The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 175
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2011
    Location
    So California
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    I have had so many acquaintances express support for more gun control that I believe those numbers. However, one friend said, after Sandy Hook, "There will definitely be some changes now, how ridiculous that people can own automatic assault weapons!" (This from a person whose husband sells guns at those trade shows).

    I just laughed. I couldn't believe that she was so naive to think the Gun Lobby doesn't have a stranglehold on the Congress.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumpnow View Post
    Yes Kathy S. you live in Texas. You must be so proud of your elected officials, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. LOL

    John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are our reps in Texas. Voted for Cruz, can't stand Perry.
    "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?" Julian Lennon



  3. #23
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2002
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteyPie View Post
    I have had so many acquaintances express support for more gun control that I believe those numbers.
    I have so many friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and customers that don't support more gun control that I don't believe those numbers.


    11 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2001
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Posts
    6,926

    Default

    maybe it's time to dispense with being governed by "elected representatives" and let the people speak for themselves? our current technology surely allows each and every adult citizen to vote on each and every proposed bit of legislation. We need to use the Bill of Rights to protect the minority rights from the craziness of the majority, but otherwise why not let the people actually govern themselves?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2000
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    10,363

    Default

    I enjoy digging deeper into a poll and here is what I found on the one you cited.
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1842

    Here is a Gallup poll done during the same time frame.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx I looked for the demographics for this Gallup pole but could not find any.

    The Quinnipac poll was taken from three north east states and I strongly believe it reflects the views of those citizens. In my opinion that poll came from too narrow a population to cite it as a national opinion.

    This Gallup poll does ask gun questions and provide demographics which are much broader than the Quinnipac demographics above. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/me...un-owners.aspx

    Because of the facts about the recent nationally known mass murderers I lean towards deep diving into the mental health problems associated with them and finding prevention in that avenue.

    The biggest scare to me is this, the power of a state/federal agency gone unchecked: a very, very good male friend of mine was divorced from his wife of 17 years last summer. 6 weeks after the divorce was final she made accusations against him with DSS- Department of Social Services- for molesting their two children and a neighbors child- 7 years earlier. Of course DSS had to open a case. I won't go through the blow by blow of ineptitude with DSS and their investigation/case against him. Before DSS had concluded their investigation the local sheriffs department found no wrong doing. My friend is a Highway Patrol officer and Internal affairs conducted an investigation and found no wrong doing. That investigator stated that this was one of the most disturbing investigations he had conducted because of the amount of proof of malfeasance from the ex-wife towards her ex-husband. Bottom line, the court date was earlier this month and one hour before the hearing, DSS dropped their case. So DSS drug an innocent man through hell and high water for 9 months- in child molestation cases the accusation is the sentence- because they were flawed. So applying this system to a system of mental health and gun ownership is very concerning to me but I would like to see wise heads and people with broad vision tackle it to see if would prevent attacks like we saw in CO and CT.

    If states want to tighten regulations regarding guns- purchases, ownership, etc.- lets go that route. At least if you want to contest an outcome or ruling it is at the local level where good people have a prayer of a chance of being heard. The idea of the fed's having a hand in this concerns me, a lot.

    As for my male friend above, he is my brother in law. His wife is one of my sister's and she is bat-shit crazy. One never expects to give statements against one's own flesh and blood but I will always stand in the corner of what is right.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    I agree about the states taking care of it's own business. Also, what really got to me about this gun legislation was the "we'll read it after we pass it" approach. No way. We went through that with Obamacare and now look at the mess that is turning out to be.
    "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?" Julian Lennon


    8 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct. 14, 2010
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wendy View Post
    maybe it's time to dispense with being governed by "elected representatives" and let the people speak for themselves? our current technology surely allows each and every adult citizen to vote on each and every proposed bit of legislation. We need to use the Bill of Rights to protect the minority rights from the craziness of the majority, but otherwise why not let the people actually govern themselves?
    Do you know anything about shipbuilding? Shrimping? Welfare reg? Medicare requirements? Contruction? Power Generation? Federal laws cover all of that and then some. It is impossible for the average person to develop a reasoned position on all of the issues that come before Congress. Congress critters have staff members to support them so that they can make a semi-informed decision on the matters in front of them. Even with techology, I doubt that as individual, I would have sufficient time and resources to make decsion on the issues that come before Congress, in addition to doing my normal 40-50 hr a week job. The State Farm commerical also comes to mind "They can't put anything on the internet unless it's true" seems relevant to the discussion.

