2022 Midterms

[Seacoaster(1)]

It sure seems odd to me that that Rs are running on crime, yet at the same time want to do away with all gun laws and regulations.

And defund the FBI, dismantle the DOJ, and impeach Wray and Garland. If you are looking for internal consistency on the message, old friend, this isn't your train stop. Go Phillies!

[elonmuskrockefeller]

~1900 dead, those 15.8 million have a 2.5 times increased chance of developing diabetes within a year of the infection. No big deal.

I am not sure it's even possible to research (at this stage) your claimed statistic of Covid leading to youth diabetes. Not enough time has elapsed, nor can other factors be discounted (such as being forbidden to go outside and breathe fresh air, get exercise, stay fit, etc...).

What we know today however is student academic achievement did decline.

I do not understand why Democrats insist on the Covid narrative they have chosen. In nearly every instance, the 'eventual science' has rejected the initial science. Parents are justifiably angry at Democrats for pushing their narrative, which hurt kids, and it's likely those angry parents more than even out the 'Roe vote' on Tuesday.

[jhu72]

~1900 dead, those 15.8 million have a 2.5 times increased chance of developing diabetes within a year of the infection. No big deal.

I am not sure it's even possible to research (at this stage) your claimed statistic of Covid leading to youth diabetes. Not enough time has elapsed, nor can other factors be discounted (such as being forbidden to go outside and breathe fresh air, get exercise, stay fit, etc...). --- CDC claims it

What we know today however is student academic achievement did decline. --- especially among the 1900 dead kids.

I do not understand why Democrats insist on the Covid narrative they have chosen. In nearly every instance, the 'eventual science' has rejected the initial science. Parents are justifiably angry at Democrats for pushing their narrative, which hurt kids, and it's likely those angry parents more than even out the 'Roe vote' on Tuesday. --- bullsh*t

[njbill]

It sure seems odd to me that that Rs are running on crime, yet at the same time want to do away with all gun laws and regulations.

Legally-owned guns make up a miniscule amount of gun crime. Most people who commit assault, robbery, or murder with a gun anywhere in the U.S. are disqualified under federal law from being in possession of a gun due to age, criminal record, addiction status, immigration status or other reason.

Existing gun laws and regulations, IF they were implemented, would stop most gun crimes. Republicans are running 'on crime' because Democratic politicians won't enforce the laws that have already been passed. And if Democrats won't enforce the gun laws passed, then innocent citizens pay the price.

The only way to help innocent citizens survive is to enable them to legally acquire firearms.

Reverse Heller. Let the states make the gun laws. If NJ wants to ban them, let them. It Texas wants to require every citizen to own 1000 guns, let them.

[njbill]

It sure seems odd to me that that Rs are running on crime, yet at the same time want to do away with all gun laws and regulations.

Go Phillies!

Thanks. Are you available to bat 5th for us this weekend? I really though he was finally going to break through last night, but I've now given up on him.

[cradleandshoot]

It sure seems odd to me that that Rs are running on crime, yet at the same time want to do away with all gun laws and regulations.

And defund the FBI, dismantle the DOJ, and impeach Wray and Garland. If you are looking for internal consistency on the message, old friend, this isn't your train stop. Go Phillies!

Back up the bus counselor. There are conflicting perspectives here. The democrats, at least in NYS have stated very clearly their knee jerk reaction. You have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. The rub is... well you are not allowed to carry that weapon anywhere in the state. So on the flip side of the coin the Republicans are wrecklessly campaigning on stopping the gun violence by keeping the people who would use an illegal weapon in a jail cell.. how foolish of them. They are so foolish that in the FLP political sanctuary of NYS the FLP party that runs this state by choking on their own vomit by suddenly having to speak out loud in a political campaign about wanting to be tough on crime.

[elonmuskrockefeller]

It sure seems odd to me that that Rs are running on crime, yet at the same time want to do away with all gun laws and regulations.

Legally-owned guns make up a miniscule amount of gun crime. Most people who commit assault, robbery, or murder with a gun anywhere in the U.S. are disqualified under federal law from being in possession of a gun due to age, criminal record, addiction status, immigration status or other reason.

Existing gun laws and regulations, IF they were implemented, would stop most gun crimes. Republicans are running 'on crime' because Democratic politicians won't enforce the laws that have already been passed. And if Democrats won't enforce the gun laws passed, then innocent citizens pay the price.

The only way to help innocent citizens survive is to enable them to legally acquire firearms.

Reverse Heller. Let the states make the gun laws. If NJ wants to ban them, let them. It Texas wants to require every citizen to own 1000 guns, let them.

