whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Welkies...


OK, as to not allowed to have guns ... domestic abusers, convicted violent felons, judicially adjudicated mental patients and juveniles without adult supervision.


That is the difference between prevention and prosecution. In the city, it's rare to be able to prosecute a gang member for a drive-by shooting. It's almost impossible to identify the shooter, and the rest of the gang sure isn't going to turn them in. If the proscription is for all people, then just having the gun on the street will get you jugged, and if a gang SUV is stopped, it can be searched and if guns are found, the whole bunch goes to jail. Currently, even a gang member is a law-abiding citizen until they pull the trigger.
As to the CCW holder, if we had a universal standard for the qualifications to get a CCW, I'd be for honoring it nationwide. But
the standards between California and Texas vary so widely, and in many states it is extremely lax as to training and background checks . Therefore, until there is a nationwide standard, I'm opting for local issue. That standard should be fair to all and not be prohibitive as to cost and MUST include a range test to prove that they know how to handle the weapon.

If the gun is used either in domestic violence or in some other venue than self-defense within the home, then existing laws would apply. If the guns are stolen, and the theft is immediately reported with serial numbers, etc... then the homeowner would be immune, but if they didn't report the theft so authorities could track the weapons, they could be liable.


A little harsh, but it would get the job done. And you're right, it never will.


As with all things in life, the best we can do is a compromise. Absolute freedom means anarchy, and total socialism reduces everyone to a state slave. Controlled capitalism and reasonable social order is probably the best way forward. IMHO


Whoa. I never said that we should hold the 'flaunter' unaccountable. I asked the question of how it should be handled. Do we refuse them expensive hospital care and treatment? Or do we treat them and then hold them accountable for a bill that they probably could never pay even a part of? Either way, the citizenry pays the price for the 'flaunter's' transgression. Again it's prevention versus prosecution.



Considering human nature, it is humorous. The phrase is so selectively applied that it is almost meaningless. I meant it as a 'tongue in cheek' comment more than anything else. The left tries to implement a 'nanny' state, while the right hypocritically attempts to establish a pseudo-theocracy. Again, there is probably a much better middle ground with compromise on most issues.

Thanks for your civil discourse ... it's refreshing.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

I would have to ask the question 'how much is enough?' I get that you are pretty well off. You probably do treat your people well and your turnover is low. But what about the employer that has extremely high turnover, pays minimum wage, and makes millions in salary plus major dividends for their shareholders? Are they being fair by putting up with the turnover and paying their employees a pittance with no benefits?


MOST employers basically pay wages that get them good employees that will work productively. It is not the employers job to regulate their employees lives until it affects the work that they do for the employer. It is up to each employer to pay what they think the market will bear, in relation to their profit margin. Unfortunately, in some cases, the employer exploits their employees badly, and they put up with the turnover and low-skilled people. 'Kindness of my heart' is usually not in the mix, although one outstanding example was the textile mill owner in Massachusetts whose factory burned down, and they paid all their employees full wages while the plant was being rebuilt. Unfortunately, all their business went to China, and they closed down shortly thereafter.


If I remember correctly, Andrew Carnegie stomped all over his workers and suppressed unions violently for years. The same with the coal companies and the UMW. Rockefeller and Mellon weren't exactly epitomes of generosity in their respective businesses either. Again, how much is enough? Should a CEO make 1000 times what their factory floor worker does? Is a net worth of many millions enough? At what point could they reward their workers with a little more for making them so successful? Unfortunately greed raises its head out of the swamp, and for many of these employers, it's never enough.

