TxHoops

Because it's not an issue I feel deeply about either way, I'm probably not the best to answer. I fully appreciate your point though. In terms of background checks, I have no issue with felons or those who have been convicted of violent crimes being barred from owning or possessing a gun. You think they should be able to?

I never said there should be a ban. I did say there would never be a ban in our lifetimes.

Obviously I believe the answer lies, at least in part, in the post you quoted. Your premise would only support my hypothesis.

By the way, I spent some time in England a little over 20 years ago (shortly before the complete gun ban was enacted). Much of that time I lived in London, and I marveled at how safe it felt compared to say a NYC or LA or Chicago. And this was BEFORE the Firearms Acts that happened after Dunblans there. Our gun rate now is about 45 times the rate in England and over 10 times that in Australia. I can't speak to Australia but my belief in the UK was then, and is now, that the overwhelming difference maker was public education. They do a much better job of it from top to bottom there than we do here. We probably surpass them at the top, but we fall greatly behind from the middle down. Despite the aim of "no child left behind," fact is we leave many. Not saying I have the fix, but I think that is much more the root of our problem than guns. And the converse is a much bigger part of the success than the lack thereof with the Brits. Just my sometimes humble opinion of course...

I think there will be some reforms that don't effect you or I and are probably needed (background checks, waiting periods, etc.). But even these will take a huge battle to accomplish. I am by no means a gun guy and don't have a lot of passion for the topic on either side. I do appreciate the fervor of those that do and have a ton of friends and family to whom this is a huge issue. But I would bet a huge amount of money there will never be a gun "ban" in this country in our lifetime. Just not going to happen. And it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment...there is simply too much $$ in Washington from the gun folks. The only way it could happen is if there was a large majority of citizens who wanted this to happen (and it IS their job to listen to their constituents). And that is also not going to happen. This is America and we love our guns. Oh and thanks for the article - I found it interesting as well.

If you believe this, you don't know the media. He is an absolute dream for the media. The more erratic the better. Creates stories, makes their job easier. Like saying comedians couldn't stand the Palin selection as VP in '08.

This.

Yes but it has intensified. Now that "gays are marryin' each other," "they're gonna git ur guns" is the primary carrot being dangled. Meanwhile, real threats that scientifically and empirically based are completely discounted or ignored. Astounds me. Now I have two "I told you so's" I am storing. One, Trump will ensure she wins. And at the end of her term or terms, you will still have your guns. And my third I told you so will be the inevitable and predictable response, "Well, she tried."

Ha! Fair enough! (To modify my precious statement, you will have MORE to complain about )

You at least "get it." It is a difficult concept to grasp, admittedly. But the shame is it is why the third party may never have a chance, or even a voice in this country. And that thinking, quite ironically, will help ensure HRC is our next president. The good news is you guys will have at least four more years to get on this board and complain. So you have that going for you, which is nice.

Did you actually read it? Obviously like most op-eds, it contains both. I fully trust your ability to differentiate between the two.

Consider that one in a long line of poor decisions made by the GOP...

Amen. One of the reasons I really enjoy my discussions with you. We agree most of the time on sports, rarely on politics, but always in our enjoyment of our conversations on either... And sometimes I even enjoy Nash

Here's another issue I have with your reasoning. The voting for Trump because I'm concerned about the SCOTUS appointments. Again, from my friend who is the West Texas neoconservative (I say neo because they don't consider anyone east of Dallas true conservatives - I kid, I kid). I brought this point up yesterday and he told me the SCOTUS is one of the main reasons he WON'T vote for Trump. My buddy is someone I would consider a legal scholar, as opposed to me where I consider myself a legal "enthusiast." Anyway, he told me that to my surprise and immediately texted me the following article. Again, from a conservative "rag" (I kid, I kid): [Hidden Content]

Another interesting thought: in talking to an ultra-conservative friend of mine today from West Texas, he is for the first time in his life not voting for the GOP candidate for President but voting for Johnson instead. This is a guy who is one of the most politically active (literally and philosophically) people I know. He has ran for and held offices as a Republican. But he refuses to vote for Trump for a multitude of reasons. Anyway, he and I go back many years and we were talking about the Libertarian ticket. He knows I have been a big fan of Weld's for over 20 years. I made a comment that I wish that ticket was inverted and Weld was the presidential candidate. To which he immediately replied, "I wish all 3 tickets were inverted." Truer words...

.

Amen. More than anything, it appears to me that both parties are a mess in many ways. I would like to see them both held accountable or turned on their ears.

THAT I can definitely respect! I suppose none of us agree completely with any candidate but I have a TON of respect for Mr. Paul.

Here is another article by a conservative columnist that might make more sense. You are correct about logic having nothing to do with the theoretical by the way. Logic is more mathematical. The conservative Mr. Wolf explains why the "theory" of the non-vote or 3rd party vote is inherently flawed: [Hidden Content]

And by the way, I really hope Johnson/Weld get to the 15 percent number so they can be a part of the debate process. I know Perot took almost 20 percent of the vote, but even then there was not a situation like this where you had two candidates this unpopular squaring off. Not in the last 100 years have we had an election where a 3rd party has the potential to make a serious run. Win or lose, it could be a huge improvement to our political process. And it is just as possible or probable that their candidacy could be just as harmful to Hillary. And like it or not, without their impact and on the current trajectory, Trump's not going to win anyway. You guys don't want to hear it but you will eventually find it to be true.

And by no means am I trying to discount or belittle your opinion or way of thinking. On the contrary, I think it is a very pervasive way of thinking for the anti-Hillary folks. I understand and appreciate the thought. Just presenting another thought process and one I would argue is a more sound approach. But we all have our own ways of processing things, right?

If you believe Trump would be for small government, you haven't studied the man much or examined what little he has proposed in terms of concrete plans. The type of policy you want to predominate an elected official's philosophy of government is simply not in his nature. However, ironically, you do succinctly state the foundation of the Libertarian party (as little governs at involvement as possible). As for the logic (or flawed logic) of a non-vote or a 3rd party vote being a vote for Hillary, the following article does a decent job of explaining fallacy of that thinking: [Hidden Content]

I know many of you would be holding your nose when voting for Trump. I know many Dems who feel the same about Hillary. I have also heard time and again that not voting or voting Libertarian is a vote for Hillary. This in my opinion is inherently flawed logic. It is also held, in my estimation, by many who still believe Ross Perot cost GHWB the election in '92, the actual polling data be darned. In fact, the reverse is just as likely to be true, Perot cost Clinton more votes. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] Of course, you may prefer Trump to the Johnson/Weld ticket, which makes it a non-issue. But if, like a huge block of voters, you think the two main parties offer horrible alternatives, would you consider voting for the 3rd party candidates?

Had this exact same discussion today. He either needs to develop thicker skin or reconsider his recent "job application." If he doesn't, he will ruin any chance he might have. Which is fortunate because no one needs to have that kind of power and responsibility when they have no control over their impulses. His candor is admirable at times, downright scary at others.

I assume this is the one? Either way, worth the read, especially for those that coach or work with young people: [Hidden Content]