- Apr 19, 2012
- 32,708
- 6,391
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
She did not say that she said that she did not know how people made it through life without God.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
She did not say that she said that she did not know how people made it through life without God.So we should force Everyone to be one faith then?
I oppose a gun registry, but WOULD support a tax that would help with mental health.
It is not about "deserving poor" in a bad way it is about helping v enabling them to remain poor.. Helping is one thing that I nor anyone I know has an issue with; on the other hand ENABLING people to remain poor is something different. People fall on hard times; people even make mistakes and need a hand up to change, but that have to WANT to change and do their part to change not just assume that others will keep allowing them to stay where they are and not working to better themselves.So if it is poverty and bad living conditions that lead us to dangerous crime-infested areas in the US but not the availability of guns, then how do we solve the problem?
And, I've seen New Orleans public housing when I lived in New Orleans. It is awful. And often times they are literally around the corner from opulence and wealth. There was one just outside the Garden District that was terrifying.
I think what we see in America among Conservatives (especially those espousing Christian values) is a love of money over people and a love of "living by the sword". Sure a lot of them mouth the mealy mouthed words of "sanctity of life" but that's only so that they can denigrate women who find themselves in untenable situations and making a horrible choice of abortion. Sure they care for the poor with their charities, but only insofar as it gives them a chance to pick and choose who the "deserving poor" are and so long as those deserving poor come to their way of belief.
It's safer when one knows one is doing God's work denigrating the poor by blaming them for their lot and assuming all poor people are lazy. It's safer to think one can be a sure-shot and take out the bad guy like in an action movie.
Sanctity of life? Nah, that isn't our gig here in the USA. Judgement and Mammon are our only gods.
Besides, this latest pervert bought 33 weapons this last year, I think, and had a background check for each one... so why didn't the government at least pay him a visit?
It would help if people would report their guns stolen like cars. Just because a gun I own was used in a particular crime that does not mean that I was the one behind the trigger. Just like just because my car was involved in a hit and run or was seen leaving the scene of a suspected crime does not mean that I was driving or even that I knew it happened.Having a gun registry would help law enforcement catch criminals.
You have the right to a gun in your home. It does not follow that guns should not be registered so that illegal use outside the home can be tracked and reduced.
.It is not about "deserving poor" in a bad way it is about helping v enabling them to remain poor.
People fall on hard times; people even make mistakes and need a hand up to change, but that have to WANT to change and do their part to change not just assume that others will keep allowing them to stay where they are and not working to better themselves.
I believe that government help that is means tested should be handled at the state or better yet local level. People are more likely to know people and know how they got in that situation and frankly whether or not they are willing to change and better themselves. I will say this we need to do something about the people in the middle ( make too much for help, but not enough to live) It is like when you make a certain amount you are suddenly dropped from the roles (yet, often that amount is small. For the record I HAVE been on SSI and so KNOW how annoying it can be for people who need it and are not gaming the system..
Yeah, I hear that a lot. I apologize but I'm not buying it. You see, too many Conservative voters see poor people as largely made up of a population of people whom they think "want" to be poor.
It's far too convenient. I mean no personal offense to you per se, but I honestly don't believe when I hear conservative Christians talk about how the poor are "enabled" to live like that that they really actually care about poverty but moreso about their own treasure.
Yeah, this. This is exactly what I see all too often. If poverty is such a great gig why don't more of you guys give up and become "poor"? Hint: it's not because all Conservatives are just naturally hard workers...no it's because all y'all know exactly how awful that life is. There are vanishingly few Americans who actually WANT to live like that. They aren't looking for a way to game the system to live on a subsistance dole.
Sure there may be a small number. But gimme a break, America treats the poor worse than we treat our dogs. And we KNOW IT. We fight tooth and nail for any more money taken from our paychecks by Uncle Sam for any number of "excuses".
We decided long ago that we want our GUNS and our MONEY. And anything that even marginally threatened it was anathema. We can fix our society and make it a better place for everyone, we're the richest nation on earth. There are plenty of societies that have all the freedoms we have and enjoy a better standard of living across the board.
I've been to many of those places and worked with those people and trust me: western Europe is not a hellscape of horror.
But America is special. We neeeeeed our guns to protect our money.
