From my cold, dead hands

[temporal1]

i disagree with most of what you’re saying above, and, i would not come to the same conclusions you do in your linked charts and reports. for one thing, the facts in those materials jump around so much, no real conclusions can be made.

regarding the response to violence and Caesar, and, specifically, the NRA,
if an action is proven to have unwanted results, it’s wise+sensible to discontinue on that path ..
at least, that would be common sense reasoning.

presently, sure as the sun rises, NRA thrives under attack:
NRA sees donations spike ..
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/28/nr ... oting.html
this report is about donations, i believe NRA membership is ‘way up, too.

i do not believe anti-NRA folks are stupid.
in the least, by now, those leading must understand the results of their aggression.

so, presuming they know what’s going to result, what is their real goal?

if the real goal is fewer violent deaths (of all descriptions, not just by way of guns)
the real answer is to enforce existing laws - esp to stop legal sabotage of existing laws with laws that protect+enable criminal behavior .. for the “higher” purpose of (say, combating perceptions of racism.)

example:
when laws decide that so much collateral damage (bloodshed) is ok in trade for the loftier goal of, say, ending racism, there will be abundant cases of violence acted out. with no one accepting responsibility. as is believed to have happened in Parkland.

in the process, our buddy, Caesar, has been castrated.

as we speak, yet another bombing suspect (with a lengthy criminal history) has caused chaos.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/2 ... n=theblaze

to repeat: when existing laws are ignored, crime is invited.

why would creation of new laws (destined to be ignored) be an improvement?
what kind of math is that?

why would removing rights of law-abiding citizens be an improvement? because it “feels like” something is being done? “now, those folks aren’t killing!” true. but, they weren’t killing before.
so, something lost, nothing gained.

to repeat.
i do not believe lib leaders are this ignorant of reality.
what is their true goal? they can’t have any real hatred of NRA. their actions prove it.
are they secret stockholders?

[Robert]

Not the NRA, but very similar words.

[video][/video]

[temporal1]

Not the NRA, but very similar words.
[video][/video]

individual grown men are taking steps at the local level. across the country.
organized activists have become tiring.

coincidentally, i just shared this clip.
in my local news, there was a 7th grade class that wrote letters (led by their teacher) to their political representative, he visited with them in their classroom. i did not read the letters. in Illinois public schools, i can imagine.

in reader comments, i offered this clip from NC as another view for the children to consider.
a view from a grown man, behaving and speaking as a grown man.

many children no longer meet or witness grown men in their everyday lives.
IRL, i’m now seeing lots of children raised in estrogen-dominated worlds, their mothers at home, teachers-principals-leaders in schools (and in many churches) - all women. with male custodians in quiet servant roles. (in my view, not an ideal mix, for anybody.) ladies, be careful what you wish for in your quest to dominate.

grown men come in many varieties. this one variety (in the clip) is as important as .. (paper-pushing law school graduates and tech nerds, etc.; i.e., experts in secular relativism, those who appear to be controlling everyone’s futures from their office cubicles.)

no one, no matter how brilliant in any given arena, has all the answers.
he hit on several good points. one after another.

i continue to disagree strongly with politicizing children.

however, if they are “going there,” in public schools, funded with everyone’s combined taxes, topics/subjects should be taught in balance. no hijacking the public treasury for partisan grooming of everyone’s children (for future votes.)

my 2 cents.

[Bootstrap]

The video is a set of talking points we have heard many times in this thread.

Let's look at them.

When are you going to start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is, I’m the majority. Well, no. The majority is the majority, you can use polls to find out what they believe. Angry shouting doesn't establish what the majority opinion is. In the polls I've seen, Americans - and even gun owners - support some gun control measures and oppose others. It's not a black and white "gun nuts" versus "anti-gun liberals".

We’ve got to drop all this division. Sure, let's sit down and discuss individual proposals, one at a time, on their merits. The angry shouting match is one of the big reasons for the division.

The majority of the people in this city are law abiding. But that doesn't mean that the majority agrees with the NRA lobby, polls are pretty clear about that.

Nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. Giving and taking offense is an important part of this rhetoric. I don't know many people who blame all gun owners for the crimes of a few. This is polarizing rhetoric.

You want to turn around and restrict my constitutional right. Any laws must be subject to the constitution or they cannot stand. I haven't heard many proposals for laws that would violate any 2nd Amendment right that the Supreme Court has ever recognized. But that doesn't mean the law cannot impose restrictions - the constitution doesn't say you can buy any weapon you want with and carry it anywhere without a license or registration, even if you have felony convictions or have threatened people. If you're going to invoke constitutional law, you need to take the time to understand it, the 2nd amendment clearly does not say there cannot be restrictions on the kinds of guns you can buy, requirements to license and register guns, restrictions on access to guns for felons or those convicted of domestic abuse, etc. See Heller.

