I see this walking out of school from a bit of a different angle.

It's my understanding that our school system is supposed to be preparing the students to become productive adults in the real world.

By allowing them to walk off the job (their job is to be in school and learn) you're giving them a false sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Let's see how successful that form of protest (walking off the job) is when they get out in the real world.

 

I see this walking out of school from a bit of a different angle.

It's my understanding that our school system is supposed to be preparing the students to become productive adults in the real world.

By allowing them to walk off the job (their job is to be in school and learn) you're giving them a false sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Let's see how successful that form of protest (walking off the job) is when they get out in the real world.

Didn't say there shouldn't be consequences. But I do applaud them for doing something since no one else will it seems.

 

I have no issues with paying a little extra so a little kid can have life saving surgery. What my issues is (and most Americans) are the 'free loaders' that are perfectly capable of working just like me and every other member of this forum, but decide they would rather play video games all night and sleep all day. I know a few like that. They get a paper cut and go to the emergency room and don't get charged a penny.

And as far as how often will your house get broken into? Well it only takes once. Happened to me. A Sunday afternoon at home with wife and then 12ish year old son. Drug addict tried breaking into the attached garage door. He ran when I got to the door but point being if he had been able to get in and walked into my living room who knows what might have happened. Oh, and in December about 2 miles from my home (and 100 yards from my mother-in-laws-you can see the house from her front porch) 2 men broke into an elderly mans home at about 1:00AM. The old man had a gun under his pillow. 1 bad guy left in a body bag. Better than being the homeowner in a body bag.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/12/08/ellport-home-invasion-shooting/

Similar incident about 10 miles from here a few years ago. Homeowner shot and killed the intruder. So it happens quite a bit more than you might think.

Heard a good one the other day. Saying we don't need a gun because we have the police is like saying we don't need a smoke detector because we have a fire department.

 

Heard a good one the other day. Saying we don't need a gun because we have the police is like saying we don't need a smoke detector because we have a fire department.

Now THAT is funny.

 

Go, I have a question and it's one that I would ask my dad if he was still with us. He too was a lifetime member of the NRA and like you was very involved.

Folks this isn't to start a battle, it's just a simple question.

Why would the NRA be against changing the legal limit to purchase to 21yo? Now that asked I know that requirement in MD did no good at all.

 

I'm not sure really. I can argue that if there is an age at which you're capable, qualified, legal, etc... then it can always be changed at the whim of men. I like the argument that if you're old enough to fight for the country, you're old enough for anything else. Those guys/gals come back way more grown up than I was at their age. (thanks for your service all)

 

My answer to that would be, if an 18 year old can join the armed forces and be trusted to handle a weapon , then why not in civilian life ?

 

You might be on to something. If an 18 year old joins the armed forces and is trained to handle a weapon he certainly should be allowed one in civilian life, otherwise not until 21yo.

 

Sooo.......how should we protect the kids?

Remember, a majority of these kids protesting aren't of voting age (In the US). None of them can legally carry a pistol and most can't legally purchase a firearm (assuming a state mandated 21 years to carry and 18 to purchase). With that said, let's ignore their arguments for the sake of brevity and logic. ( I understand that we teach them to engage and to be proactive. But logically, if they can't vote, and can't participate in training to save their own lives what basis do they have.) So let's ignore them, or change the laws. This is where the danger of hypocrisy comes into play. Be careful which way you argue. If we listen to them and cower to their demands then we must also assume they are able to defend themselves and no longer need protection from others. Slippery slope to say the least.

We all agree that kids shouldn't be in danger at a place they're forced to attend. We all understand that guns aren't inherently evil. To argue otherwise would open up the discussion to other inanimate objects possessing qualities only assignable, by humans, to thinking beings. Any reasonable person would be silly to argue that not defending the defenseless is cowardly at best so, where should we go from here?

Seriously! Forget what the kids want! They don't get to make decisions! That is actually half of the problem. We need to decide how to protect the kids. Now that we all agree on that, lets decide how to defend them against crazies with guns bombs, knives, cars, and offensive words.

 

Soooo .... 14 pages ... Have you guys got this figured out yet?

 

Blue, I'm not sure it's a matter of winning or losing. Rather, it's more of a matter of an open exchange of ideas, of being able to hear and understand an opposing opinion. Maybe this discussion will change someone's mind, maybe not. At our ages we're pretty set in our opinions and beliefs.

Now, after this thread has gone well over 200 posts, let me pose a question to all of you:

Given that criminals, by their nature, have shown they are not likely to obey laws, what common sense anti-gun legislation would you propose that (a) would not unduly hinder the lawful acts of lawful citizens; and, (b) the criminals would likely obey.

