Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

So, you want to enact gun control. The criminals are going to simply hand in their guns and stop using them, right?

OF course not, but if and when they get busted by the cops, and they loose those guns, and it does not take a drive to a state with no background checks, or a trip to a gun show to replace them.

Again, all gun control accomplishes is to take guns out of the hands of people who use them legally and responsibly. It does nothing to control criminals.

You know all the stories you here about kids shooting themselves or their siblings in the US, most of those are with legal guns where the owner is in violation of the law by keeping them loaded, they nearly all could be charged as negligent homicide. It is their criminal behaviour that leads to these tragedies. Where is the responsibility in their choice?

[Britta]

Gun store sales, even at gun shows, are subject to federally mandated background checks in every state. What varies is requirements for background checks on sales between private individuals.

[Annoyed]

OF course not, but if and when they get busted by the cops, and they loose those guns, and it does not take a drive to a state with no background checks, or a trip to a gun show to replace them.

And maybe, just maybe, if we exercised CRIMINAL control, rather than gun control, those thugs would be in prison for 10-20 years, so we wouldn't have to worry about them replacing them.

You know all the stories you here about kids shooting themselves or their siblings in the US, most of those are with legal guns where the owner is in violation of the law by keeping them loaded, they nearly all could be charged as negligent homicide. It is their criminal behaviour that leads to these tragedies. Where is the responsibility in their choice?

In those situations, the parents should be held accountable for violation of the law. Even if it is the law of common sense, you shouldn't leave guns and ammo where curious children can get at them,.

[Gatefan1976]

Gun store sales, even at gun shows, are subject to federally mandated background checks in every state. What varies is requirements for background checks on sales between private individuals.

The NICS database, true. This takes around 2 minutes to do, and nothing prevents the use of falsified documents, or a "clean" mule to buy the guns in question. There is no "cooling off" period in most states, nor does it tend to take into account what kind of weapon someone wants to buy. I go back to the same position of, why -if a person feels they need a gun for self/home defence- can they not be just permitted to have a revolver? Why do they need an automatic rife, or pistol?
I am not saying people should not have guns if they -really- want them.

[Gatefan1976]

And maybe, just maybe, if we exercised CRIMINAL control, rather than gun control, those thugs would be in prison for 10-20 years, so we wouldn't have to worry about them replacing them.

What would you suggest Annoyed?
You have almost 2 million people in prison as it is, the highest per capita of any western nation.

In those situations, the parents should be held accountable for violation of the law. Even if it is the law of common sense, you shouldn't leave guns and ammo where curious children can get at them,.

But they are not, are they, and that's where a vast majority of gun deaths in the US come from. It's not from criminals mugging, then killing people, or B,E @ S, it comes from completely preventable deaths because people are not following the existing laws. If the law is not to blame, and the measures are strong enough as seems to be the opinion, then it is the people who are to blame, and history shows that people just should not be trusted with guns.

[Annoyed]

What would you suggest Annoyed?
You have almost 2 million people in prison as it is, the highest per capita of any western nation.

Build more prisons?
They only way someone gets into prison is to commit crimes. So perhaps that should be phrased as "We have caught almost 2 million criminals, the highest number per capita of any western nation."

[garhkal]

If you want to do it of your own accord for self improvement or for any other reason for that matter, have at it. I wish you well. Learning is a good thing.

It is not a choice I would make, however. I have no interest whatsoever in traveling outside the United States, let alone moving to another country permanently, so it is highly unlikely that I will ever need another language.

For me, it's the principle of it, If I ever choose to move or travel to someplace where the dominant language is not English, it is on my shoulders to learn that language before I go there. It would be arrogant in the extreme to expect they will learn my language.

By the same token, I have no interest in learning another language because a group of immigrants is too lazy to learn the language of the country they have migrated to.

Same here. Which is why i HATE it that in certain portions of the USA (mostly in areas of CA, NM, NV, TX, AZ and some spots of FL) if you don't speak Spanish, you ain't getting a job there, cause so many locals don't learn English, the managers etc, have trouble speaking to their employees/customers..

And maybe, just maybe, if we exercised CRIMINAL control, rather than gun control, those thugs would be in prison for 10-20 years, so we wouldn't have to worry about them replacing them.