You want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people we are talking about here tonight. I don't really know what measures were being considered in Greensboro, so this is hard to respond to, but given Heller, I assume that nobody was questioning his right to buy a gun to defend himself.

The Cripps and the Bloods on the other side of town? They’re not going to turn their guns in. Sure, but you can make it harder for them to get guns, and you can increase the criminal penalties associated with illegally acquiring guns or selling guns to someone not legally allowed to buy guns. The ability to track illegal weapon sales is important if we really care about gangs with guns.

An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. I still don't have a strong position on the AR-15. Clearly, it's the weapon most mass shooters prefer, which means it's worth asking whether it's important for civilians to have it. I don't think having an argument about whether it is "military grade" or any other adjective is all that useful. The real question is what the risks and benefits are of allowing citizens to have AR-15s, unless some future Supreme Court decision puts them in the class of constitutionally protected weapons.

[temporal1]

also, in my crazy state (illinois) ..
responding to the question of raising legal age to own firearms, questions are forthcoming about raising the minimum age for drivers’ licenses (lots of teens killed in vehicular collisions every year, without fail) ..
and, how about requiring licenses for smartphones? - which also result in lots of teen injuries/fatalities? .. in cars, but, not only in cars.

children/young people should be terrified of driving, and, terrified of smartphones.
for 2 obvious examples.

my hope -
that children demanding removal of others’ rights will quickly see what a tangled web that immediately becomes, when their own personal rights are put under scrutiny for restriction/removal.

like, the unwanted clear backpacks, and, ideas regarding drivers’ licenses and smartphones ..
in the process, they may learn a bit more respect for what their elders have been coping with, all along. that, if answers were simple, they would have already been done.

[temporal1]

Greensboro, NC
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/04/05 ... mpaign=DMS

this clip shows a bit more from the NC meeting. another grown man, Mr Stevens (sp?) spoke just before Mr Robinson. Mr Stevens has a few more points.

Mr Stevens is not “going viral” like Mr Robinson -

i really appreciate Mr Robinson’s point about ending political divisiveness.

[temporal1]

Greensboro, NC
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/04/05 ... mpaign=DMS

this clip shows a bit more from the NC meeting. another grown man, Mr Stevens (sp?) spoke just before Mr Robinson. Mr Stevens has a few more points.

Mr Stevens is not “going viral” like Mr Robinson -

i really appreciate Mr Robinson’s point about ending political divisiveness.

i’m glad this link remains active, i appreciate both men’s input.

by now, Mr Mark Robinson has become a busy name in news.
i am praying for him to be able to keep a level head and not to be swept up in nonsense.
i doubt that would be an easy path.

these are grown men, not children. it will be hard enough for them to deal with it.

[Robert]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html

Deerfield(Illinois) bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.

[temporal1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html

Deerfield(Illinois) bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.

Deerfield, IL, like the State of Vermont, are both locations with little-to-no violent crime.
(On the City-Data link below, it appears, Deerfield doesn’t even have accidents. no cause specified.) Deerfield is wealthy, north of Chicago suburbs, average home values are over a half million.
City-Data: Deerfield IL
http://www.city-data.com/city/Deerfield-Illinois.html

i use this page now+then. it’s helpful to get an idea about different locations, esp when family members move around. near the bottom, there’s a handy cost of living calculator.

the purpose of passing these laws in areas (where they have no need or relevance) is to establish legal precedence for future cases, BOTH, in other areas, no matter how little they have in common, AND, to expand+add more laws in future.

Mark Robinson spoke plainly to this. he’s calling foul. i believe he’s correct.

[temporal1]

A bit more from Mark Robinson:
“Mark Robinson: Hard Working Citizens Are Being Overlooked By Politicians”
https://radio.foxnews.com/2018/04/06/ma ... liticians/
i do not follow Todd Starnes. i’ve heard his name, never before listened to him.

interesting to note: Mark Robinson does not own a firearm!
many interested in this debate do not own firearms. including on this forum.
he works in a furniture factory.
he has a FB page, that, so far, i have not located.

.. Robinson told Todd that he did not plan to make the speech at all, and in fact he doesn't even own a gun yet.
Robinson said he had only planned on attending the Gun and Knife show with the intent of buying a gun legally
but when he heard there was a meeting about it being cancelled he said, "I felt like I had to say something." ..

(for me) an important component to this is, the (beauty) of the majority as NOT politically organized, NOT activists/lobbyists, people of every description, comprising the marvelous unorganized majority.

in my estimation, the unorganized majority is the central “draw” of the U.S.

if this is lost to (political factions) the U.S. will have lost its most important uniqueness.
i hope that can be avoided. but many are working toward that very end goal.
i suspect, many not realizing the net cost of their efforts.