TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: You are welcome to go look at the FBI violent crime stats, they are there for anyone to see. There were more killings and other violent crimes in years past, peaking in the early 90's. Even as the numbers of violent crimes, to include shootings, has fallen, the attention the media has given to those incidents has risen. One can say it's because "if it bleeds, it leads", and is only motivated by lust for ratings. But if that is so, why so little coverage of the worst of the violence and shootings in big cities done by gangs?

You're spot on. However those statistics don't break down crimes with firearms. I've reviewed them before when faced with the argument that countries without firearms have much lower rates of violence.
It's problematic to argue the US vs non-US because the statistics don't agree on what constitutes "violent crime". Violent crime could be down, but crimes involving firearms up...

So I looked that up.. Per the US department of justice, firearm violence is largely flat since 1999, coming down from a much higher level in 1993.

So there doesn't appear to be a crisis - any better or any worse over the last decade or so... It's just the media.

VM,
Thanks for making that clear.. That's a lot more reasonable than the way I was processing it at first. I agree with pretty much everything you said above.. I was just a bit taken aback if you thought that parts of the American government were promoting gun violence as a way to pass an anti-gun agenda.

Personally, I think that thanks to the media attention, if you want to get some attention in the US, we all know how to do it. Frequency of incidents is going to stay at the current level - or maybe increase. I just don't remember it being like this 20 or 30 years ago. And all this attention is bad for the 2nd amendment.

mamabearCali, Yea.. Canada is far from utopia.. And you point out some of the downfalls of socialized medicine. Seems like we either go there or continue a trend of healthcare that almost no one can afford in the future.

I have no defense of Stalin, or any other communist or true socialist type government. You guys are correctly calling those spades for what they are.

I'll defend myself against the indication of a straw-man argument however. How am I misrepresenting VM's take? If he wasn't indicating that parts of the American government are actively seeking some sort of domestic blood-letting to push an anti-gun agenda, then I am presenting a straw-man. I read those statements as literal, not figurative. And I even asked if he really believed what he was saying... He's very intelligent - so I'm going to ask when a statement like that is made. And he had some quotes to back it up.

I've got no doubts that portions of the American government have an anti-gun agenda. That's absolutely true. But encouraging domestic fire-arm related violence to get it.. If that is true, then I want to know about it. That's just nuts.

If it's just a little political theater and over-the top, I get it... But I'd want to hear that from him.

Some people really do believe stuff like that. And some repeat it and take it seriously.

mamabearCali wrote:I don't want to live in Canada either. It is not a utopia. I know of a lady who just got out of prison after two years. What was her crime. She walked into an abortion clinic handing a crying woman a rose and began to talk with her to find out why she was making this decision. Heinous crime I tell you.

I'm not saying that Canadian medicine is utopia... Well, maybe with the exclusion of the prices of medicine, that I'd like to have here. I do think we're headed toward that type of system though.

In regard to your story:
So she was charged with handing a rose to a crying woman in an abortion clinic because that is a crime in Canada? Or was she arrested for trespassing on private property?

And she got 2 years for this single incident? Or she got 2 years after being arrested and going to jail 12 other times for the same thing? A judge might think that she hasn't learned her lesson.

Respectfully, at least try to tell the whole story.

I don't disagree with her actions - she has strong moral convictions and I respect and have a great deal of sympathy for what she did.. repeatedly... Strong woman. However, she didn't get 2 years for handing off a rose.

VMI77 wrote: It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda.

For me, this is conspiracy theory and I don't think the sky is falling. And I get it - you can make it fit that way. Isn't it much more likely that this was a segment of the government trying to track the flow of guns to Mexico and they seriously boon-dogged it up? In other words, to me, it's much more likely that the government is simply incompetent versus having some uber-puppet master pulling strings to intentionally create more violence and pass anti-gun legislation? Is this a pretty good summary of what you're suggesting?

Sure, it's not impossible, but I need you to show me the strings before I jump to that kind of conclusion.
And before someone asks, I can't prove that there isn't a puppet master.

VMI77 wrote: Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border?

OK, tell me how these policies are a drastic shift from the Regan administration? We had less border protection then and allowed a period of "amnesty'" - which the current Democratic administration is trying to trigger again. Even if you don't like the border policy, Obama has substantially increased border security staffing... Although there seems to be some border patrol guards that are running pretty loose with the law.

I can tell you exactly why we don't secure the border. It has nothing to do with a policy trying to take firearms from Americans. It has everything to do with protecting the businesses that fund politicians. Industries survive and thrive on that labor, so that keeps us looking the other way. And pretty soon, if the Republican party doesn't adjust and our demographics keep shifting, the majority of the population will want that border to be more open... Not less.