    Our system is not perfect and is flawed. We tend to forget that it was intended to be flawed and inefficient. The inefficiency prevents knee jerk reactions and mob rule.

    BTW, most of my friends and acquaintences didn't support more gun control and had many reasonable questions/concerns about background checks that never seemed to surface in the MSM.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2000
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    10,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kathy s. View Post
    I agree about the states taking care of it's own business. Also, what really got to me about this gun legislation was the "we'll read it after we pass it" approach. No way. We went through that with Obamacare and now look at the mess that is turning out to be.
    I hate to cite obamacare because "haters" are quickly labeled as anti-something. That being said, I think it is the classic example of elected representatives voting with emotion and not facts or vision. Yes, there are improvements and changes that could have been addressed with insurance and getting coverage to good people who through no fault of their own were not covered. As is, it is an Easter basket full of candy that can't be paid for, health care will not be better and the consumer cost will not go down.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar. 8, 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default

    kathy s. [edit] There really wasn't much to read in the gun legislation so not sure what you are referring to with your dig. Basically, it was a common sense approach to keep criminals from being able to buy guns without a background check. You can keep all the guns you want if you are not a criminal. Have at it.

    I am saving about $200 a month thanks to the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT you call Obamacare. Plus my son is able to stay on my policy until he is 26 years old. I love the ACA.
    Last edited by Moderator 1; Apr. 18, 2013 at 02:51 PM.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    Someone was complaining about Virginia's laws...interestingly we have some of the most permissive firearms laws and some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the Eastern US. Use Chicago as your comparison...tough laws and very high rates of gun crimes. Could it be that gun laws and tightening up controls have NOTHING to do with increased use of them on innocent people? Perhaps people having more access to firearms is a deterrent to gun violence...such as Virginia's example seems to state? Food for thought. Background checks really would not have made any real difference. Criminals can still acquire firearms on the black market. All that would have changed is making life a whole lot harder for law abiding people..kind of like buying sudafed now. What a PITA..and its' not stopped the Meth labs has it?

    I would also have greatly preferred that the legislature actually focused on something that would have actually have had an effect on reducing violence..such as better care for mentally ill people. How about better security for schools? Getting rid of gun free zones that attract these sorts of predators that are looking for soft targets?

    Just one more thing...do you folks realize that no one in the US has been able to own an "automatic" weapon since the 1930's without a special permit? No, that isn't the same as an AR 15 and what Pelosi was calling an "assault weapon." Those that she was all riled up about were effectively no different than a semi automatic hunting rifle...just with other features that make them look military but make little to no difference in "deadliness." No army has ever gone into battle with just semi automatic rifles since maybe WWII. The M-16, AK-47, AK-74, etc...are all FULL automatic assault weapons and NOT what anyone has used to massacre any innocent children in the US EVER. No one can own those...they are already banned.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    32,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daydream Believer View Post
    Someone was complaining about Virginia's laws...interestingly we have some of the most permissive firearms laws and some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the Eastern US. Use Chicago as your comparison...tough laws and very high rates of gun crimes. Could it be that gun laws and tightening up controls have NOTHING to do with increased use of them on innocent people? Perhaps people having more access to firearms is a deterrent to gun violence...such as Virginia's example seems to state? Food for thought. Background checks really would not have made any real difference. Criminals can still acquire firearms on the black market. All that would have changed is making life a whole lot harder for law abiding people..kind of like buying sudafed now. What a PITA..and its' not stopped the Meth labs has it?

