.