Jump to content
Thanks for being patient with me. I'm just trying to get a fix on this stuff.
I keep hearing that there are laws in place to keep guns away from disturbed people. Have any of you actually seen these laws v. just heard about them?
If there are really such laws and they don't work, does it make sense to try again with some better laws to keep imbalanced, troubled souls from wielding a gun? I realize we can't be 100% but wouldn't 75%, 50% or even 5% be a good thing. No one is talking about confiscating guns in general. I've not ever heard Obama or any other president talk about confiscating guns. I have not read any initiatives or heard of any laws outlawing guns. No one is talking about throwing out the 2nd Amendment that I've heard.
And I agree with you, Barracuda, that we need to to do something about mental health in this country although no one seems to want to spend any money to do so. My friend, Lee Baca, just retired from being Los Angeles County Sheriff. His jails were jammed packed with mentally ill people because there was no other place to put them and citizens didn't feel safe with them on the street. Same in New York and apparently we have a similar problem in our county in WW. There just isn't a simple answer for this. Meanwhile why at least can't we have a simple law requiring background checks?
Why in the name of pure humanity can't we make it harder for disturbed individuals from buying guns without being called a Marxist, anti gun and 2nd Amendment and wanting to confiscate and destroy all privately owned firearms. Where is Mr. Stone's rhetoric coming from? And show me some proof it is even half way true.
I assure you neither my boyfriend nor I are Marxists or anti gun but we believe in sane gun policy. My boyfriend is a member of the NRA and a big time hunter and has been since he was a boy. He reads gun magazines and digests before going to bed each night when he could be whispering sweet nothings in my ear. I am not a hunter and find other things to put me to sleep at night than reading gun magazines. However I shot bb guns at targets for NRA rewards as a child. Keep thinking I'd like to test out my skill and eyesight at a gun range to see if old age has negatively affected yet another thing. Meanwhile, I prefer keeping guns out of the reach of disturbed people as best we can.
Thanks for the AGU information.
I wish I had more confidence that scientist and scientific institutions are wrong about AGW. I'm conservative when it comes to spending money but when it comes to AGW, I'm more concerned about the amount of money the fossil fuel industry spends for lobbyists, bribing elected officials, creating an influential job loop between the private and government sector, and paying a few scientists to confuse public perception. Relevant scientific organizations and scientists are on the side of AGW. Who do you see as corrupting them? Can't be the government since the fossil fuel industry seems to have done a pretty good job of corrupting politicians.
Nice try GeneorCassie. I think the poor soda companies have way more to think about than their contribution to climate problems. Sugar's current bad image has reduced soda consumption in this country. Wouldn't surprise me if the soda companies team up with the sugar industry to make sugar some kind of medical wonder. I can testify to chocolate and sugar being a good anti-depressant. I'm just not as convinced that CO2 isn't killing us off along with sugar.
I should have been more clear. I personally don't know any Americans who are socialists. I haven't crossed paths with Bernie Sanders yet but would enjoy taking the fellow on. Our country has never had that many dictionary defined socialists which I think your wiki site would back me up on.
The Gateway Pundit site plays very loosely with whom it calls a socialist. It names 70 socialists in Congress. I can bet this is the first these people have heard about being socialist. To call Democrats socialists negates the value of a dictionary and reduces the ability to converse effectively. I learned this point in grad school during the Vietnam period. Things were so chaotic. Half the time classes were dismissed, "moratorium", which annoyed me no end since I had paid my fees and wanted my money's worth of education. Furthermore I had done my undergrad at BYU where Vietnam was not to be talked about nor demonstrated against. For me, UCLA was a cultural clash. However, I had a professor who insisted on dictionary precise terms. Drove me bats since it is so much easier to talk with imprecision which also gives an illusion of making one's point. We lived with a dictionary in hand the whole quarter and since the professor was my adviser, the dictionary had to be my Bible for many more quarters. But you know what, sticking to proper definitions really helped with pulling young passionate minds into an arena that allowed for artful discussion with less emotion.
Might be an interesting exercise for all of us, including me, to reread, a few times, the definition of socialist and see how the discussion sounds.
Not sure what the AGU is but look forward to what you have to say. Beyond the military being concerned, I continually read about many states being concerned about the effects of global warming.
I think the best answer as to why the Berlin Wall fell has little to do with a U.S. defense build up and more to do with the the price of oil falling which knocked out the Soviet Union's economy. Unfortunately, I think too much of our economy is built on excessive, expensive, inefficient and unproductive defense spending. Disarm the enemy with an enviable example of an economy that fosters the well being of all its citizens.
Virtual conferences are probably an excellent idea. Maybe they will even accomplish more than regular climate conferences since face to face encounters are somewhat unproductive.
I attended General James Mattis' lecture at Whitman recently. Someone asked him how he felt about climate warming. I think it is fair to say Mattis is not a liberal. He said he didn't know what causes global warming but the military is working to deal with the effects, a national security issue. It would have been interesting to ask him if he saw reducing carbon pollution as one solution to global warming.
Might be helpful to pull out a dictionary and a Bible for this discussion. "Socialist" gets flung around as a scare or hate tactic than as a useful description. I'm a senior and have lived in various parts of the United States and world and I've yet to know one American I would consider a socialist. Few Americans can deny the fruits of capitalism and capitalism couldn't function without government. Even Libertarians and especially capitalists want government to step in when they need various protections, support, bailouts, and anti abortion laws.
This country would benefit if Christians would actually read the Bible instead of just talking about it. The Old Testament describes laws, customs and stories that no American would be happy with today. Thank goodness for the New Testament's message of love and not judging others. With the exception of getting angry with the capitalist Pharisees, Jesus accepted all including Judas whom he knew would betray him. The Good News is that love and not judging are eternal and can always be reapplied when we lose focus.
Too bad the U-B editorial didn't take a more position approach:
Oregon voters should consider Colorado's legal pot success.
Last login: Monday, June 8, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.