Crime in Houston

[pyramider]

The dead in Arkansas have been known to vote twice.

[oilfieldscum]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

and for the record I'm not against banning guns for responsible people (and if you break into my house you probably won't get to tell anyone about it) just think we need to tighten the rules and restrict through testing and further checks.

Note: I take pride in my tactical training and sniper like marksmanship. ;-)

That's pretty much where I thought you would be on the subject.

Originally Posted by boardman

So not only would you have an otherwise law abiding citizen undergo a background check you would subject them to a mental evaluation also?
Would you support those same restrictions on someone wanting a voter registration?

Or a drivers license?

[Guest121014]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

and for the record I'm not against banning guns for responsible people (and if you break into my house you probably won't get to tell anyone about it) just think we need to tighten the rules and restrict through testing and further checks.

Note: I take pride in my tactical training and sniper like marksmanship. ;-)

The issue is how "they" get to define "responsible people." "They", our government, has proved that they will misuse such well intended laws and regulations when they see fit. Just like california trying to introduce a bill that if anyone reports that you are unstable, your guns are taken, and you must appear before a judge to get them back. Not only does that violate "innocent before proven guilty" but additionally, it does nothing to prevent my neighbor who doesnt like me because I let my kids shoot fireworks on the 4th of july calling the cops and saying that I am a gun owner and they have seen me doing crazy things. The point isnt that I will likely get my guns back, its that I shouldnt be subjected to this.

More government and more regulation is rarely the answer to anything. Youre trying to control the behavior of people, who if they were going to be controlled by such laws or regulations, would already be deterred by existing law.

I wouldnt know the NRA's position, because my position is mine built from experience and common sense. There ISNT a solution to stopping whack jobs from committing crimes such as school shootings. Hell, IIRC the guy who did sandy hook wasnt even the owner of any of the guns....

[boardman]

Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

That's pretty much where I thought you would be on the subject.



Or a drivers license?

Yeah, but driving is a privilege.

[Brooke Wilde]

I feel safer than ever in Houston and I have lived here my whole life. Maybe it is just personal perspective?

But I can say, if you watch the news every night and decide to digest all that shit they feed you, it could turn anybody sour.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by TX_JD

The issue is how "they" get to define "responsible people." "They", our government, has proved that they will misuse such well intended laws and regulations when they see fit. Just like california trying to introduce a bill that if anyone reports that you are unstable, your guns are taken, and you must appear before a judge to get them back. Not only does that violate "innocent before proven guilty" but additionally, it does nothing to prevent my neighbor who doesnt like me because I let my kids shoot fireworks on the 4th of july calling the cops and saying that I am a gun owner and they have seen me doing crazy things. The point isnt that I will likely get my guns back, its that I shouldnt be subjected to this.

More government and more regulation is rarely the answer to anything. Youre trying to control the behavior of people, who if they were going to be controlled by such laws or regulations, would already be deterred by existing law.

I wouldnt know the NRA's position, because my position is mine built from experience and common sense. There ISNT a solution to stopping whack jobs from committing crimes such as school shootings. Hell, IIRC the guy who did sandy hook wasnt even the owner of any of the guns....

I'm sure more level headed and reasonable people will shoot down very draconian type legislation. However, we've always lived in a society where the good has to suffer for the bad. Not saying take our guns away but a reasonable common sense approach to mental case profiling will go a long way and quite frankly is really the only way to curb some of the insanity while protecting the 2nd amendment

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

So not only would you have an otherwise law abiding citizen undergo a background check you would subject them to a mental evaluation also?
Would you support those same restrictions on someone wanting a voter registration?

LOL- I'm going to be like a Jew and answer a question with a question. What kind of idiotic strawman argument is this? Please attempt to explain your rationale. I know where you're going with this but since you posed the question I think you should elaborate first you're not going to cheat off my test papers sir.

[boardman]

It's a simple question

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

It's a simple question

Then answer it. Unfortunately for you I'm not so simple minded. ;-)

[Guest121014]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

I'm sure more level headed and reasonable people will shoot down very draconian type legislation. However, we've always lived in a society where the good has to suffer for the bad. Not saying take our guns away but a reasonable common sense approach to mental case profiling will go a long way and quite frankly is really the only way to curb some of the insanity while protecting the 2nd amendment

Again, how is this going to stop shootings? In general, mentally ill people that do these shootings, dont own the guns, or havent purchased them legally (unless you want to make the argument all people that kill are mentally ill, but we arent making that argument here.) Again, sandy hook, not his guns.

You cant legislate behavior, at least not well, in our form of government. And you damn sure cant deter bat shit crazy people with laws and regulations.

Im not making the argument that "well people will still slip through so fuck it all" Im making the argument that nothing you can add to existing laws and regulations is going to make ENOUGH of an impact to OFFSET the infringement that would be thrust upon people who are not crazy.