 

My response to Creekwood was sooo long i gave up, ill just say i thank GOD himself that Killary didnt make it.

 

I am conservative/right wing. If I were an American I would be a republican. You should have been able to put a better Republican POTUS in place. Its sad. Your emperor has no clothes.

 

We need to start enforcing the gun laws that are on the books. When someone commits a crime with a gun. Punish them with the full force of the law. In the state of Indiana I believe 95% of criminals receive plea bargains. You do a crime with a gun NO PLEA AGREEMENTS.

I know this isn’t realistic with the ACLU and lawyers. I think if you commit a crime with a gun, mandatory 25 years. No time off for good behavior. If you are using a gun while committing a crime, as far as I’m concerned it is attempted murder. Whether a shot was fired not.

 

As far as the President. I wanted to make absolutely certain that there was a Republican in office when it came time to nominate any Supreme Court Justices to the bench.

A President can affect the country for years. But a Supreme Court Justice could be in office for 4 decades and have an affect on the country for centuries.

Is it affect or effect? I get confused.

 

I'm a bit put off by our election system. Essentially we ended up with an ego-maniac running against a felon.

The biggest hurdle to getting good candidates to run for national office is that as soon as they throw their name in the ring the muck raking starts. IMO nobody is a saint. But if a candidate screwed around on his wife 20+ years ago, so what, as long as he hasn't done it in the last 10 years or so.

Personally, I think this is the last Republican POTUS we'll see for many years. With all the giveaway programs in place to create undocumented democrats it's going to be an uphill battle. If the Dems had thrown in a candidate that was ANYBODY other than Hillary, that candidate would have won hands down.

But back to my earlier question, I don't see mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes being the answer. In a perfect world, yes, that would be a possible solution. But as long as those mandatory minimums are negotiable in plea bargaining sessions, that's just one more thing to toss out if the bad guy will plead to a serious crime.

Believe me, in my law enforcement career I fought that many, many times. Lost most of those arguments but managed to keep a few in place on the more horrific crimes.

 

I'm sorry I did not realize it was the Tiki Bar my apologies I certainly do not mean to offend you I am a big gun advocate and republican. O liberal. I own lots of guns. I go to this site strictly on a daily basis and I call up new post only I don't search by category and this keeps coming up day after day and it's just a BS thread. I contribute to the form on boating issues not personal not private not political that's not how I roll sorry you're offended and I didn't mean to take your rights away

 

I think this type of discussion is important, valuable, and hopefully enlightening and informative for people regardless of their stance on the subject. Open dialogue is what is needed to make things better.

If one truly wants to make an informed decision on something or find a solution to a complicated problem, a critical step is for all viewpoints to be openly considered and understood by all stakeholders, regardless of their position on the topic. They all have merit. Closed-mindedness and narrow thought processes are unproductive. It's paramount that decisions and firm opinions not be formed based on legacy, emotions, personal experiences that are not typical, or information or data that has been massaged or twisted to fit one's desired outcome. It is almost never a case of one side being completely correct, and one completely wrong.

It's also important to not make presumptions. It's probably not hard to see that my belief is that more guns make things worse, and most would presume I am a liberal. However, I grew-up farming, shot lots of things (living and not), and have never voted Liberal in my life. Many that know me personally would go so far as to say I am a *******! I would most likely be a Republican in the US (although I would never let a party label determine how I vote). Regardless, I trust, given the fine individuals on this forum, that my opinions, views, and thoughts are respected and not judged with any prejudice.

I admit some of the thinking I read here is incredibly backwards to me. But I am also open to the possibility that the reason I think this is due to my own lack of knowledge or even ignorance. Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong! Imagine THAT, eh?

That said, I see both sides of the equation on guns, see the value in playing devil's advocate for both, and pass no judgement whatsoever on anyone (well, I try not to...it can be hard!), even though the problem is crystal clear to me personally (but the solution is not).

 

Maybe there are some lessons from what has been happening in Brazil. They banned guns around 2004. In 2012 they had the highest rate of gun violence in 35 years. People have actually protested to get their gun rights back. Here is what Bloomberg and NPR have said about it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...m/view/articles/2018-03-09/brazil-s-strict-gun-laws-haven-t-stopped-its-killers
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearly-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws

 

Brazil is not like the US in any way shape or form. Do you really think that this comparison makes any sense? We do business in Brazil. I know of what I speak.

Maybe the Australian experience, but not Brazil.

