I do not know how you got to general immigration, and Soros?????, when I specifically said your claim that people were willing death to reach our shores and not Europe. I believe I successfully debunked that claim. You then deflected to some other issues rather that simply admit your claim was incorrect as stated. I really admit that I am wrong quite often....it's not hard to do.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that government involvement makes things cheaper - please name an example.
65 ... my reference is to immigration ... not refugees. Don't confuse the two ... I'm sure the legitimate refugees of Syria and pretty much anywhere islam has been an "imperial force" are willing to take anything but what they have in their home country. Not the point. Folks want to immigrate the U.S. Why? The sound of the anthem? Perhaps the Flag itself draws many? The interstate highway system??? Nah, you know what it is and why we are so abundantly blessed here ... even some of the most poor among us. Why? They have the freedom to change their situation. They are not directed by government as to what they'll do (ours does a LOT of enticing to remain poor, but that's not the same as government-directed economy) So, when you try to say some other country "has it figured out," that's an opinion and not a fact ... it's not supported by that "other" country's comparative immigration because NO other country on the planet receives as many immigrants as the U.S. ... by a LARGE margin. Nor does "figured out" have standing when analyzing those murder rates of the nation without those 4 locations previously mentioned. So ... it's not a problem by which legislation can "fix."
You debunked a claim I didn't make ... so ... yeah. bravo. Good job. I admit when I'm wrong ... and I'm not wrong about world immigration ... nor is it wrong to use that stat as a basis for establishing "who's got it figured out" when people are moving ... the MARKET of ideas is at play to the immigration participants and they overwhelmingly choose ... U.S.A.
Drug cost in the VA prescription drug program. Medical cost of healthcare under all industrial countries except Amerca.
????? Double Post ... royer, it happens. but "OK" to what? Attending to its responsibilities for veterans medical doesn't decrease the cost of drugs, it merely shifts the cost to the taxpayer from the veteran --- rightly so. Naw, @Phil Elliott is correct. Where there's government there's increased cost. Sometimes that is Constitutionally necessary ... market forces on defense spending don't really work --- there's only ONE after all. To be honest ... I'm losing my motivation to finish this cross reference of mass shooters since it seems, from the first 1/2 of the list ... that most mass shooters do/did support big government ... and that I don't think it'd matter if all of 'em were shown to be part of the #HisSilentinBengHazi fan club. It wouldn't affect opinion on adhering to the 2A.
The problem with the past Assault Rifle ban whose efficacy was moderate and questionable is that it banned models of guns. It became out of date the moment the Clinton signed it. What we need to regulate is gun features like rate of fire, size of clips and other similar attributes that turn a target or hunting machine into an maximum effective people killing machine. This ban would only be able to work on guns purchased in the future. We have more guns than people in the US thus it's too difficult to regulate the weapons already in the marketplace. I've defined an outline of what I'd support. What was your idea on fixing the mass shooting problem again?
Welcome back, Husker. So you recognize the problem with identifying specific models, but it seems you do not understand what features should be "restricted" and are in common production rifles right now and have been for a VERY long time. I won't list all the models because it won't matter. But understand that seeking to legislate away these firearm features IS a direct infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. There was no qualifier to the "arms" ... only that the right to keep and bear wasn't to be infringed. But since you listed a few characteristics ... Rate of Fire ... automatic weapons are already illegal for civilians. AFA Semi Auto, that is limited by the shooter ... unless your suggestion is to restrict a repeater to one shot and reload. That will not happen and it shouldn't happen. size of clips (sic) ... we haven't had production firearms with "clips" since WWII ... the term is magazine. Yes, it matters. Words matter, right? That's not a jab, it's a correction. arbitrarily setting a limit on the magazine capacity without infringing upon what y'all continue to say you support in firearm use ... dubious at best. OK ... restrict the AR-type magazines to 100 rounds ... even 50 rounds ... but at/below this line you are treading into your "legitimate uses" ... and guess what ... most mass shootings were with at/less than 30 round magazines. similar attributes ... not exactly descriptive, but the other "features" of which I've read by gun control activists include stocks, grips, aiming devices (scopes/sights), muzzle breaks ... silencers. These are also among "legitimate" uses So we get back to the basic and problematic ... *legislatively. As I've mentioned and referred to previous examples of "the left's" admonition --- behavior cannot be legislated. Legislation can only influence behavior, in a proper view of innocent until proven guilty ... I've also already told you my response, but it doesn't compute to ya for some reason. Bottom line is, I don't suppose to "fix" the problem of mass shootings. Until people start realizing for themselves how wrong it is, it just simply won't matter. Meanwhile, we're tossing our Great Experiment into the history book ... "by your leave, sir" is the phrase used when our Founders ignited this candle called These United States of America. It's burned brightly for a long time ... but there is a growing number of people who would extinguish that flame for the promise of "not getting burned." A promise which cannot be kept by the government. So ... please stop insisting it can.