We are arguing a basic principal that has been argued for thousands of years - whats more important, the individuals rights, or the rights of the group as a whole? And, IMO, we are at the point of diminishing returns - we are gaining less and less in prevention, while increasing the burdens on those that are doing no wrong.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by TX_JD

Again, how is this going to stop shootings? In general, mentally ill people that do these shootings, dont own the guns, or havent purchased them legally (unless you want to make the argument all people that kill are mentally ill, but we arent making that argument here.) Again, sandy hook, not his guns.

You cant legislate behavior, at least not well, in our form of government. And you damn sure cant deter bat shit crazy people with laws and regulations.

Im not making the argument that "well people will still slip through so fuck it all" Im making the argument that nothing you can add to existing laws and regulations is going to make ENOUGH of an impact to OFFSET the infringement that would be thrust upon people who are not crazy.

We are arguing a basic principal that has been argued for thousands of years - whats more important, the individuals rights, or the rights of the group as a whole? And, IMO, we are at the point of diminishing returns - we are gaining less and less in prevention, while increasing the burdens on those that are doing no wrong.

I never said you're going to stop all shootings (due to the mentally ill among us) but I think with common sense approaches to mental profiling and evaluation tests you can curb mass violence. I also think the single biggest deterrent to bad behavior is laws that will strike fear in the hearts of non insane criminals. Maybe I'd take it too far but you commit a crime you lose a finger, another it's a hand, 3rd strike and I'm taking a foot. OK jk. While there is no singular answer you cannot sit on the sidelines thinking the issue will somehow resolve itself.

[boardman]

The point is as TX JD said. Who gets to make the decision on who or what is reasonable? You? A particular panel that is picked by an administration that is either pro or anti gun?
How about you and the government stay the fuck out of my home, my gun safe and my life. If I do something illegal and get convicted then it's a different story.

As far as the voter registration being a strawman...not really. They are both rights and they both are front and center in the public arena. To a law abiding citizen a vote carries just as much power as a bullet. You want to limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to buy a gun buy subjecting him to a background check when there is no probable cause to believe he is not law abiding. Furthermore you want to have them undergo psychiatric evaluation when there is no probable cause to believe he is mentally unstable. Who pay's for that? The person wanting the gun?
How long do you think the government should have to decide? What is the waiting period.
There is a reason that states went from a "can issue" CHL to a "shall issue" CHL. That's because some sheriffs in some counties thought they knew better than the citizens of that county and state and could decide unilaterally who could and couldn't get a CHL after the state said if you pass this criteria you can have one.

One of the silly arguments thrown out against voter ID is that it is a burden on a citizen to have to go down to the court house and get a free voter ID. Is it no less of a burden for a citizen to go to the courthouse and before a panel of "experts" who are going to determine if he is mentally stable according to their opinion?

Remember, both are rights. One with no more power than the other. The right that is.
Anyone can walk into a voting booth and cast a vote.
They are presumed to be:

• A United States citizen;
• A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
• At least 18 years old on Election Day;
• Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
• Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.

I should have the same right of presumption if I want to buy a gun, shouldn't I?

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

The point is as TX JD said. Who gets to make the decision on who or what is reasonable? You? A particular panel that is picked by an administration that is either pro or anti gun? -> Lol you're so transparent. To answer your question I'd vote for an equal bi-partisan panel with a proven neutral arbiter. Not one you favor and not one I favor.
How about you and the government stay the fuck out of my home, my gun safe and my life. If I do something illegal and get convicted then it's a different story. - This is an overplayed and sloganized (if you will) answer / response. The government is crucial to our existence as a Nation and should be involved in aspects of our lives that private institutions shouldn't. If some people have bad life habits that affect the rest of us such as eating, smoking, and drinking while being a burden on the healthcare system then yes the government should have more control over their lives.

As far as the voter registration being a strawman...not really. Yes really it is a strawman no way to get around it. In fact it's a classic strawman. They are both rights and they both are front and center in the public arena. To a law abiding citizen a vote carries just as much power as a bullet. You want to limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to buy a gun buy subjecting him to a background check when there is no probable cause to believe he is not law abiding. Then why don't we assume all Mexicans here are legal and not worry about border control issues. The point is when you have a problem which we obviously do with gun violence then a reaction is warranted. Furthermore you want to have them undergo psychiatric evaluation when there is no probable cause to believe he is mentally unstable. Who pay's for that? The person wanting the gun? Yes - ask yourself who set the market rate for guns and bullets? So I 'd look at it as an incremental cost of doing business. You should pay for it. Just like you do to get your drivers license renewed. It's actually a pretty simple concept for those who actually care about America's problems those with leadership potential. To me people who complain all the time about government this and government that are just people who like sitting on the sidelines but offer no real or valuable input.
How long do you think the government should have to decide? What is the waiting period. - Since I wouldn't want to make such a decision in a vacuum I'd defer to the panel of bi-partisan experts, however, my personal opinion is we should almost treat this like we treat drivers education road test and all but with a greater waiting period, say 2-3 business days for the person to clear waivers or check out OK.
There is a reason that states went from a "can issue" CHL to a "shall issue" CHL. That's because some sheriffs in some counties thought they knew better than the citizens of that county and state and could decide unilaterally who could and couldn't get a CHL after the state said if you pass this criteria you can have one. I would say if the Sherrifs had more expertise and training than the citizens then absolutely they knew better than the citizens.