 

It’s beautiful in the beautiful places. It’s the legal and government systems that are very different. There is also vast poverty and even more have/ have not than in the US as a result. There is more curruption in government. Not quite Mexico but far more than the US.

But if you want to place the US in the same bracket as Brazil, that is your call. But I would pick a developed country as the comparator.

 

Here is an interesting couple of stats
for you to research. How many current 16 and 17 year old high school students will be old enough to vote in two years, and how does that compare to the number of NRA members in the USA?

 

Here is an interesting couple of stats
for you to research. How many current 16 and 17 year old high school students will be old enough to vote in two years, and how does that compare to the number of NRA members in the USA?

Why would you assume all 16/17 year olds are anti gun ? You be wrong on that one.

 

I saw a cartoon once when the US was setting the constitution. It was a hot day and one person said we need to cool down. To that one said we need to wear short sleeve shirts. And that is how the US citizens got the wright to bear arms.

 

I am a 2A supporter but agree there needs to be some changes. We don't need new laws that restrict the rights of the majority. I see no use for bump stops other than to be cool and brag. Ban those. Enact a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun unless you hold a CCW (which either means you already own guns or you had a waiting period to get your CCW). And yes, penalties for the owners of these guns that the kids get ahold of. Mine stayed locked in my safe until my kids were old enough.

 

And as rational as that may be, the NRA disagrees with you.

 

Folks I am bowing out of this thread. I have huge respect for opinions other than mine, even those I disagree with. We are lucky in Canada and the US to be able to actively voice our opinions. But I am going to take my own advice that I remind myself before visiting my relatives in the US, and not argue politics. I have a lot of respect for all of you and for the fundamental principles of your constitution that you so rightly defend. And quite frankly, its not my country. I hope you can get it figured out so that you find that balance that keeps Americans safe and free.
Back to boating!

 

Folks I am bowing out of this thread. I have huge respect for opinions other than mine, even those I disagree with. We are lucky in Canada and the US to be able to actively voice our opinions. But I am going to take my own advice that I remind myself before visiting my relatives in the US, and not argue politics. I have a lot of respect for all of you and for the fundamental principles of your constitution that you so rightly defend. And quite frankly, its not my country. I hope you can get it figured out so that you find that balance that keeps Americans safe and free.
Back to boating!

Cheers, Creekwood. Look forward to some boating-related discussions with you.

 

Hate to see you leave Creekwood. I've enjoyed reading many of the posts from our brothers from the north.

 

If you’re too immature to carry a firearm, you’re too immature to make policy about firearms.” -@DLoesch #NRA

MM

 

The latest is financial powerhouse CitiGroup, which announced sweeping new rules this week that would prevent clients from selling firearms to people who fail background checks, restrict the sales of firearms to people under 21, and ban the sale of bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

How? If it's my money how can a bank tell me how to spend it or regulate what I spend it on?

 

If it's my money how can a bank tell me how to spend it or regulate what I spend it on?

They're not.
https://blog.citigroup.com/2018/03/announcing-our-us-commercial-firearms-policy

 

The way I read it, Citi is imposing these restrictions on the businesses that use their credit card merchant services. If you're a gun shop that takes credit cards, using Citi POS system will require you to adhere to their best practices or face having your merchant account canceled.

I still don't see how this will keep guns out of the hands of those wishing to do harm. Perhaps it might stop a few that are under 21 from buying a gun but that's about it. How are they going to track these purchases? Especially the age of the buyer?

 

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Saw this on the internet. Will it happen?
At one time in Canada you could own a pistol and use it openly. My mother told me stories of one of her uncles hunting Bull frogs (You eat the legs) with a pistol be was in the Boer War in South Africa 1899 to 1902.

 

Short version is no. It would take 2/3 of the states, or of the congress, just to call the convention to consider it. Then, assuming that resulted in a proposed amendment, it would take 3/4 of the states, or of the congress, to pass it.

 

Just to be sure,
1) The seller can't sell a gun to someone that can't pass the background check. Or Citi Bank won't allow the transaction.
a) It's a Federal offense to sell a firearm to someone that does not pass the background. So Citi just put their name on a Federal law and called it their own.
2) I have no issue with the 21yo wish. I don't see how it would hurt anyone. I also don't see how it will help much.
Maybe the bank should stick to banking and try harder to keep themselves in check. Wasn't it Citi Bank that used its bailout money to go but new jets and gave out massive bouneses? So now suddenly they have a conscience?

 

To clarify, it is legal to sell and buy firearms between individuals in the state of Florida without a background check or a gun license. Florida has no gun registry, dealers play by a different set of rules.