    I would also have greatly preferred that the legislature actually focused on something that would have actually have had an effect on reducing violence..such as better care for mentally ill people. How about better security for schools? Getting rid of gun free zones that attract these sorts of predators that are looking for soft targets?

    Just one more thing...do you folks realize that no one in the US has been able to own an "automatic" weapon since the 1930's without a special permit? No, that isn't the same as an AR 15 and what Pelosi was calling an "assault weapon." Those that she was all riled up about were effectively no different than a semi automatic hunting rifle...just with other features that make them look military but make little to no difference in "deadliness." No army has ever gone into battle with just semi automatic rifles since maybe WWII. The M-16, AK-47, AK-74, etc...are all FULL automatic assault weapons and NOT what anyone has used to massacre any innocent children in the US EVER. No one can own those...they are already banned.
    well, they buy the guns in Va and then take them other places (like DC, maybe?)

    The assault weapon thing hinges on looks, but sadly - another flaw of the deal - the guns can be easily altered in 15 minutes to become an assault weapon, fully automatic.

    The gun laws need to be revamped, cleaned out and streamlined, because there is too much redundancy in play. You can buy rifle X but not Rifle Z. Both are the same, one has a longer barrel...that's all...

    Not much logic, just a lot of Can Can dancing going on....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul. 28, 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Just wrote to Ted Cruz. Reminded him that he represented me too, and that his extremist positions were like the little kid in the playground being the loudest to get the most attention. Another Texas embarrassment.
    friend of bar.ka


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,291

    Default

    Having the "some of the lowest rates" when there is a significant amount of gun crime is nothing to boast about. A guy got mowed down in a drive-by at a club in Fredericksburg not too long ago. In my own neighborhood, there was a drive-by shooting of a car with two drug dealers in it and I live in what is considered a "safe place". Whenever there's a rape or assault around here, handguns are almost always involved and those sorts of crimes are happening very frequently these days according to the police reports. Is it as bad as Chicago? No, but it certainly isn't "safe" either.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have,
    at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumpnow View Post
    kathy s. [edit] There really wasn't much to read in the gun legislation so not sure what you are referring to with your dig. Basically, it was a common sense approach to keep criminals from being able to buy guns without a background check. You can keep all the guns you want if you are not a criminal. Have at it.

    I am saving about $200 a month thanks to the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT you call Obamacare. Plus my son is able to stay on my policy until he is 26 years old. I love the ACA.

    [edit]

    There was over 800 pages in that bill that wasn't read. And btw, criminals will continue to purchase guns either in the black market or by theft.
    As far as Obamacare, how nice that you are saving money on health care. We just lost ours that was provided by my husbands employer (yes, we paid for 1/2 of it) and are being forced into Obamacare. Less coverage and more expensive for us.
    Last edited by Moderator 1; Apr. 18, 2013 at 02:51 PM.
    "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?" Julian Lennon


    6 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct. 14, 2010
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    well, they buy the guns in Va and then take them other places (like DC, maybe?)
    If you live in DC you pretty much have to buy a gun in VA. I think there's one licsensed gun dealer in the city, and any *legal* purchases have to be transported into the city by him. I won't go into details, but the hoops are pretty ridiculous. Basically it's illegal to have a legally registered gun outside of your house. There was a lot of concern recently about a guy who saved the life of a kid being mauled by a couple large dogs by shooting them & it might have been just off his property. Many people were surprised when the cops didn't charge him with gun crimes.

    There are too many unanswered questions wrt HIPPA, mental health and background checks for me to support them. Apparently many states don't report things because of concerns about HIPPA conflicts. Nothing I've seen indicates that would have been resolved by this bill.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov. 7, 2007
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    825

    Default

    [edit]

    And for what it's worth, my premiums went up 20% thanks to Obamacare.
    And I am sure I'm not alone, I think even Sebelius admitted that premiums have gone up.