We've taken up the sword so we can LIVE by it. And after a while that's exactly how we all die.
You know talking about guns in the home that is where most toddlers shoot which seem to be a fairly big talking point for gun control.THE NRA IS RIGHT - BANNING MACHINE GUNS IS ONLY THE FIRST STEP
There is need for much more regulation. And there is a need for the left to be very, very clear that citizens have the right to bear arms in their homes, and the right to have weapons for hunting and sport.
I would note that the number of guns is indeed related to the amount of gun violence. But that isn't the issue. We need a society that accepts a homeowner's right of protection, and at the same time supports those who protect us in public places.
1) Even the NRA used to support the banning of semi-autoimatic weapons. The 1994 act should be brought back.
2) The size of magazines should be limited.
3) Guns should registered.
4) A background check and waiting period should be in place, with data going into a central data base.
5) As a society, we should understand the National Guard is our citizen militia. Individual do NOT have the right to own military grade weapons.
6) Local and state governments should have the right to add further regulations of guns in the public space. Some states will allow folks to walk into MacDonald's a put a gun on their table. Others won't. Gin ownership and attitudes are very different by state. There are many cultural differences. Folks in Wyoming are fine with having a holstered gun in town, California not so much. And that's fine. Some jurisdictions might require training before one is allowed to carry a gun outside their home. This might be considered silly in other states.
7) Treating mental illness is a noble idea. Support community mental health centers. Require that insurance policies cover mental illness. There is a lot that we can do. Trying to make sure that someone who buys and/or guns to be mentally stable is a waste of money and effort. Teaching children how to deal with conflict is a better use of funds.
.
Sure there may be a small number. But gimme a break, America treats the poor worse than we treat our dogs.
You know talking about guns in the home that is where most toddlers shoot which seem to be a fairly big talking point for gun control.
I have no idea what you mean.Someone tell me how many overall shootings are honest to goodness random ( in comparison to the number that happen.
Again, taking those out then how many shootings are COMPLETELY random? Remember, there ARE punishments for parents whose toddlers harm others with a gun already.Protecting toddlers in the home is great idea, but in the end, such laws will not be passed. Liberals cannot pass legislation to force gun owners to protect their children. That's just the way it is.
Truly random meaning not related to EITHER gang violence OR some sort of other criminal activity such as a burglary or robbery gone bad? How often is it that LITERALLY someone walks on the street and just shoots or that someone literally walks into somewhere ( without some other criminal motive and just shoots someone?I have no idea what you mean.
I do know that the as smaller the number of guns in a state, the lower the number of gun deaths.
Again, taking those out then how many shootings are COMPLETELY random? Remember, there ARE punishments for parents whose toddlers harm others with a gun already.
Gun makers enjoy extraordinary freedom from liability when gun accidents occur, and that means gun owners bear most of the legal burden. Twenty-eight states have what are known as “child access prevention” laws, which impose criminal liability on adults who negligently allow kids to have access to their guns. States with these CAP laws show reductions in both accidental shootings and child suicides. But as Justin Peters has argued many times here at Slate, these CAP laws are almost never enforced, in part because they are vague, and in part because prosecutors have no heart to punish parents who have already suffered unimaginable pain when their child killed another child, often their own.
I believe that government help that is means tested should be handled at the state or better yet local level. People are more likely to know people and know how they got in that situation and frankly whether or not they are willing to change and better themselves.
For the record I HAVE been on SSI and so KNOW how annoying it can be for people who need it and are not gaming the system.
The trouble is that that is NOT murder under the law. Involuntary manslaughter is what it is NOT murder just because someone died at the hands of another does NOT make it murder under the law.I had to go look it up, it was a statement of fact, and I was unsure if it was correct. I searched on: "ARE there punishments for parents whose kids harm others with a gun" and came up with a Slate article"
Another article
Until grieving parents are prosecuted under these laws, it's sort of useless having them. Yes, it's terrible that their kid died. Yes, they are to blame, as much as any murderer. Leaving unsecured guns where kids can get at them should be a federal felony with consequences.
We had a crazy guy in Melbourne last year who killed several people when he ran his car into a pedestrian mall.........now, give him Stephen Paddock’s arsenal and an elevated position to shoot from...?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?