<p>We would need a constitutional amendment to get a gun-free society.</p>
<p>I agree with Hillary we may see some meaningful restrictions. Like some of the past democratic nominees, she does not have to go hunting or stand on a tank.</p>
<p>While it would probably be impossible to make our society gun-free, unfortunately, we can sure make a constitutional amendment to make gun access far, far more restrictive than it is right now.</p>
<p>BO’s troops starting to get testy. They won’t win this game. HRC is tougher than a $2 steak in Las Vegas.</p>
<p>[Inside</a> US poll battle as fight turns dirty for Democrats - The Scotsman](<a href=“http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp]Inside”>http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp)</p>
<p>Oh yea; we need more gun control. Please!!!</p>
<p>Besides all the arguments that I could make; which many would just brush off anyway and not look at the fact; let me instead ask a very simple 2 part question.</p>
<p>PART 1: Did you know that there are 40 TIMES more fatal accidents in AUTOMOBILES than with guns; 12 TIMES more fatal accidents from FALLS than from guns; 10 TIMES for fatal accidents from POISONINGS than from guns; 4 TIMES more fatal accidents from FIRES than from guns; and 2 TIMES more fatal accidents from CHOKING than from guns? DID YOU KNOW THAT?</p>
<p>PART 2: How do you suppose you fix crime issues. For what it’s worth; guns are not a major problem. Just that the news sensationalizes it. As with prohibition; you could make all the laws in the world you want concerning guns; if someone wants them, they can get them. Gun laws don’t make it more difficult. If you don’t believe me; ask your kids. Currently; it is illegal to sell a handgun to a person under 18. It’s also ILLEGAL to have, possess, use, sell, or transport drugs. Ask your kid how easy it is to get drugs. So; being more people die in automobiles than guns; why don’t you campaign against ALL cars that have more than 50 horse power? Matter of fact; if you used this argument; not only would there be less teenage deaths from automobiles because they wouldn’t be a fast thrill only having 50 horse power; but the cars could still do 50-60mph and probably get close to 50-70 mpg. You could save lives and improve the environment.</p>
<p>In other words; don’t harp on gun control. You are arguing about something that is mostly emotional without facts. It sucks that a kid could be shot on a school campus. It also sucks that kids die from alcohol and cars. It also sucks that they are dying from drug use. The fact is; death by gunfire is so small compared to other ways. WHY AREN’T YOU FIGHTING THE CAUSES THAT HAVE THE MOST IMPACT? We were debating another topic about nuclear energy and some people’s fear of nuclear radiation and the harm to people. They didn’t want to hear that more people die in coal mines and in conventional fossil fuel production than have ever come close to dying in nuclear related environments. Same goes with guns. If you really care about kids and them dying, then stop them drinking and driving, drugs, domestic violence, gang crimes, assaults, etc… more kids get injured and die there than with guns.</p>
<p>I love how liberals want women to have the right to abortion and always say we shouldn’t add an amendment to ban gay marriage (I agree) because the Constitution shouldn’t be used to “ban” anything…yet have no problem using a Constitutional amendment to ban guns. If the criminals can get their hands on guns I sure as hell want to get my hand on one…</p>
<p>^^These two posts (125 & 126) exemplify why events like those at Blacksburg, Auburn, Chapel Hill, Dekalb, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Colorado Springs, and the thousands of other daily shootings, will never be uncommon, or a distant memory, in the U.S. Comparing deaths by guns to auto accidents and falls is the ultimate straw man. The intended use of a gun is to harm or kill. I, too, would love to see the candidates take on this issue.</p>
<p>Sorry always; but they ARE UNCOMMON. There are about 300 relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns. There’s also thousands; yes thousands of other local laws that have guns as a subject.</p>
<p>So; what exactly do you suppose the political parties do for “gun control”? Maybe if they got off their butts and enforced the existing laws.</p>
<p>My concern isn’t that there aren’t people dying from guns something should be done about it if possible, but rather that people want to stay blind to the other causes of death and write it off. Just because it’s an “accident” and not intentional. Well let me give you a word of advice. When a person DIES in a car wreck or drug over dose, they are just as DEAD as if they had been shot by a gun. Their family misses them the same.</p>
<p>My point is having practical priorities. If my children were failing classes in school and I found out they were also skipping school 1-2 times a week, where do you think I should concentrate my efforts? Yes, I could talk to the teachers about their classes, homework, etc… I could jump all over the kid for their grades. But personally, I think my priority would be to find out why they are skipping school and get them back in class.</p>
<p>The problem with guns is that there will always be some people that believe that if 1 person is killed with a gun, then guns must be evil and therefor totally banned. These people don’t learn from the past and refuse to acknowledge that prohibition doesn’t stop the use. Drugs are prohibited, but they are still used EXCESSIVELY. Alcohol had been prohibited at one time and still is in many counties and even countries. Yet, it is still used. You could ban every gun in the world and people who wanted to use them to commit crimes would still get them. </p>
<p>And of course, people don’t want to admit the statistics that show that areas that allow concealed weapons permits and other less restrictive laws concerning guns, almost always have lower crime rates and much lower uses of guns by criminals.</p>
<p>No alwaysamom; there aren’t THOUSANDS of daily shootings. No, the shootings you want to cite are NOT COMMON. They are just sensationalized. The vast majority of guns are used for self defense and sporting uses. I think that the 300 main and thousands of minor local laws are more than enough. If you want to complain about crimes using guns, then push your politicians for mandatory sentencing without easy parole. Get them to enforce the existing laws. Have them punish those who break the laws. While you’re NOT doing these things, I will continue to prioritize the other preventable deaths in our country. The deaths that aren’t gun related but where the person is JUST AS DEAD. The deaths from drugs, alcohol, and automobiles that can be prevented with enforcement also of existing laws.</p>