Thank you for being respectful of your workers and treating them fairly. It's a rarity in my experience. And thanks for a civil debate ...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

So you want a guaranteed minimum stipend for everyone with no strings attached? Should no one be responsible for maintaining their own family at all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's put socialized medicine on the list, and 'two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot'.
Where do we draw the line?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

That would be great in a Utopian universe. It just doesn't happen. That philosophy brought on the French Revolution and a few others throughout history. In simple terms, the dregs of the society have to be bought off so they don't get desperate and riot, causing a lot of social upheaval. It's just that basic. While individual responsibility is great as an aspiration, on a social scale it doesn't work in practice.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

It isn't a person until it can survive outside the womb without external help. Prove scientifically that this isn't so, and leave religious concepts out of it.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

What's your hangup with religious concepts? There were none mentioned in the post you responded to. Is everything you don't agree with due to others religious values in your mind?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Not at all. It's just that outside of murder, theft, and a few other moral values that are universally shared, most other morality is based on religious concepts. Ghengis Khan had very few, while the countries he invaded and sacked had many rules and prohibitions. How we treat marriage, divorce, inheritance, and view family values are all based on what religious sect or order we belong to. Christian moral values are different than Islamic, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Shinto. It's what you believe, not what may or may not be proven other than through religious teachings.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I'll go back to your previous post. Our 23 month old granddaughter is here right now. She can't survive without our (external) help. Does this mean that she isn't a person?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Of course not. I probably should have specified 'outside the womb without extensive medical intervention.' Does this clarify it for you?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Not really. Humans of all ages sometimes require extensive medical intervention to survive outside the womb. What does the womb have to do with who is a person, and who isn't?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

OK, if you want to get into the technicalities, that's fine. But both you and I know that's not what we're talking about. It's about abortion and at what point life truly begins. I have to believe that we're going to agree to disagree on that point.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I think we can agree that we disagree, with no hard feelings.
Now we can go on to more important topics, like what's wrong with rebuilding your lawnmower engine at the kitchen table. I had to agree to disagree on that one too. I need a TV in the barn.......

gaconservative74

I hate that ceo’s Make 200+ times median wages, but why should the collective determine how much a person should have or make? What should happen is companies tell these ceo’s To take a hike, problem is the boards are made up of cronies and they get together and make this stuff up for each other. But freedom is still better than the socialism of telling people how much they can make. Besides, do you really think the elites in Washington are the ones to handle this kinda thing?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I can mostly agree with that, and I'll assume it's not a complete list. One caveat concerning domestic abuse. Thanks to zealots and politicians, domestic abuse now includes not only actual abusers, but 'verbal abusers' as well. Same with child abuse. A child abuser could be a scumbag that abuses children, or a person who lit a cigarette in a car with a child in it once.

Also, I'm curious about your 'convicted violent felons'. Why did you specify violent? Does that mean you think that convicted non-violent felons should be allowed to carry?



WHAT? No it's not. That is the difference between prosecuting the innocent and prosecuting the guilty.



Do yourself a favor. Whoever told you the above, don't believe anything else they tell you. Ever.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When a violent crime is committed all involved are equally guilty. If a group of people rob a convenience store and one of them murders the clerk, they are all guilty of murder, including the person who waited outside in the getaway car. Same with a drive-by shooting. Everybody in the SUV is guilty.

Further, how common do you suppose it is that, among any group of known gang-bangers, most or even a few of them won't have criminal records? Hell, most of the time they're actively on probation. Either way, it's already illegal for them to be in possession of a gun.

Thanks to the elimination, under the Obama administration, of policing policies like stop and frisk the cops can't search known felons anymore. If they could, they could arrest them for carrying without any changes to current gun laws.



For the rare ones that aren't already convicted violent felons, you're right. And that is how it should be. Unless you want to start prosecuting people for future crimes, which seems a bit dystopian, even to me.

Imagine this scenario under your plan:

Let's say I'm a young guy living on the south side of Chicago, and I always carry a gun with me, for self-defense. I'm planning to get my CC license, but haven't had time yet, but I figure I'd rather spend 5 years in jail than be dead, if it comes to that.

Several times a week I visit the local convenience store and sometimes Jayda is working behind the counter. I love it when she's working there. Whenever she is I grab a cup of coffee and keep getting refills and we stand there and shoot the breeze for hours. She's smart, funny, charming and really pretty to boot.

One night, as I'm approaching the store, I see an obvious meth-head standing in front of the counter pointing a gun at Jayda's head. Immediately I reach for my gun. I figure I can open the door and yell for him to put up his hands. If he doesn't he'll likely turn to fire at me and I'll have plenty of time to shoot first, and second. But, just as I'm reaching for the door I think, "Do I really want to spend the next 5 years in jail?" immediately followed by, "I'm sure gonna miss poor ol' Jayda." As I'm walking away I hear the shots.



