The main problem is the money...To make things better on any level in my opinion, we have to remove the private & corporate money that is buying and establishing the party lines on any and all issues.

It should be the policy arguments from the people and their representatives that decide a party line on any issue, not the money that the NRA or UAW gives to back what's best for them.

When the money is stopped you may see improvement, until then I'll never delve into or participate in political arguments cause they are pointless and a waste of time.

Mads @ 22/2/2018 13:58

Igor @ 22/2/2018 14:52 Mads @ 22/2/2018 13:51 I also don't think Igor realizes there's a difference between "leftists" and "liberals." Leftists are complete and utter garbage. But liberals are all pretty much the same on taking away gunz This is false. I see a lot of division between people who want all-out bans, bans on specific guns, or just better legislation on background checks and methods of purchase. There's also a whole other debate over researching gun violence from a public health perspective. Nydia Velázquez's bill, H.R.3987 - Protecting Americans from Gun Violence Act of 2017, is one to look into. It would place a fee on background checks and the revenue from those fees would fund gun violence research at the CDC. It's probably not a perfect bill, but I agree with the general premise. Most of the cosponsors are from the Progressive Caucus, though, so I doubt it will get any movement in this Congress.

Can they use any of the fees for trying to stop those that buy guns illegally? I'm all for making it more difficult to get guns, but that's only for those that are typically law-abiding citizens anyways.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 14:10

Igor @ 22/2/2018 13:52 Mads @ 22/2/2018 13:51 I also don't think Igor realizes there's a difference between "leftists" and "liberals." Leftists are complete and utter garbage. But liberals are all pretty much the same on taking away gunz Not really. In fact, my plan has a conservative hallmark in it: personal responsibility. But it requires the registration of firearms to work. If a firearm registered to you is used in the commission of a crime and you have not *previously* listed it as missing, you get prosecuted as an accessory to that crime. If your response is "What if I don't know it is stolen?" then you pretty much haven't kept your gun under your control, have you? I actually believe that possible weapons available should be expanded- with the caveat that to get anything, you have additional training and checks to go through to get them, using an endorsement system similar to what they have with pilot licenses. Base "license" allows use of handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action or semi-auto longarms (up to .30) with limited capacity magazines, requiring annual recurrent safety training. You can add endorsements for CCW, large-capacity magazines, full auto, larger caliber weapons, grenade launchers, etc., but each requires additional training, potentially a annual or biennial mental fitness check, etc.). More importantly, these would provide federal pre-emption, so you would no longer have to figure out if your CCW works in XYZ state or not. If the argument is "criminals will still get guns", well then you can drop a federal firearms violation on said criminals- Al Capone wasn't taken dowbn for the St Valentines Day Massacre, but for tax evasion. Here's a tool to get those "bad guys". More than anything, this changes the *culture* around guns. Too many people I've seen play with their guns in a way that would have gotten my ass beaten by the Korean War vet who taught me to shoot.

I like it and would be for it, but it still doesn't stop the issue of the mass killings, which they are targeting to stop.

Ahoda and Igor should get a room.

Spin @ 22/2/2018 15:23

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 14:11 Dadd @ 22/2/2018 15:09 Spin @ 22/2/2018 15:07 Herm @ 22/2/2018 13:42 I like the idea of arming schools with bodyguards/grown ups with military training/background. I don't know how far down the rabbit hole your country's gone, but seeing as any gun legislation talk leads nowhere, how about giving the other end of extreme a try? Seems like doing nothing is making things worse. Thoughts? Putting more guns into the schools won't help. It just adds more bullets to the fray when shit gets crazy. Plus, most school bodyguards are there for a reason: either they need to be employed by the district to coach a sport, or they weren't good enough (or retired due to old age from) for the police force. With what they pay teachers, I shudder to think of who they would employ as bodyguards ... Isn't there an issue involving unemployed military vets? Or did I just make that up? I might have made it up, but if not we could solve two problems in one swoop! Yeah, let's give people who likely suffer from some form of PTSD a weapon and put them into a stressful environment (like a high school), while paying them a basically minimum wage salary. Sounds like a great plan. You should write your congressmen.

If schools did do that they likely wouldn't be targeted, they would find another school without an armed guard.

This will be like the mid-2000's when China was buying all the steel and Steel prices skyrocketed for years.

I agree, wikey how many kids in this country play video games like that? Tens of Millions, I'd guess. How many kids played cowboys and indians growing up with fake guns and caps that made a gun fire sound? Lots, it's not the games, it's not the guns, imo. It's how kids are raised now adays, both at home and school. Kids are raised with little discipline and very little consequences for their actions.

What are the percentages that back up that video games cause kids to be mass murders? To blame just the videos games is the cop out.

I hope Dennis Rodman is the moderator.

I say we rejoin Great Britain they don't seem to have any issues.