I don't want to shoot holes in your novel but why was a Lonshoreman having a sales meeting in the desert
Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Gun control on a more serious level
- Thread starter Sir M
- Start date
I don't want to shoot holes in your novel but why was a Lonshoreman having a sales meeting in the desert
- Thread starter
- #225
Did I say sales meeting? I mean Union Retreat.
We lounged around, played cards, spent a lot of the corporate money on frivolous stuff like drinks, dinners. You know, what unions usually do.
Dont forget wrote verryy long posts on this thread...
cascadesoccer
Well-Known Member
America
trece verde
Well-Known Member
Interesting reading to help deal with my insomnia...
What's missing with all of the proposed solutions so far is a recognition of the basis for the cultural difference in attitudes towards guns. The whole thing is based on how the 2nd Amendment to their constitution is interpreted (or misinterpreted). That and underlying xenophobia about being "invaded" or needing to "protect" oneself are what this thrives on, and the absurdist libertarian idea that the populace needs to be protected from the government.
This is why the idea of controlling gun ownership is such a hard sell there. People who are otherwise quite rational buy wholesale into the "armed and vigilant populace" mindset, and why there are lobbies pushing the concealed carry concept in multiple states. The firearms industry pushes the "protection" idea as its primary selling point, with euphemisms like "stopping power" as justifications for selling automatic weapons like AR-15s to non-military users.
There are legitimate hunters in the US, and legitimate hunting areas, despite our perception of the country as being one large urban environment. Like hunters here, they don't need hand guns or automatic rifles. As someone who has also hunted, I have only ever heard one valid reason for having a sidearm, and that was from a conservation officer in grizzly country who wore one because he felt it was a lot easier to carry than a rifle.
There is a lot of evidence that breaks every myth the NRA are trying to perpetrate, especially the one that more available weapons will prevent mass shootings. There were people involved in the last mess in Oregon who were also armed, but did not get involved. Why not? According to the NRA, an armed populace is a protected one. People chose not to get involved despite also being armed, either because of self-preservation (they were afraid that the shooter was more heavily armed than they were) or because they were afraid that the SWAT team would mistake them for the shooter. Another Hollywood myth shot full of holes (yes, that was intentional).
Let's suppose that Obama decided to push hard for even a simple registration system for guns (the first step in control is to know what you're controlling). We couldn't even make that work properly here because of political foot-dragging on the part of the blue side of the house, and now that's been repealed. The second step would be to properly vet who's allowed to purchase one - again, this will be subject to more foot-dragging and idjits wrapping themselves in their perceived constitutional right to bear arms. The 3rd step, which is even tougher, is to determine what should be allowed to be sold to whom. Grab some popcorn and sit back for that one...
What's missing with all of the proposed solutions so far is a recognition of the basis for the cultural difference in attitudes towards guns. The whole thing is based on how the 2nd Amendment to their constitution is interpreted (or misinterpreted). That and underlying xenophobia about being "invaded" or needing to "protect" oneself are what this thrives on, and the absurdist libertarian idea that the populace needs to be protected from the government.
This is why the idea of controlling gun ownership is such a hard sell there. People who are otherwise quite rational buy wholesale into the "armed and vigilant populace" mindset, and why there are lobbies pushing the concealed carry concept in multiple states. The firearms industry pushes the "protection" idea as its primary selling point, with euphemisms like "stopping power" as justifications for selling automatic weapons like AR-15s to non-military users.
There are legitimate hunters in the US, and legitimate hunting areas, despite our perception of the country as being one large urban environment. Like hunters here, they don't need hand guns or automatic rifles. As someone who has also hunted, I have only ever heard one valid reason for having a sidearm, and that was from a conservation officer in grizzly country who wore one because he felt it was a lot easier to carry than a rifle.
There is a lot of evidence that breaks every myth the NRA are trying to perpetrate, especially the one that more available weapons will prevent mass shootings. There were people involved in the last mess in Oregon who were also armed, but did not get involved. Why not? According to the NRA, an armed populace is a protected one. People chose not to get involved despite also being armed, either because of self-preservation (they were afraid that the shooter was more heavily armed than they were) or because they were afraid that the SWAT team would mistake them for the shooter. Another Hollywood myth shot full of holes (yes, that was intentional).
Let's suppose that Obama decided to push hard for even a simple registration system for guns (the first step in control is to know what you're controlling). We couldn't even make that work properly here because of political foot-dragging on the part of the blue side of the house, and now that's been repealed. The second step would be to properly vet who's allowed to purchase one - again, this will be subject to more foot-dragging and idjits wrapping themselves in their perceived constitutional right to bear arms. The 3rd step, which is even tougher, is to determine what should be allowed to be sold to whom. Grab some popcorn and sit back for that one...
Sickening.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...clinic/ar-AAfJSRV?li=AAadgLE&ocid=mailsignout
It's ironic that our neighbors to the South are meeting the Syrian refugee crisis with such widespread opposition, for fear of harboring terrorists, when it can legitimately be argued that the lion's share of terrorist style attacks that have occurred in Western Civilized Nations in the last 20 years have taken place in the US, and most NOT at the hands of Muslims.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...clinic/ar-AAfJSRV?li=AAadgLE&ocid=mailsignout
"The city, home to the U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Olympic training center, is also a hub for conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family that strongly oppose abortion."
This particular allegation has not yet been proven out, but I wouldn't be surprised.
It's ironic that our neighbors to the South are meeting the Syrian refugee crisis with such widespread opposition, for fear of harboring terrorists, when it can legitimately be argued that the lion's share of terrorist style attacks that have occurred in Western Civilized Nations in the last 20 years have taken place in the US, and most NOT at the hands of Muslims.
trece verde
Well-Known Member
Sir M: would it help you more if I just said that they have a fcuked-up attitude toward guns that looks like it can't be fixed? Oh, and Dude wants to know if you have any other videos of her showing nuggets...
trece verde
Well-Known Member
And "seriously?" has 4...
This is so bang-on (intentional) it's ridiculous. I agree, culturally, they are so far down the rabbit hole that getting out will take some very expensive and unconventional means.
That's why a government sponsored gun buy-back program would at least work, coupled with a real registration program that at least mirrors Canada's. You will never get all the guns, but what if you could get a whole lot of them? What if you could get 25%? 50%?
It'd be massively expensive. I dunno, recycle them, send them to law enforcement for their use, or military. Perhaps they can offset costs on that end.
Wouldn't li-an be two syllables? If li-an is one syllable then would not e-da also be one syllable? I'm not a teacher or an English major but it sounds like 6 to me.
Members online
No members online now.