How many uses are required to be considered honoring the right? @Seattle Husker https://www.hermancain.com/yes-its-easy-to-explain-why-mass-shootings-are
@Seattle Husker If you’re still interested ... I’m curious as to why only the police has need for high capacity magazines in their pistols and rifles. Have you or anyone else advocating “sensible” gun control considered this question ... and moreover the answer? Or even AN answer? Consider the possible scenarios for why the police might need 30/50/more round magazines for their “assault weapons.” Thanks
I think he is backhandedly saying that a citizen needs to be armed at least at the level of what he might run into from another citizen. Not to rival our military or other nations’ militaries, but to rival what a crazy private citizen may have, or a group of such. I think that was his point....
sorry for the delayed reply ... took me a while to lose the disgust from Friday. @VYFan close. The question is really straightforward. Why do the police need (or even just "allowed") to be armed with full-auto weapons but the citizens aren't supposed to be availed of such. I tell ya what. let's start at square one. Why do police officers carry firearms in the first place? Is it just a rule or what?
OK, I see where you are coming from. You want the taxpayers to subsidize more of your healthcare costs and so then it will be "cheaper" to you personally. Gotcha.
Police officers carry firearms for THEIR protection. Not yours. While they clearly have a higher probability of being engaged by criminals on an individual basis than any other given citizen ... it's not even remotely close when comparing the composite exposure of the population. That is to say ... there are FAR more shootings of civilians than of police/LEOs. That shouldn't be surprising, but it's necessary to identify because it seems the basis of the difference in who should be legally allowed to carry what is defined by the status of LEO or civilian. So VYFan was close when he referenced the ability of a civilian to be able to defend himself against a well-armed criminal ... but that's also why LEOs carry, too. They don't carry just because they are peace officers. They carry because in the process of enforcing the law, they are sometimes compelled to enforce the law with lethal force. But the thing is ... when a civilian is targeted and must defend his life/property, there's no material difference in the need of the tool(s) to perform that function. The only substantial difference is the sworn law enforcement officer is actively seeking these criminals and civilians do not (those are known as vigilantes and are typically prosecuted themselves) Therefore ... proposing restrictions as the anti-2Aers have been doing ... violates the acknowledged right ... in fact DUTY ... held by each adult citizen. Be Ready. The only reason aggravated crime isn't any higher than it is ... armed population. If all criminals had the idea that a significant majority of people were unarmed ... we'd be in lockdown with scores of LEOs and perhaps even National Guard on patrol. Stop seeking to fix the problem with a failing solution.
The Holcombe family lost 8 members at Sutherland Springs. Now they've started the process of suing the Air Force, which didn't forward Devin Kelley's criminal history to the national criminal databases, which allowed him to obtained the weapons used in the shooting. AF admits the issue is "systemic". Holcombe wants AF to go back 20 years and be sure all such omissions are corrected among other demands. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ng-families-to-sue-the-Air-Force-12389164.php
I thought I heard about this on the radio while cutting firewood (yeah, thinking someday it's gonna be cold for more than 48 hours!) I've never lost a loved one in this manner so ... there's that ... but this seems, well, unseemly. Both from a Christian perspective as well as a secular culpability perspective ... not to mention the odds of actually winning a judgement. Evidently the plaintiffs are the victims' parents/grandparents. It's probable they'll be gone before this judgement is passed. Our trial lawyers won't like this, but Christian doctrine is quite clear about litigation: avoid it. Avoid it because it puts man as the focus of judgement rather than God. So, this is not a good testimony for these parents. From a secular perspective, the article states the problem (though probably not the writer's intent) " ... federal government accusing the agency of negligence that caused their son’s wrongful death." No ... what caused their son's wrongful death was a criminal act by a criminal. Here again, we're placing too much credence in man's law ... in government ... and we get the result --- a false sense of security. Meanwhile, the government grows larger than it was ordered to be. SeattleHusker and others promote legislation to presumably prevent possession of firearms by certain people. I don't oppose those convicts of felony acts to likewise be legally prohibited, nor of REAL mentally incapable (that is ... full time care ... unable to be unsupervised ... not simply someone who yells boomer sooner) ... but neither do I place my faith in that legislation to keep me or my family safe from bad actors. Who will suggest those responsible for filing the formology to put this killer on the NICS data actually had malicious intent? Negligent or incompetent? So ... there's your answer. When government is asked to do that which it cannot ... I am reminded of Kate Steinle ... victim of a killer because of bad law and worse enforcement.