The difference is the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

[njbill]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

[dislaxxic]

yeah it was. A future liberal supermajority court will surely overturn that "precedent"...

See THIS groundwork...

..

[elonmuskrockefeller]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

[njbill]

Well, your side is winning on the issue. For now. An obvious parallel is Roe and Dobbs. I may not live to see it, but I think in the fullness of time, Heller will be overruled because it was so obviously wrongly decided. Same with Dobbs.

[DMac]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

[elonmuskrockefeller]

Well, your side is winning on the issue. For now. An obvious parallel is Roe and Dobbs. I may not live to see it, but I think in the fullness of time, Heller will be overruled because it was so obviously wrongly decided. Same with Dobbs.

I believe Dobbs will be overturned. Agreed. I feel the more responsible ruling, if it could have been decided, would have been to set a date limit of 15 weeks.

Heller, not as easily.

[elonmuskrockefeller]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

Saints fan...

The answer is as ever, use common sense. I don't think these guns (machine, or auto) are what the Supreme Court had in mind. Handguns etc...seem perfectly reasonable, yes?

[njbill]

I agree it won’t be easy to overturn Heller. Obviously, it will require a change in the membership of the supreme court. It will also require a change in the public consciousness, which could well take a long time. Society swings back-and-forth between being liberal and conservative. It is quite conservative now, much more so than when I was growing up in the 60s.

Stevens’ dissent spells out the legal basis for why the majority was wrong. But a very simple explanation is this. The founding fathers did not include a specific provision in the bill of rights to protect gun ownership because no one at the time thought the government might enact laws impacting the ownership of guns. In short, it wasn’t thought to be necessary. Now, a couple of thing centuries later, some think constitutional protection is needed. So amend the constitution if you can muster the support.

It’s an issue that should be decided by the states.

[DMac]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

Saints fan...

The answer is as ever, use common sense. I don't think these guns (machine, or auto) are what the Supreme Court had in mind. Handguns etc...seem perfectly reasonable, yes?

Common sense long ago left the room.
Hand guns? Sure, until there are a couple of hundred million circulating in the black market along with all the other far more powerful and completely unnecessary weapons that can mow down fields of people with the pull of a trigger. It starts out innocently enough with your self/home protection thoughts but of course it reaches perverted levels which is where we are now. Of course the other justification is the "militia" is going to fight off the crooked government's army when they come to kill us all (absolutely laughable).

[elonmuskrockefeller]

I agree it won’t be easy to overturn Heller. Obviously, it will require a change in the membership of the supreme court. It will also require a change in the public consciousness, which could well take a long time. Society swings back-and-forth between being liberal and conservative. It is quite conservative now, much more so than when I was growing up in the 60s.

Stevens’ dissent spells out the legal basis for why the majority was wrong. But a very simple explanation is this. The founding fathers did not include a specific provision in the bill of rights to protect gun ownership because no one at the time thought the government might enact laws impacting the ownership of guns. In short, it wasn’t thought to be necessary. Now, a couple of thing centuries later, some think constitutional protection is needed. So amend the constitution if you can muster the support.

It’s an issue that should be decided by the states.

Just a quick aside, I think you have some of the best posts on this website. Very thoughtful, and moderate. I might disagree with some of your end takes, but I very much appreciate your thinking.

Regarding the current mood of the country, I suspect you are correct. It's difficult to project future direction, but ultimately I have faith in America.

[elonmuskrockefeller]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

Saints fan...

The answer is as ever, use common sense. I don't think these guns (machine, or auto) are what the Supreme Court had in mind. Handguns etc...seem perfectly reasonable, yes?

Common sense long ago left the room.
Hand guns? Sure, until there are a couple of hundred million circulating in the black market along with all the other far more powerful and completely unnecessary weapons that can mow down fields of people with the pull of a trigger. It starts out innocently enough with your self/home protection thoughts but of course it reaches perverted levels which is where we are now. Of course the other justification is the "militia" is going to fight off the crooked government's army when they come to kill us all (absolutely laughable).

As a conservative, I implore other conservatives to stand up on the issue of gun crime (for which of course they will of course lose some support). I am not a #2A absolutist...I believe strongly in self defense, stand your ground, etc., but I also believe the ownership age for semi-autos needs to go up, that red flag laws are necessary, and that you should prove that you are not insane in order to possess a weapon. Further, I believe that if you own firearms and an insane person lives in your house, you should be required to have a gun safe. These measures are aimed at eliminating the Newtown tragedies.

