Why I left the Democratic Party

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

the lingering effects of our frontier mythology.

Our frontier mythology???

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Our frontier mythology???

Yup.

1 Reply

@hightor,

What exactly do you mean when you refer to "frontier mythology"?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Yes, it appears that the FBI didn’t conduct the sort of investigation that in hindsight we all would love to have seen, but they receive hundreds, if not thousands, of tips on possible threats each day and simply do not have the resources to thoroughly investigate every one of them as they would an actually committed crime.

I think it's interesting that numerous reports were given to local law enforcement agencies and were also ignored, missed, or otherwise not acted upon. I would think that cases like this are better handled on the local level anyway and not by a nationwide organization like the FBI.

Quote:

Each time an event like this occurs we are treated to moralizing, finger-pointing, and nauseating displays of sanctimony from the left.

Yes, and much of it is cringeworthy.

0 Replies

Gun control and mental health programs are essential. The gutless representatives of the people, on both local and federal levels, of both parties, are to blame. The only way to get them to act is to get big money out of politics. The only way to do that is throw most of the bastards out in both parties. Arguing the merits just delays inevitable action.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I didn’t blame Obama for the shooting, but when I saw a couple of people blaming trump, I brought up the eight years of quite mild activity toward common sense gun control by Obama.

1 Reply

@Lash,

The difference is that Trump got the endorsement of the NRA and repealed Obama era legislation designed to stop people like Cruz getting their hands on guns. Obama may have been ineffective in this regard, (mostly because so many legislators are in the pockets of the NRA,) but Trump actively promoted policies to increase the amount of gun violence.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I did see that.

Why don’t we have a mandatory waiting period, a ******* iron-clad registry so that no one who has a mental health diagnosis or a history of violence can ever buy a gun, and close the gun show loophole?

I’m beginning to think that progress on these common sense changes are being thwarted by both parties.

2 Replies

@Lash,

I don't know why, I don't know why you didn't introduce gun control years ago like we did after Dunblane. This mental health thing is a red herring. Most people with mental health issues are more of a danger to themselves than others. I don't think shooters like Cruz are mentally ill, just attention seeking narcissists.

Oralloy is not mentally ill, but after posting a load of horseshit about gun control being the thin end of the wedge and a prelude to a Pol Pot style purge of intellectuals it's clear he's unfit to have a metal spoon let alone a gun.

We all have murderous impulses, me included, but we don't have guns, and guns are so easy to use to murder and commit suicide. If you want to stab someone/yourself it's difficult, you've got to get up close, look them in the eye, and killing yourself with a knife takes a lot of determination and will power. It's far from painless, and so much can go wrong. With a gun you just have to pull the trigger, job done.

Mentally ill people aren't the problem, angry people who have difficulty controlling their impulses are the problem and that's exacerbated by people like Alex Jones whipping people up into a frenzy.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Your opinion is getting a lot of traction, but there are other valid opinions.

Several of our mass murderers were mentally ill and a few were driven from a domestic violence impetus. Controlling those populations re gun ownership, and relying on a national law requiring a waiting period, a ******* background check, and to me, a loss of license and a ******* devastating penalty for those who don’t follow this procedure would slash this crazy **** by more than half.

If you can’t buy beer, you can buy firearms.

Another common sense change: You should not be able to buy a firearm and give it to someone else without a legal process with a waiting period.

Heavy penalties should be attached.

There are answers, but both of our political parties make sure no remedies are seriously sought.

Another story.

I know a young woman who was sitting in her driveway reading her mail. She was suddenly being attacked through her window, punched and sexually assaulted as he tried to open the car door. She later said she didn’t think she’d be able to remain conscious long enough to get the glove box open, but she did, and she got off a few shots that scared him away.

The US has made drugs illegal. You know how well that’s going. As with criminalization of drugs, criminalization of guns will only ensure that good people are unarmed against armed criminals.

Criminalization of guns will never happen here, but I think my government is intentionally botching common sense approaches and allowing these murders to snowball in an attempt to change public sentiment in order to disarm the US public.

5 Replies

I have said often enough that I seek effective control, not total ban on guns.

2 Replies

@Lash,

I agree with your post. Believe it or not there are a couple of issues I agree with you on; I am just surprised I agree on this issue as stated in this post.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I have said often enough that I seek effective control, not total ban on guns.

Is that because a total ban would be impractical or impossible or do you believe there are still good reasons to allow citizens to acquire and possess firearms at home?