Exactly. How many times have we heard or read a news report about 'criminal X' who was out on parole, out on bail awaiting trial, out on ROR, awaiting his deportation hearing, arrested X number of times but never been to jail etc, then go onto commit another crime?

[Gatefan1976]

Build more prisons?
They only way someone gets into prison is to commit crimes. So perhaps that should be phrased as "We have caught almost 2 million criminals, the highest number per capita of any western nation."

Or, I could rephrase it as "the 13th amendment still allows for a certain class of slave labour, and the Corporate prison system is loving it"


Or perhaps "Mandatory minimum sentencing, providing slave labour since the Reagan days"

I am sure I could think of some other ways to spin it if you would like.

[Gatefan1976]

Exactly. How many times have we heard or read a news report about 'criminal X' who was out on parole, out on bail awaiting trial, out on ROR, awaiting his deportation hearing, arrested X number of times but never been to jail etc, then go onto commit another crime?

Hell, just line em up and shoot them, or perhaps a good 'ol fasion Lynching!!
Change that pesky wording of Innocent until proven guilty to "guilty until proven innocent, then you can go and kill all the lawyers while you are at it.

[imzadi35]

So I was reading an article on MSN.com
(http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...ses/ar-BBlGU30).
Anyway, I think it's so stupid! If she doesn't want to give them a license because of her beliefs, she shouldn't have to. She's being forced to go against her beliefs, and I think that's wrong, IMOHO.

What do you all think?

[Gatefan1976]

So I was reading an article on MSN.com
(http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...ses/ar-BBlGU30).
Anyway, I think it's so stupid! If she doesn't want to give them a license because of her beliefs, she shouldn't have to. She's being forced to go against her beliefs, and I think that's wrong, IMOHO.

If the clerk was a priest, and the Church handed out marriage licences, then they would have a case.
a Clerk is a civil position, and if you cannot enact the laws of the land, you have business in the position.
Same goes for LGBTQ discrimination by private corporations. The don't have religious beliefs, they exist to make money, and last I checked, Discriminating based on race, creed or colour was (rightfully) illegal.

[Annoyed]

Or, I could rephrase it as "the 13th amendment still allows for a certain class of slave labour, and the Corporate prison system is loving it"


Or perhaps "Mandatory minimum sentencing, providing slave labour since the Reagan days"

I am sure I could think of some other ways to spin it if you would like.

Spin it anyway you want it. If you wish to avoid prison, don't commit a crime. It's that simple.
You do raise a good point, however, regarding prison as a labor source. There are a number of unpleasant tasks that could be sent to the state prison systems to provide labor for the prisoners to do. We ought to use that population as a labor source in order to offset the cost of their care and feeding.

Trash separation is one example. Rather than having residences and businesses separate their trash into recyclables and not recyclable, go back to the end user dumping all trash into one container/stream, ship it to the prisons, and let the prisoners sort it.
There are many ways such as this that the prison population could be put to work.

[Annoyed]

So I was reading an article on MSN.com
(http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...ses/ar-BBlGU30).
Anyway, I think it's so stupid! If she doesn't want to give them a license because of her beliefs, she shouldn't have to. She's being forced to go against her beliefs, and I think that's wrong, IMOHO.

What do you all think?

As a government employee, I don't think she has a choice. She can't impose her personal morality on the governments actions.

If it were a religious or private enterprise, she should have the choice of what to do.

[Britta]

So I was reading an article on MSN.com
(http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...ses/ar-BBlGU30).
Anyway, I think it's so stupid! If she doesn't want to give them a license because of her beliefs, she shouldn't have to. She's being forced to go against her beliefs, and I think that's wrong, IMOHO.

What do you all think?

She's not there as a private individual, she's there as a government employee. If she has a religious objection to doing her job she can quit.

[Annoyed]

So, now it seems that her highness, Hillary Rodham Clinton is claiming that someone in her organization stripped the classified tags off of emails that landed on her private server.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...tion-markings/

Questions for those of you on the left who may be considering voting for her.

Doesn't this, and the numerous other scandals this candidate is carrying as baggage mean anything to you?

If this was someone on the right, whom I would have otherwise considered voting for, the scandals (how many are there now?) would have eliminated her from my consideration long ago.