I don't know if you're aware of it, but what you're advocating is pretty much the status quo. Not sure about the 5 years, but in leftist utopias like Chicago, NYC, Boston, etc. you can already go to jail for having a gun without a local permit. Not to mention the important part - fines!



Again, status quo.



I think I could live with that, if 'immediately' was changed to 'reasonable time' and extenuating circumstances were considered. Such as one of the kids stole the gun and nobody noticed for months.



Why harsh? Remember that scumbag who murdered poor Jayda? Why should we give him any more compassion than he gave her?

Now for the $64,000 question. Why will it never happen?



I mostly agree, but as an engineer I prefer 'tradeoff' to 'compromise'. While they both mean virtually the same thing, 'I'll give up some of this to get more of that', the connotations seem different.

The one qualification I'd make is that while you're right about absolute freedom equaling anarchy, nobody except..., well..., anarchists, wants that. There is a big difference between absolute freedom and limited freedom with the caveat that you cannot infringe upon the rights of others.



Sorry, I may have misunderstood. I say we patch them up (because that's the civilized thing to do) then we sentence them to 10 years in jail, assuming we're giving 5 years for carrying a gun. At any rate, the punishment should be at least twice that of carrying. Remember, the carrier hasn't hurt a soul, the flaunter has caused real damage to real people. If people know they'll get a harsh jail sentence for driving without insurance they'll be less likely to do it. That's prevention.



I used to think the left wanted a nanny state as well, but then I realized that's just a step along the way to achieving their real goal. You, apparently, have no idea yet of their true evilness. What, if any, thoughts do you have about Hillary dehumanizing half the population by declaring them 'irredeemable deplorables'?

As for the right, unfortunately I'm afraid you're right about far too many of them. It really aggravates me whenever I hear a righty say something like "we need to put God back in government" or "we need to put God back in schools". I don't think they have any idea of how many people they're putting off who would otherwise be happy to join them. If they dropped the obsession with putting God everywhere and stopped the opposition to abortion, probably 75% of the country would be Republicans.

Unfortunately, I don't think compromise is the solution. I honestly think we're way beyond that. When somebody tells you, "I'm gonna kill you and your entire family." you don't compromise and say, "No, you can only kill one of the kids and the dog."



No problem, and thanks for yours as well. I usually treat everybody with respect until they demonstrate they don't deserve it.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

OK, violent physical abuse.

An accountant convicted of embezzlement isn't likely to pose a threat to the society at large. And, as much as I don't like it, a thief that does second-story entries isn't much of a threat, either. Once they do get violent, no gun for them.

Probably a bad example, for the reasons that you state. So we just use the existing laws but add stop & frisk?

If I'm not mistaken, the defense of one's self or others from physical harm would eliminate the thought of spending the time in jail. Maybe a caveat in the five year penalty could be included. My intent was to keep the firearms off the street. I'm afraid that with a carveout, there would be nobody getting the CCW's, which would negate the whole thing.

Yep, I was aware, but there are far too many differences that could trip up the unaware carrier when traveling from venue to venue. Plus, if there were no prohibition on carrying once outside the city limits, if there were universal requirements, everyone would know what was legit and what wasn't.

Sure, I can live with both of those. All this stuff has to be a compromise on many of the fine points.

You did misunderstand. No gun involved. Somebody that gets thrown off their motorcycle with no helmet. Bike goes out from under them. Or drives into the ditch and gets thrown out of the vehicle because of no seat belt use with significant injuries. Neither case can afford the medical bills.
What then?

I tend to discount campaign rhetoric as just that. Especially the inflammatory type. What policies do they espouse? What causes do they 'say' that they'll support?

I agree completely with this.

I guess that I'm still remotely optimistic that the multiple crises that are heading our way will eventually dull the fervor on both sides, and allow some semblance of reason to enter the process. There will always be zealots and bigots on both sides, but if we can push them to the fringes and allow some sanity to the process in the middle, we'll be able to survive as a country. If not, then probably balkanization is the probable outcome. I hope not.