The other side of the gun control coin is to pursue gun elimination in cities with the existing laws. Most gun crime is committed by those who legally are not allowed to possess guns. Let's actually enforce the laws.

[Seacoaster(1)]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

Saints fan...

The answer is as ever, use common sense. I don't think these guns (machine, or auto) are what the Supreme Court had in mind. Handguns etc...seem perfectly reasonable, yes?

Common sense long ago left the room.
Hand guns? Sure, until there are a couple of hundred million circulating in the black market along with all the other far more powerful and completely unnecessary weapons that can mow down fields of people with the pull of a trigger. It starts out innocently enough with your self/home protection thoughts but of course it reaches perverted levels which is where we are now. Of course the other justification is the "militia" is going to fight off the crooked government's army when they come to kill us all (absolutely laughable).

As a conservative, I implore other conservatives to stand up on the issue of gun crime (for which of course they will of course lose some support). I am not a #2A absolutist...I believe strongly in self defense, stand your ground, etc., but I also believe the ownership age for semi-autos needs to go up, that red flag laws are necessary, and that you should prove that you are not insane in order to possess a weapon. Further, I believe that if you own firearms and an insane person lives in your house, you should be required to have a gun safe. These measures are aimed at eliminating the Newtown tragedies.

The other side of the gun control coin is to pursue gun elimination in cities with the existing laws. Most gun crime is committed by those who legally are not allowed to possess guns. Let's actually enforce the laws.

As a supposed "FLP," as Cradle&Shoot likes to moniker me, I agree with most of your first paragraph. In fact, I don't know a lot of otherwise left of center folks in my world who advocate for much more in the way of gun regulation. I live in a state with a deep rural tradition of gun ownership and hunting, and know a ton of people who are gun owners.

Let me ask this: why do you think we are not, in the cities and places you reference, "actually enforc[ing] the laws"? Is there data on this? Or some kind of reliable anecdotal evidence to suggest that law enforcement isn't doing so, to the best of their ability?

[elonmuskrockefeller]

It’s not an individual constitutional right. Heller was wrongly decided.

Of course I respectfully disagree. I believe the right to self defense is paramount in any society. It's worth remembering that Heller the man was a licensed police officer who carried guns as part of his job in federal buildings in DC but could not maintain a gun in his own home, which was near a major crime source. The decision allowed him to have a gun in his home. That seems very sensible.

To what limit does the right to self defense go?
This seem very sensible to allow in the home?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OEsZZpnnD6M

Saints fan...

The answer is as ever, use common sense. I don't think these guns (machine, or auto) are what the Supreme Court had in mind. Handguns etc...seem perfectly reasonable, yes?

Common sense long ago left the room.
Hand guns? Sure, until there are a couple of hundred million circulating in the black market along with all the other far more powerful and completely unnecessary weapons that can mow down fields of people with the pull of a trigger. It starts out innocently enough with your self/home protection thoughts but of course it reaches perverted levels which is where we are now. Of course the other justification is the "militia" is going to fight off the crooked government's army when they come to kill us all (absolutely laughable).

As a conservative, I implore other conservatives to stand up on the issue of gun crime (for which of course they will of course lose some support). I am not a #2A absolutist...I believe strongly in self defense, stand your ground, etc., but I also believe the ownership age for semi-autos needs to go up, that red flag laws are necessary, and that you should prove that you are not insane in order to possess a weapon. Further, I believe that if you own firearms and an insane person lives in your house, you should be required to have a gun safe. These measures are aimed at eliminating the Newtown tragedies.

The other side of the gun control coin is to pursue gun elimination in cities with the existing laws. Most gun crime is committed by those who legally are not allowed to possess guns. Let's actually enforce the laws.

As a supposed "FLP," as Cradle&Shoot likes to moniker me, I agree with most of your first paragraph. In fact, I don't know a lot of otherwise left of center folks in my world who advocate for much more in the way of gun regulation. I live in a state with a deep rural tradition of gun ownership and hunting, and know a ton of people who are gun owners.

Let me ask this: why do you think we are not, in the cities and places you reference, "actually enforc[ing] the laws"? Is there data on this? Or some kind of reliable anecdotal evidence to suggest that law enforcement isn't doing so, to the best of their ability?

I am not in command of my facts here, but I see a ton of 'repeat offenders' in the news who kill others, who push innocent folks onto subway tracks, who rape and murder, etc... It seems unending. The teacher in Memphis, Eliza Fletcher, was killed by a guy who had almost an incomprehensible number of convictions. The relief sought on cash bail, while noble in many ways, seems to have swept through the entire judicial system where judges no longer distinguish between violent and non-violent crime.