To me, this is a very dumb issue. We're again polarized by the loud extreme sides. And that prevents a realistic discussion on how we could solve it and prop up our economy.

VMI77 wrote: They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

They've condition the "sheeple" to respond to the word "terrorist". So now any administration or political faction can use that word for their own purpose. After all, who would stand up and support a "terrorist"? You can't have a rational discussion about it. You can't debate it. It's not just gun issues, it's any polarizing issue in America that has ever been associated with any type of violence.

baldeagle wrote: In the interest of keeping this civil, I'll just ask you one question.
Can you name one socialist country that hasn't slaughtered hundreds of thousands or millions of its own people?

I appreciate the civility.

Canada. :-)
I don't think we're headed toward Stalin-like Socialism.. I think we're headed toward Canada-like Socialism.
You're right, true socialist countries have pretty much proven that Socialism is only good for the elite. There is simply too much independent wealth in the US to for us to become a real socialist country.

Internment camps and such - that only works if we pick on a minority of people. I know who the minority will be in terms of demographics in the next decades, but I also know who holds all the power, wealth, and political status.. So I think that should at least "balance" for a while.

This country is increasingly polarized by two minorities - hard core conservatives and hard core liberals (for VM, we'll call them Progressives). Both groups refuse to compromise and point the finger at the other group. The vast majority of America is in the middle. It's those two extremes that are the loudest however..

tbrown wrote: What makes you think they're opposed to bloodshed? Have you seen their foreign policy in action?
Besides... look around. The majority want a Unified Soviet Socialist America and the scale tips further every day.

I think that indicating that the American government leadership is actively seeking bloodshed to promote their policy is one heck of a statement. If you're indicating that because I can't disprove that such closed-door meetings don't happen that it must be true, I won't argue with you. American presidents have been lots of things, but pro blood-shed? I assume we're talking about domestic bloodshed. It's just something that I just don't believe on face value. If I did believe it, I wouldn't live here anymore.. And I don't see why anyone else would either.

In terms of foreign policy, you can find fault in the foreign policy of every single administration since the beginning of time. It's the nature of hindsight. Note, I don't agree with the current foreign policy, but would hardly call our current policy blood seeking.

If you wanted to say that we're moving toward socialism, I buy it... and agree... That's different than seeking a socialist agenda through triggering domestic blood letting within our federal government.

If you wanted to say that extreme groups call for extermination of the other side, I buy that too. I don't buy it within rational government leadership. It's the nature of "extreme". It happens on both sides of the issues if you look at the fringes. It's largely noise, until some lone wolf decides to act out.

Basically I have more realistic fears than short term mass re-education centers and a government that is actively seeking domestic blood shed. I'm much more concerned about legislation that would allow confiscation of weapons based on nothing more than heresay from an angry neighbor, for instance... Keep it at least semi-real, people...

anygunanywhere wrote: I think VMI77's statement is accurate. The progressive leadership is well aware that they will not be the ones who force their dictate down our throats. It will be the front line men and women who are tasked to do it. The progressive leadership are cowards and are blind to what is on the horizon if they do not stop.

Anygunanywhere

This is not the same as indicating that they're pro-bloodshed.

gthaustex wrote: If this is allowed to fly, I propose that we all submit the names of anyone on any protective detail for these politicians. I'm sure that the bill would make them exempt somehow, although one could argue that they could snap just as easily as anyone else....

Well before we throw them all under the bus, what are the details? Does this only apply to people that have been convicted of crimes? Does it only apply to the mentally ill? Or does it apply to everyone willy-nilly where they can simply choose who they take firearms from?

VMI77 wrote: The progressive leadership wants bloodshed to hasten their socialist utopia, and they know they can't achieve their goals as fast, or at all, as long as too many of us Constitutionalists are alive to oppose them. Hence, the 24/7 demonization of the Tea Party, Republicans, the NRA, southerners, rural Americans, gun owners, conservatives, Christians, ex military personnel, white males, homemakers, married mothers, and self-defense. They know exactly who stands in their way and like every other "progressive" before them that ever got control of a government, they intend to imprison and execute their opposition. I think the only part they don't get is that this isn't Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Russia, or China, and their plans are not likely to yield their desired results.

Really, VM? The progressive (Obama) leadership WANTS bloodshed because it promotes their agenda? They're sitting a closed-door meetings figuring out what they can do to get more bloodshed, or at least make sure it's not prevented?

And if you stand in their way you'll be put in prison or executed?

Too much tin-foil for me, sir... I appreciate some good political dramatization, but I hope no one things this is the kind of thing that we really believe.

And women's groups aren't exactly praising the NRA and supporting pro-firearm legislation these days.. In fact, I'd say that a little too much conservatism has already started to cut some of that support out of the Republican party, which means more progressives...