Is it time to consider voting for the 3rd party candidate(s)?

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, TxHoops said:

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

So if the actuate of the murders is not the guns, why ban them?

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So if the actuate of the murders is not the guns, why ban them?

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

[baddog]

43 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm curious as to why the gun murder rate is substantially higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership rate, but much lower murder rates. Can't be due to the prevalence of guns. What factors do you attribute to this phenomenon? (This is a question for any and all, not just TxHoops.)

In the article I posted above, it is attributed to education, or lack thereof, and poverty. 

[Englebert]

8 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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

You're right. I stated my question wrong. Should have been, "why try to ban guns from certain people (i.e. background checks)?" Shouldn't we focus on understanding the real cause of these murders instead of proposing distracting rhetoric that serves only to prohibit lawful gun owners from exercising their second amendment rights?

If lack of education and/or poverty is the source of murders, why blame the guns? (This question is aimed directly at Hillary and her anti-gun minions.)

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You're right. I stated my question wrong. Should have been, "why try to ban guns from certain people (i.e. background checks)?" Shouldn't we focus on understanding the real cause of these murders instead of proposing distracting rhetoric that serves only to prohibit lawful gun owners from exercising their second amendment rights?

If lack of education and/or poverty is the source of murders, why blame the guns? (This question is aimed directly at Hillary and her anti-gun minions.)

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?

[TxHoops]

I also appreciate your point about voting rights. I have no issue with them being intertwined.  It also think the proposition of having one's rights restored is a noble one (for either or both).  Sometimes people do stupid things, especially at a young age, and end up becoming more productive citizens than those who have a squeaky clean record.  

[Englebert]

13 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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?

My personal opinion is that you should only be stripped after you are convicted of a crime with the use of a firearm. This would have to be worded very strictly. For example, if a person assaults another person, then it is later shown that the person had a firearm in his possession, this would not constitute the use of a firearm. It must be proven that the firearm was actually used (not necessarily fired) in the crime. And his second amendment rights would be fully restored after completion of sentence.

Currently we have a Congressman proposing to strip second amendment rights from anyone that is going through divorce proceedings. I would not object to that Congressman being stripped of his own second amendment rights (also forcibly admitted to an psychological institution and stripped of his U.S. citizenship). So I am flexible.

[TxHoops]

Indulge me with one more article for those of you who rationalize the Trump vote because of the high court appointments.  This one happens to be written by the greatest conservative columnist of our time (in my opinion anyway):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Indulge me with one more article for those of you who rationalize the Trump vote because of the high court appointments.  This one happens to be written by the greatest conservative columnist of our time (in my opinion anyway):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Thanks for getting us back on topic.

His whole premise is flawed. I don't know of anybody voting for Trump because they think Trump will defend the constitution. We are voting for Trump because we know the alternative is a person who will try at all costs to circumvent the constitution. Trump might also, but it is a given that Hillary will.

[Big girl]

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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

Nash just ruined this informative discussion with his rhetoric.

[baddog]

15 hours ago, Big girl said:

Nash just ruined this informative discussion with his rhetoric.

Did you read my article on gun control?

[new tobie]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

If republicans lose in november, they must rid themselves of people like this crazy...........

[stevenash]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:36 PM, Big girl said:

Nash just ruined this informative discussion with his rhetoric.

Please point out the "rhetoric"