Did you get this off the Texans for Lawsuit Reform Christmas card? It's nonsense. What the Bible condemns is Christians bringing suit against each other in secular courts (especially over church matters), and that is because Christians are supposed to submit to the church's authority. I Corinthians 6:1-6. However, even that isn't absolute. Matthew 18:17. Is the Bible hostile to jumping right to court without attempting to resolve disputes? Absolutely. Peaceful resolution of disputes is always encouraged. However, is there a general mandate that Christians not seek justice in court? No. That's politically motivated horse crap that's peddled by special interests seeking to exploit out-of-context scripture to make money. Furthermore, it's impossible to reconcile with the following: Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Exodus 23:6 Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court. Proverbs 22:22 For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts. Amos 5:12 The families who are bringing their claims aren't violating any sort of biblical mandate or principle, and their cases don't reflect badly on their testimony as Christians. They aren't asking a civil court to resolve a church matter. Furthermore, they're not asking a civil court to render judgment against another Christian. Finally, they're not just filing suit without trying to resolve the matter peacefully. They've filed an administrative claim, which will give the government ample time to consider the claim before litigation would commence. Litigation will truly be a last resort for them as it is for most civil plaintiffs. And before judging these people, can you honestly say you'd avoid litigation for the sake of this illusory biblical stance? Suppose I rear-ended you and totaled your vehicle. Would you take it in the shorts for your destroyed vehicle and any medical costs you had to incur if you got injured? My guess is that you'd file a claim with my insurer, and if they didn't pay or didn't pay enough, you'd sue me. In other words, you'd do what this family is doing.
Settle down, Deez. I was clear in my statement and it was motivated by the false characterization of what CAUSED the loss. (The AF's failure to notify) Thanks for telling me what I would do. That helps a lot. Could you also tell me how I'd react/respond to someone bearing false witness against me? That'd really simply the 12 step consideration process. Fact is ... you have no idea what I would or wouldn't do in your presumptive scenario. I never suggested justice was to be withheld from these folks ... that was your misunderstanding. But ... I'm almost as certain this will also be either misunderstood or disregarded as I'm certain that if the sun rises in the morning, it'll be in the East. Carry on.
You were clear. You're trying to muddy it a little now, but you were originally clear. More than one thing can be a cause of something. Nobody has falsified anything. I have no idea what you'd do like I have no idea if OJ's guilty. You suggested that their willingness to seek justice in court reflected badly on their Christianity. So I guess you're ok with them suing so long as they know they're not as good of Christians as they'd be if they hadn't.
Ah ... the CAUSE of the deaths weren't from "The Air Force." The CAUSE was a criminal act by a specific person. That the AF didn't file had ZERO relevance to the perp's action/intent to act. Alleging in this suit infers the government has a role it does NOT. Bad things happen to good people (though that's an oxymoron, ultimately) ... because of bad people. PERIOD. I note in your previous array of pretty exclusive references to scripture, an avoidance of Christ's own words ... after The Beatitudes in Matt 5. This is where Christ's instruction to avoid placing faith in man's judgement is taught. Avoid ... not prohibit, by the way. I believe this refers to the "case" itself, and, as I've said for the 3rd time, now, this case is based upon errant presumption; the culpability of the government. I'm not a fan of big government .. that's pretty obvious, but the government didn't contribute to this ... regardless of the legal articulation/statutes. (we have a LOT of bad law) One man did this and he took the cowards way out ... or finally passed from gunshot wounds by Mr. Wileford. whatever. continue to delude yourself on what you think/feel/believe I'd do. It's easier than seeking to understand.
Dig in on this issue if you want, but there can be multiple causes of things. The presence of a criminal wrongdoer shouldn't protect others who acted irresponsibly and enabled him. If I let my 3 year old drive my car and he runs over somebody, his negligent driving may have been the direct cause of the injury, but my negligent entrustment of the vehicle was also a cause because I enabled his wrongful conduct. If I sell you a mess of booze when I know you're too slobbering drunk to drive and then send you home and you kill somebody on the road, I am culpable. People who enable dangerous people can and should be held to account. That doesn't mean they're the only ones who should account. If the government ends up in court over this, they'll get to point the finger at the shooter, and a jury will be allowed to apportion blame to him. However, the Air Force shouldn't completely escape fault just because a criminal exploited their screw-up. The verse following the Beatitudes is "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet." Not sure how that pertains to your point.
Temporary eyesight problems prevent me from reading everything, but there is a particular set of case law in Texas about 3rd party criminal activity (Timberwalk case?) that very much limits recovery to cases where the defendant had a lot of reason to suspect its activities would lead to such a problem, plus suing government has its own roadblocks.
On the other issue, if in an all-Christian dispute among people in the same church, it is appropriate to take it to the church members (not just to tattle, but to resolve with authority) then in a mixed situation, what is wrong with sitting down with 12 neutral neighbors and giving them authority to resolve your dispute? (And let’s make it where 10 of the 12 all have to agree on the right result)
Timberwalk is the primary negligent security case, and the law has only gotten tougher since it was handed down. It doesn't perfectly fit this fact scenario, but since it creates very onerous evidentiary hurdles for plaintiffs, the Texas Supreme Court would probably follow a similar logic in this case.