<p>P.S. Any politician that takes on this topic during a presidential election will almost automatically lose. They know that. They realize that the vast majority of citizens understand the facts and aren’t sensationalist dealing only with emotion. Fortunately, you won’t see this during the election. Not if they want to win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s right. Let’s completely change the topic to gun control now, right janieblue? Let’s ignore the very real possibility that the Slate.com story linked by 1sokkermom is exactly the type of dirty politics the Clintons have built their “win at any cost” reputation upon. And she had the nerve to berate Obama about a few pamphlets and flyers saying, “shame on you!”, and “This is right out of Karl Rove’s playbook!”. Ha! She and Bill wrote the playbook.</p>
<p>But of course, the television news media won’t touch this one with a ten foot pole. Not now that the Clinton campaign has so successfully place them on the ropes, making them have to “prove” that they are going to be “tough on Obama”. They can’t now broadcast anything that shows that there may well be reason to question all the circumstances behind that entire NAFTAgate story. You wanted an example of how Billary does “dirtiest and bloodiest”. Well, there you have it.</p>
<p>From AP: (regarding news conference with Clinton)</p>
<p>Clinton was asked later at a news conference how she thinks Obama and Starr are alike. She said, “I’m not going to respond to that,” and turned to take another question.</p>
<p>Yet, she was able to once again take an opportunistic moment for more of her own campaign dribble. </p>
<p>From AP: "At the news conference, Clinton cited the explosion of a small bomb in Times Square early Thursday to highlight her claim that she is the candidate most prepared to lead in a crisis.</p>
<p>Police have not made any arrests related to the explosion; no one was harmed. Clinton said the bombing shows “that it is imperative we remain vigilant as we continue to face threats at home and abroad.”"</p>
<p>Gee, what a surprise. Hillary never ceases to amaze us. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The author is on Kool-aid.</p>
<p>“Frankly, after the recent deaths of young people on our campuses”</p>
<p>Have those people been killed with legal guns?</p>
<p>Apparently here is another quote from an article (Newsday) written by one intoxicated on “Kool-Aid”. (simba likes that term, even though it was first used to describe the Clinton obsessed…
)</p>
<p>"Clinton is the one who turned up the temperature first in attacking Obama, accusing him of plagiarizing speeches, having ties to a “slumlord” in indicted Chicago developer Tony Rezko and being ill-prepared to be president.</p>
<p>Obama criticized Clinton for refusing to release her tax returns, which Clinton says she’ll do around April 15. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Starr comparison is “absurd.”"</p>
<hr>
<p>simba, the opportunistic comment was mine, not the author of the AP article. Guess what? The only thing I had to drink this morning was coffee. :D</p>
<p>We Americans are a strange lot. Terrorists attack and we use it a a pretense to start not one, but two wars that are sapping the life blood out of us. We claim to the the most advanced country in the world yet 40% of our people believe in the myth of creationism. We shudder in fear of the 9-11 attack which took 3000 innocent lives yet accept a health care system were 10 times that number die every year due to lack of health insurance.</p>
<p>Well I am a Christian and accept the creation story for what it is-an allegory of creation and creator God. And for folks who insist the the Genesis 1 creation story must be understood literally, I ask "What about the alternate creation story version in Genesis 2.</p>
<p>And I am not the least bit afraid of any two bit terrorist residing in the middle east or Asia. Should we target the leaders, sure, But you don’t need a war to do that. We do need to do more here at home to make us safer from terrorists of every kind but by recent news accounts our DHS is blundering this job on many fronts.</p>
<p>And yes I own about 6 guns but have never thought of them as any sort of protection-particularly since there is no ammo in the home, never has been and never will be. But I feel safe, sound and secure. Maybe I just have bigger…well lets leave that comment unsaid.</p>
<p>but sokkermom, you are on steroids when Hillary is in play. It is not good for your health to be full of hatred.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh huh…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Hey simba, why are your lips so purple?” (leans in for closer look, sniffs suspiciously) “I is that…grape flavor?”</p>
<p>simba, the word is not hatred. It is simply disgust and mistrust. Please do not put words (or Kool-Aid) in anyone else’s mouth but your own.</p>
<p>I will let the readers judge. Is the article below more Clinton games, or yet another journalist on Kool-Aid, steroids or whatever you want?</p>
<p>[Clinton</a> softens stance on re-running contests – Newsday.com](<a href=“http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdems075604578mar07,0,5506284.story]Clinton”>Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday)</p>
<p>Hillary should most definitely leave NAFTA and other such things out of the debate. Her husband put it in place and she has voted positively for follow-up issues with NAFTA. For her to even debate it with Obama just makes her look like a flip flopper and hypocrite. </p>
<p>Personally, i still support her over Obama, but she definitely knows how to screw up. If she and Obama keep this stuff up for the next couple of months, then it’s safe to say that McCain will in fact be the next president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Says the man whose hatred of Obama has been palpable on these forums for months now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:</p>
<p>All I know for sure is that the vitriolic attacks on this thread (and other relevant threads under Parent Cafe) are as strong and unpleasant as those happening in my own household these days. Will CC survive? Will my marriage survive? My suggestion at home is that we stop the conversation, because most of them deteriorate into unpleasantness. I would make the same request here. Thinking and believing and perceiving things to be a certain way, and then declaring disdain…none of these prove anything, nor will they persuade anyone. We all get to think what we please, and the ballot box is private. End of my part in this discussion…</p>