It's hard to know how "effective control" would work, although a lot of us would certainly agree that we'd like to see it. Registering weapons would be a good start but the gun lobby is totally opposed to that. Limits on caliber or firepower would be fought. I'd like to see a serious buy-back effort, even if little else can be done, but I can imagine the howls of rage that would ensue.

What about mandatory participation and training within a well-regulated militia?

3 Replies

@revelette1,

I had much the same reaction, revelette!

0 Replies

@Lash,

Your story reminds me of tales going around in the early 80s about people involved in car crashes who would have died had they been wearing a seat belt. There may be some truth in them but overall you're better off wearing a seat belt.

Drugs are criminalised because of big pharmaceuticals, and prescribed drugs are more of a problem than illegal drugs. Guns are legal because of big arms manufacturers.

Over here there's a 5 year mandatory prison term just for possessing a firearm. Criminals aren't stupid, some do use guns but they're not going to let their guns get in the hands of bloody idiots who'll lead the police to them. Most gun violence is between criminal gangs, there is some collateral damage, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what happens over there.

Criminals don't go on rampages, they're always disaffected individuals who have obtained their guns legally.

Handguns are illegal over here but rifles and shotguns aren't. However you need a good reason to own one and you need a licence approved by the police. Maybe if the local sheriff had final say over who could have a gun Cruz would not have been allowed to get one.

Inspector Fowler has the right idea.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

prescribed drugs are more of a problem than illegal drugs

Not to get off topic, but every time I hear this, I think to myself, this person must not have lived with a meth addict. Where I live it is still a huge problem along with opioids. I also don't think criminalizing drug addicts has worked too well. More money and resources should be given for treatment. Treatment does work, but it has to be completely 100% with longer stays at rehab and follow up programs. Perhaps a requirement by law to go to one. Although in my own private opinion, drug sellers should be locked up in jail.

Sorry for getting off topic, just don't like it when people dismiss drugs as though all we are talking about is pot.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
I have said often enough that I seek effective control, not total ban on guns.

Is that because a total ban would be impractical or impossible or do you believe there are still good reasons to allow citizens to acquire and possess firearms at home?

It's hard to know how "effective control" would work, although a lot of us would certainly agree that we'd like to see it. Registering weapons would be a good start but the gun lobby is totally opposed to that. Limits on caliber or firepower would be fought. I'd like to see a serious buy-back effort, even if little else can be done, but I can imagine the
howls of rage that would ensue.

What about mandatory participation and training within a well-regulated militia?

I don't think you will get people to surrender the right to a hand gun for protection. I am aware that small children's gun deaths are mostly caused by playing with the parent's gun. I would prefer a total ban, but don't believe it can be done. Assault guns, guns that hold more than several bullets - I think it's possible one day.

1 Reply

Stories such as the one told by lash, a similar story where my sister in law used her gun to keep from getting kidnapped in a parking lot - These things carry weight with people.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

I've had to deal with more than my fair share of smack addicts. ( methadone is a prescribed heroin substitute btw.)

Criminalisation of drugs is a big part of the problem. I'd legalise the lot, but with safeguards.

Quote:

A former undercover policeman turned leading drugs law reform campaigner has called a maverick doctor’s experiment to prescribe heroin in Widnes the ‘most significant study’ into addiction to the Class A opiate.

Neil Woods, who spent 14 years infiltrating gangs, said Dr John Marks’s radical step to use a legal loophole to prescribe heroin in Widnes to addicts in the 1980s and 1990s achieved ‘astonishing’ results including cutting acquisitive crime such as burglary by 93%, street prostitutes leaving sex work and thieves and robbers holding down regular jobs.
Dealers closed up shop and left Widnes as the market demand for heroin dried up with the effect that they were no longer pushing drugs and addiction levels fell, Neil said.

Dr Marks had launched the programme in 1982 but it was scrapped when the results of his study came to light in 1995 and incurred the wrath of the White House.

Neil, whose undercover experiences are captured in his book Good Cop, Bad War, published in August, said the US Government pulled the plug on the experiment by pressuring John Major’s UK Government to shut it down.

Dr Marks was ‘vilified’ before having to emigrate to New Zealand, he said.

Neil blamed governments ‘clinging onto the idea that prohibition works’ and ‘refusing to consider the evidence’ for the programme being quashed despite the results.

Its legacy lives on though, and Neil said Switzerland used Dr Marks’s study as inspiration for its own heroin prescription programme, which has helped to achieve an 80% success rate for weaning addicts off the drug.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/ex-undercover-cop-says-widnes-11854487

Drugs aren't guns though and comparing the two is an apples and oranges situation.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I was able to find pockets of agreement in what you said.

1 Reply

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know