One of the silly arguments thrown out against voter ID is that it is a burden on a citizen to have to go down to the court house and get a free voter ID. Is it no less of a burden for a citizen to go to the courthouse and before a panel of "experts" who are going to determine if he is mentally stable according to their opinion?



Remember, both are rights. One with no more power than the other. The right that is.
Anyone can walk into a voting booth and cast a vote.
They are presumed to be:

• A United States citizen;
• A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
• At least 18 years old on Election Day;
• Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
• Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.

I should have the same right of presumption if I want to buy a gun, shouldn'tI?

No you shouldn't have the same right. There are degrees of criminal activity for example paying for hookers vs commiting armed robberies. ;-) The problem you have is that votes aren't shooting people but crazy or even sane people with guns are. However, I will parse your original point and agree that I'm for voter ID as I'm for Drivers licenses, boat licenses, Air pilot credentials etc. but (and I will research this further) there is no Democratic Voter fraud problem in the US according to data, however, there is documented voter fraud being committed by Republicans.

^ See comments above in red.

[boardman]

The government is crucial to our existence as a Nation and should be involved in aspects of our lives that private institutions shouldn't.

This is where liberal/progressive ideology goes sideways.

Government is not crucial to our existence we the people are crucial to the government's existence. We have the right to say what parts of our lives they are involved in not the other way around.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

The government is crucial to our existence as a Nation and should be involved in aspects of our lives that private institutions shouldn't.

This is where liberal/progressive ideology goes sideways.

Government is not crucial to our existence we the people are crucial to the government's existence. We have the right to say what parts of our lives they are involved in not the other way around.

I know you read this before but perhaps you should read it again. ;-)

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Think about it my friends.

Let's examine their lunacy a bit further. Excellent and salient points from a Forward Progressives writer. - source included.

I really believe these people have every intention to destroy the United States. It’s the only way they can get what they really want.

But what do they want, you ask? Well, a country based on a Constitution they wished existed, crafted by theology—controlled by the rich.

See, the Constitution as it stands now doesn’t support the kind of nation they want. They want some kind of Constitution based on theocracy. Something that our current Constitution doesn’t support.

Which is clearly stated right from the beginning, where it says Americans have the “freedom of religion,” which also means freedom from religion and freedom to practice any religion. -

But as these people shifted from Democrats, to Dixiecrats, to Republicans and now “tea party Republicans,” they’ve made it clear that there’s one group of people they support, and want in control of this country—wealthy, white, straight, Christian males.
And that’s basically it.

But our Constitution doesn’t set up a nation for that. Our Constitution has:

• Ended slavery
• Given women the right to vote
• Ended segregation
• Given women the right to choose what to do with their own body
• Provided a pathway for immigrants to become American citizens
• Separated church and state
• Ended segregation
• Given us the Civil Rights Act of 1965
• Protected voting rights
• Begun protecting same-sex marriage rights
• Defended “Obamacare”

And many other things which aren’t supported by “tea party Republicans.” Because we can’t forget that historically, many of these areas that are very Republican are the same areas that supported slavery, opposed the right for women to vote, supported segregation, opposed civil rights, continue to attack voting rights and stand strongly against “Obamacare.”


So while the name of the political party might have changed over time, the backwards ideological beliefs of many of the people in these areas (specifically tea party Republicans) really hasn’t changed much at all. Sure, there’s been some evolution, but not much. After all, in many of these areas, they still don’t even believe in evolution to begin with.

But as they continue to lose battle after battle, tea party Republicans have seemingly embraced the idea that the only way they can build the country they want is by burning this one to the ground.

I fully believe many of them want a full-on revolution. They want an economic collapse so disastrous that it turns millions of Americans on our government and pushes our country into complete and total chaos.

There’s little doubt in my mind that they believe by doing this they can create such a dire environment that they’ll be able to build the government back up to what they really want.

Let’s be honest, the Constitution (in its current configuration) will never let them build the kind of theocracy they want. Sure, they tell themselves that they’re the party for “Constitutional values,” but that’s an absolute joke.

They only support the Constitution the few times it supports their ideological beliefs. In the many instances it opposes their ideology, then suddenly many of them are talking of secession or revolution.

Isn’t it a little bit of a conflict of interest to run on the premise that government can’t do anything right, then seemingly do everything in their power to make sure government—can’t do anything right?

I know I can’t be the only one who sees some kind of deep underlying ulterior motive that’s driving this wave of tea party Republicanism.

Because who really benefits from a weak government? It’s not the American people, trust me. It’s the rich.

....and here's the irony of it all considering most Tea Party loons are piss poor and in need of severe help:

They want us to fail. Because if we do, they’ll get the opportunity to rebuild this nation based upon what they want. A theocracy, masked in a veil of Constitutionalism, controlled by the richest of the rich among us.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/tea-party-republicans-seem-determined-to-destroy-the-united-states-for-their-own-benefit/