    [edit]
    Last edited by Moderator 1; Apr. 18, 2013 at 02:52 PM.
    My big man - April 27, 1986 - September 04, 2008-
    You're with me every moment, my big red horse.

    Be kinder than necessary, for everyone is fighting a battle of some kind.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun. 25, 2004
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumpnow View Post
    kathy s. [edit] There really wasn't much to read in the gun legislation so not sure what you are referring to with your dig. Basically, it was a common sense approach to keep criminals from being able to buy guns without a background check. You can keep all the guns you want if you are not a criminal. Have at it.

    I am saving about $200 a month thanks to the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT you call Obamacare. Plus my son is able to stay on my policy until he is 26 years old. I love the ACA.
    The problem with any bill or law is the definitions.
    Define criminal. Murder is easy unless one considers an individual has to kill to keep from being killed. That person now has a "record" because they were accused and acquitted. How will that person's background check be processed?
    Multiple speeding tickets on file. That person could be considered to be disorganized and therefore is not safe to own a gun. OR That person has no regard for others and therefore not allowed to own a gun.
    Define the scope of mental illness. Does it include anyone who had counseling for say family issues, divorce or ?
    Last edited by Moderator 1; Apr. 18, 2013 at 02:53 PM.
    "Never do anything that you have to explain twice to the paramedics."
    Courtesy my cousin Tim


    6 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    I have had so many acquaintances express support for more gun control that I believe those numbers. However, one friend said, after Sandy Hook, "There will definitely be some changes now, how ridiculous that people can own automatic assault weapons!" (This from a person whose husband sells guns at those trade shows).

    I just laughed. I couldn't believe that she was so naive to think the Gun Lobby doesn't have a stranglehold on the Congress.
    I'd be laughing more because she's a moron who obviously doesn't know what she's talking about. The general public CANNOT and HAS NOT been able to own an automatic weapon in DECADES. That rule is already on the books. If there are people out there that have automatics, then the current rule is not being enforced. Making a new one makes no sense.

    The problem with the proposed laws are that they DO NOTHING. No really... if the laws actually proposed to do something to the criminal element without penalizing the law abiding citizen, then perhaps it really would have 90% backing (as it is, I think that is definitely inflated whehter through polling demographics or the method of questioning -- I don't know a single person in my admittedly small sphere of influence who thinks it's a good idea or would do one iota of good). As it is, people don't trust the government (for good reason) and don't want additional government interference, regulation, costs... or for the very cynical/paranoid, to be on a government list that could potentially be used against them.

    Did the bomb get blamed for the Boston Marathon tragedy? Why is the gun being blamed for Sandy Hook? It's just a THING! It doesn't do anything without the intent of the user behind it. Any more than a bomb, a car, a baseball bat or a kitchen knife.
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike


    9 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Fooler -- PERFECT!!!

    I've been seeing a counselor for a while due to my divorce. Would I be flagged as mentally ill and not fit to purchase a gun?
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov. 29, 2008
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Who do our Senators represent?

    They are elected by a majority of the voters.

    So you have to try to figure out why the majority of the voters, voted the the way they did.

    I think a good question to consider might be.... What are the things that influence voters to decide on who to vote for?

    Once you have some understanding on how voters tend to come to make their choices, then you could look at each campaign and try to determine the positions the candidate supported, and any other factors that may have caused the voters to favor that candidate.

    Once you have that data. Then you could compare what the elected Senator does while in office, to the basis of why he was elected, and try to see if they correspond.

    What you discover could then guide your research into attempting to discover what a particular Senator is representing.

    I wonder if there are any online databases anywhere that record campaign data for what candidates claim to represent, and comparisons to the actions that they take while in office, all put into some sort of visually comprehensive format?

    A database like that would be a lot of work, and would need to be based on referenceable facts.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: Jul. 9, 2012, 10:38 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jun. 16, 2012, 07:10 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul. 18, 2009, 02:30 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Apr. 12, 2008, 08:00 PM
  5. Replies: 121
    Last Post: Dec. 8, 2003, 10:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness