Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:48 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
A lot to respond to. Not disagreeing with some of the points. I know first hand about disaster stuff as well and how highly inefficient and spendy it gets. It's great to spend other people's money and basically have zero accountability when it's done, signed theFeds.
LOL. I was all over the map.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #52  
Old 02-26-2018, 02:05 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
The big reason for the civil rights act was the result of your first point. Second point, false the government did not cause the crisis. The fact that the lenders got to big and too greedy caused the crisis. Finally, was not saying you could not have a perspective because you are a government employee. I was just curious how far you think it should go. I know there are libertarians out there that think you should pay for your own street etc. so as a police officer was wondering if you felt that police should also be private sector.
You understand the history of Jim Crow laws right? The laws were forced upon businesses in the South by the state governments. There were many businesses who had no problem catering to the black populace. True entrepreneurs and business people didn't care about the color of the people they engaged in consensual transactions with, the only color they cared about was green of money. Sure there were racist owners who agreed with the laws. However without the government interference in the matter, who do you think would have succeeded in the end business wise? The guy who excluded customers based on skin color, or the guy who profited from a larger customer base because he didn't exclude.

Same goes for consumers who were prevented interaction with black entrepreneurs and tradesmen who often worked at lower prices than their white counterparts. Check out the history of the minimum wage sometime and why it came to be. It was because whites could not compete against black labor in terms of cost. It had an absolutely devasting effect on the black populace who could no longer chose to work at a lower rate and profit from their labor, especially young black men. If you want to really look into the matter I suggest reading up on Thomas Sowell, who has been writing extensively about these matters for over 40 years.
  #53  
Old 02-26-2018, 05:05 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
You understand the history of Jim Crow laws right? The laws were forced upon businesses in the South by the state governments. There were many businesses who had no problem catering to the black populace. True entrepreneurs and business people didn't care about the color of the people they engaged in consensual transactions with, the only color they cared about was green of money. Sure there were racist owners who agreed with the laws. However without the government interference in the matter, who do you think would have succeeded in the end business wise? The guy who excluded customers based on skin color, or the guy who profited from a larger customer base because he didn't exclude.

The government interfered because(jim crow laws) separate but equal was not equal. Sure white business would serve blacks, but they had them go around back, sit in the balcony, have their food to go, use unsanitary bathrooms, and sit in the back of the bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Same goes for consumers who were prevented interaction with black entrepreneurs and tradesmen who often worked at lower prices than their white counterparts. Check out the history of the minimum wage sometime and why it came to be. It was because whites could not compete against black labor in terms of cost. It had an absolutely devasting effect on the black populace who could no longer chose to work at a lower rate and profit from their labor, especially young black men. If you want to really look into the matter I suggest reading up on Thomas Sowell, who has been writing extensively about these matters for over 40 years.

There was a time after the civil war when white men had to work the fields as many former slaves went north and those that stayed were cheaper. That said, minimum wage was due to employers exploiting their workers with long hours, low wage and dangerous child labor. Minimum wage was part of the fair labor act. It definitely wasn't because blacks were out earning whites. African Americans and women today earn less then whites on average, and businesses aren't hiring blacks or women over white males.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #54  
Old 02-26-2018, 03:25 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
The government interfered because(jim crow laws) separate but equal was not equal. Sure white business would serve blacks, but they had them go around back, sit in the balcony, have their food to go, use unsanitary bathrooms, and sit in the back of the bus.

I'm forgetting the case off hand, but prior to the SCOTUS decisions during the Civil Rights Era, the was another case I believe prior to the turn of the century that they got wrong that would have corrected this issue way before. It's a famous case, but I'm too lazy just getting off work to look it up. Anyhow my point was still, government forcing the regulations on business owners.


There was a time after the civil war when white men had to work the fields as many former slaves went north and those that stayed were cheaper. That said, minimum wage was due to employers exploiting their workers with long hours, low wage and dangerous child labor. Minimum wage was part of the fair labor act. It definitely wasn't because blacks were out earning whites. African Americans and women today earn less then whites on average, and businesses aren't hiring blacks or women over white males.
That influx of black laborers to the north also resulted in putting white workers, especially in entry level jobs and some skilled trades, in competition with folks who worked for less wages. I don't think I said blacks were out earning whites, but the fact was during periods of '20's and '30's black unemployment rates were lower as a whole than white unemployment at the time. Like I mentioned Thomas Sowell has done extensive research on the topic and has written around 40 books about economics, race, etc throughout American history. There are lots of videos on YouTube going back to interviews he did almost 40 years ago discussing these factors.

As to your last sentence, I strenously disagree with that comment. We'll have to define the parameters and definitions a lot on that one, because the devil is in the details.🤔
  #55  
Old 02-26-2018, 10:46 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
That influx of black laborers to the north also resulted in putting white workers, especially in entry level jobs and some skilled trades, in competition with folks who worked for less wages.
I just don't see it that way. Blacks were hired because there weren't enough whites to fill those positions. For african americans it was last ones hired first ones fired. That was the common practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
I don't think I said blacks were out earning whites,
by that I meant blacks were working and whites weren't thus out earning them, that was my bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
but the fact was during periods of '20's and '30's black unemployment rates were lower as a whole than white unemployment at the time.
Statistics of that time is debatable but I could see it being true when you count how many people you need to pick cotton. Calling a white person a "cotton picker" was a huge insult in those days so would a white cotton picker reveal that he was? You also have to account for many black children working while white children attended school. There were also many jobs that were too dangerous to allow white people to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Like I mentioned Thomas Sowell has done extensive research on the topic and has written around 40 books about economics, race, etc throughout American history. There are lots of videos on YouTube going back to interviews he did almost 40 years ago discussing these factors.
I'll look into him some but from the little I know about him, we won't agree much. I don't buy supply side economics. But I do see where you were going with the low black unemployment case.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017

Last edited by davislove; 02-26-2018 at 10:48 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:29 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
You understand the history of Jim Crow laws right? The laws were forced upon businesses in the South by the state governments. There were many businesses who had no problem catering to the black populace. True entrepreneurs and business people didn't care about the color of the people they engaged in consensual transactions with, the only color they cared about was green of money. Sure there were racist owners who agreed with the laws. However without the government interference in the matter, who do you think would have succeeded in the end business wise? The guy who excluded customers based on skin color, or the guy who profited from a larger customer base because he didn't exclude.

Same goes for consumers who were prevented interaction with black entrepreneurs and tradesmen who often worked at lower prices than their white counterparts. Check out the history of the minimum wage sometime and why it came to be. It was because whites could not compete against black labor in terms of cost. It had an absolutely devasting effect on the black populace who could no longer chose to work at a lower rate and profit from their labor, especially young black men. If you want to really look into the matter I suggest reading up on Thomas Sowell, who has been writing extensively about these matters for over 40 years.
I am aware that it was started because black and white poor people developing the fusion collation started a wave liberal policies. Workers rights, lifting burden of taxes from the workers and increasing taxes of corporations, plantations, and the railroads.This fusion allowed black people to vote and along side white workers they created a new force in government. The rich businesses etc were not having it and like the civil war were the main culprits in developing Jim Crow laws. They paid people to go in these communities using intimidation strategies to get their own candidates back in office and enact racist laws. Through their propaganda they were able to convince white workers over time they were better than blacks. So you could say the govt enacted the policies, but it was the free market rich elite that provided the muscle.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 02-27-2018 at 07:34 PM.
  #57  
Old 02-28-2018, 08:49 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I just don't see it that way. Blacks were hired because there weren't enough whites to fill those positions. For african americans it was last ones hired first ones fired. That was the common practice.


by that I meant blacks were working and whites weren't thus out earning them, that was my bad.


Statistics of that time is debatable but I could see it being true when you count how many people you need to pick cotton. Calling a white person a "cotton picker" was a huge insult in those days so would a white cotton picker reveal that he was? You also have to account for many black children working while white children attended school. There were also many jobs that were too dangerous to allow white people to do.



I'll look into him some but from the little I know about him, we won't agree much. I don't buy supply side economics. But I do see where you were going with the low black unemployment case.
Please do look up Sowell. I happened across him one day on YouTube a couple years ago. It was a video from late seventies I believe. He was arguing about equal pay and employment then for minorities and women. Learning about his childhood and life, as well as experiences he had first hand that went into his philosophy, says a lot about him. The man was a self admitted Marxist in his 20's, then actually researched the facts and historical data and realized capitalism made a lot more sense among other things he used to think at an early age.

I plan on trying to get my hands on more of his books, I think he's up to forty or so currently, but I don't always get the chance to buy new stuff for myself much lol. I did ask and get his book Black Rednecks/White Liberals for Christmas, it a pretty good read. I was astonished by the amount of research and resource material he includes in his works too. That book alone has about 50 or so pages of notes/ bibliography or whatever you say. He doesn't just throw this stuff out willie nillie based on conjecture and personal belief, he backs his arguments with lots of data from census info and multitudes of other sources.

Last edited by jessemoore97; 02-28-2018 at 09:32 AM.
  #58  
Old 02-28-2018, 09:29 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
I am aware that it was started because black and white poor people developing the fusion collation started a wave liberal policies. Workers rights, lifting burden of taxes from the workers and increasing taxes of corporations, plantations, and the railroads.This fusion allowed black people to vote and along side white workers they created a new force in government. The rich businesses etc were not having it and like the civil war were the main culprits in developing Jim Crow laws. They paid people to go in these communities using intimidation strategies to get their own candidates back in office and enact racist laws. Through their propaganda they were able to convince white workers over time they were better than blacks. So you could say the govt enacted the policies, but it was the free market rich elite that provided the muscle.
Prior to many of the social reform and welfare acts started under FDR and still carried/expanding to this day, blacks specifically, were increasinlgly becoming more prosperous as a whole economically. Black entrepreneurship, skilled laborers, and business ownership was increasingly higher post Civil War through the 1960's. Since the enactment of many of those programs, specifically the welfare acts signed by LBJ, that steady economic increase flatlined then decreased dramatically in the years since.

The free market system all those years prior to the new and ever expanding welfare system allowed upward mobility for large amounts of Americans, including blacks. I'm not saying it was perfect or that there weren't laws that were used as roadblocks in some areas like the old South. But you still have to consider differences in other areas of the country where those laws and lawmakers were not impacting the ability of blacks to become upwardly mobile economically. Remember there was a migration of the blacks from the southern states to the industrial north post Civil War, not mention already sizable black populaces in areas of the integrated north.

Regarding racist laws etc, that case I earlier referred to was Plessy vs Ferguson and more so the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision. Had either of these two decisions, especially the later, been decided differently the entire course of civil right history would be dramatically different. Jim Crow laws among other would never have been allowed to be enacted. The Dred Scott case is widely considered one of if not the worst SCOTUS decision by scholars, and may have been in part a catalyst for the Civil War.
  #59  
Old 03-02-2018, 11:21 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Prior to many of the social reform and welfare acts started under FDR and still carried/expanding to this day, blacks specifically, were increasinlgly becoming more prosperous as a whole economically. Black entrepreneurship, skilled laborers, and business ownership was increasingly higher post Civil War through the 1960's. Since the enactment of many of those programs, specifically the welfare acts signed by LBJ, that steady economic increase flatlined then decreased dramatically in the years since.

The free market system all those years prior to the new and ever expanding welfare system allowed upward mobility for large amounts of Americans, including blacks. I'm not saying it was perfect or that there weren't laws that were used as roadblocks in some areas like the old South. But you still have to consider differences in other areas of the country where those laws and lawmakers were not impacting the ability of blacks to become upwardly mobile economically. Remember there was a migration of the blacks from the southern states to the industrial north post Civil War, not mention already sizable black populaces in areas of the integrated north.

Regarding racist laws etc, that case I earlier referred to was Plessy vs Ferguson and more so the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision. Had either of these two decisions, especially the later, been decided differently the entire course of civil right history would be dramatically different. Jim Crow laws among other would never have been allowed to be enacted. The Dred Scott case is widely considered one of if not the worst SCOTUS decision by scholars, and may have been in part a catalyst for the Civil War.
Ahh yes, the gilded age when people worked 60 hrs for pennies, children working with toxic materials, and other deportable working conditions. FDR put the minimum wage in place due to these conditions and other labor laws. It is not his fault companies decided to hire white people ibstead blacks if paying the same wage. Why do you think companies love hiring illegal immigrants? They are always going to look to hire whoever is available at the lowest rate and if need be, in unsavory working conditions. Indentured servitude is what your utopia really looks like. I agree with you on dred Scott though. And I wonít say that all the welfare programs are perfect, far from it. You defiantly make some good points. Donít forget the Reagen admin. Ruined black communities for 2 decades.
  #60  
Old 03-03-2018, 04:03 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Ahh yes, the gilded age when people worked 60 hrs for pennies, children working with toxic materials, and other deportable working conditions. FDR put the minimum wage in place due to these conditions and other labor laws. It is not his fault companies decided to hire white people ibstead blacks if paying the same wage. Why do you think companies love hiring illegal immigrants? They are always going to look to hire whoever is available at the lowest rate and if need be, in unsavory working conditions. Indentured servitude is what your utopia really looks like. I agree with you on dred Scott though. And I wonít say that all the welfare programs are perfect, far from it. You defiantly make some good points. Donít forget the Reagen admin. Ruined black communities for 2 decades.
What companies hire immigrants exclusively? Around my area meat packing was one area many went to work for. Whirlpool and warehouse distributors hire a fair amount too, those include the Congolese and Somalis as well. Near as I can tell they are low skill occupations that speaking fluent English isn't a requirement for employment, and they make around $15 an hour for most positions.

If you are referring to jobs like janitorial services, lawn care or landscaping, construction, or working the fields, some of those jobs can make good money or at teach you skills to move up. Heck I worked field work picking watermelons, cantaloupe, strawberries, sweet corn by hand and bailed in HS and college for $5 a hour. Then moved onto building pole barns for $7-8 a hour before getting hired as a LEO. Hard work to be sure, wasn't going to make a career out of it. Those were the same crappy low wage jobs my immigrant ancestors also got stuck with in the 1st generation as Americans. Besides the gilded age was the periods version of corporate or cronie capitalism, which I don't support.

Lastly, what do you mean by Reagan ruining black communities for two decades? The drug war and increased incarceration rates or something else?
  #61  
Old 03-03-2018, 06:56 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
What companies hire immigrants exclusively? Around my area meat packing was one area many went to work for. Whirlpool and warehouse distributors hire a fair amount too, those include the Congolese and Somalis as well. Near as I can tell they are low skill occupations that speaking fluent English isn't a requirement for employment, and they make around $15 an hour for most positions.

If you are referring to jobs like janitorial services, lawn care or landscaping, construction, or working the fields, some of those jobs can make good money or at teach you skills to move up. Heck I worked field work picking watermelons, cantaloupe, strawberries, sweet corn by hand and bailed in HS and college for $5 a hour. Then moved onto building pole barns for $7-8 a hour before getting hired as a LEO. Hard work to be sure, wasn't going to make a career out of it. Those were the same crappy low wage jobs my immigrant ancestors also got stuck with in the 1st generation as Americans. Besides the gilded age was the periods version of corporate or cronie capitalism, which I don't support.

Lastly, what do you mean by Reagan ruining black communities for two decades? The drug war and increased incarceration rates or something else?
I am not talking about immigrants, I am talking about illegal immigrants that companies do not have to pay a minimum wage or follow basic labor laws. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile....oyers.amp.html. Good for you picking watermelons, they had that problem in Georgia, attempted to enact laws against illegal immigration and it did not work out to well. Farmers could not hire legal residents, finally they tried to get prison slave laborers and that didn’t even work. Ended up having to allow illegals to come back to work ha! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...backfires/amp/. To answer your first question, meat packing is one business that hires illegal immigrants for low wages, pickers, cooks in pretty much most restaurants nowadays, the list goes on. Small businesses regularly use them, probably pay them more decent than the bigger companies. Reagen was a great fan of segregation, we know now that diversity stengthes all of us. He even showed he for the South African govt during apartheid. But, at least with Reagen we got some great music, AA geniuses like Nas that were not given an opportunity in schools excelled in the underground creating great art. When there is struggle there can be beauty.


Reagen. Yes, the drug war was huge. While Reagen was targeting black people he was also supplying. This is no conspiracy anymore there are many movies about it, most recent the Tom Cruise movie. Just look at the statistics, unemployment, poverty, crime rates in those communities. Worst in the last 30 years easy under Reagen. 18% unemployment under rate under Reagen, 7.8 %(from 16% under Bush) was the rate when Obama left office. Graduations rates never higher.

While Obama did a lot of good for all of us, including Aa. There is no doubt there is work to be done, as seen by recent times. You can witness it here. While people here criticize BLM for protesting police shootings, there is little talk about the terroist white nationalists.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 03-03-2018 at 07:01 AM.
  #62  
Old 03-03-2018, 06:51 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
I am not talking about immigrants, I am talking about illegal immigrants that companies do not have to pay a minimum wage or follow basic labor laws. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile....oyers.amp.html. Good for you picking watermelons, they had that problem in Georgia, attempted to enact laws against illegal immigration and it did not work out to well. Farmers could not hire legal residents, finally they tried to get prison slave laborers and that didnít even work. Ended up having to allow illegals to come back to work ha! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...backfires/amp/. To answer your first question, meat packing is one business that hires illegal immigrants for low wages, pickers, cooks in pretty much most restaurants nowadays, the list goes on. Small businesses regularly use them, probably pay them more decent than the bigger companies. Reagen was a great fan of segregation, we know now that diversity stengthes all of us. He even showed he for the South African govt during apartheid. But, at least with Reagen we got some great music, AA geniuses like Nas that were not given an opportunity in schools excelled in the underground creating great art. When there is struggle there can be beauty.


Reagen. Yes, the drug war was huge. While Reagen was targeting black people he was also supplying. This is no conspiracy anymore there are many movies about it, most recent the Tom Cruise movie. Just look at the statistics, unemployment, poverty, crime rates in those communities. Worst in the last 30 years easy under Reagen. 18% unemployment under rate under Reagen, 7.8 %(from 16% under Bush) was the rate when Obama left office. Graduations rates never higher.

While Obama did a lot of good for all of us, including Aa. There is no doubt there is work to be done, as seen by recent times. You can witness it here. While people here criticize BLM for protesting police shootings, there is little talk about the terroist white nationalists.
Automation could be one answer to migrant workers. It's really no different than not having enough hands in my neck of the woods to plant, harvest, bail hay, etc. Improved tech and farming practices reduced the need for hired hands etc like me for seasonal work. Do you suppose another reason many small businesses resort to hiring II is because people aren't willing/afraid to work or think certain jobs are beneath them? I've seen this and continue to see it regularly with teenagers and young adults who expect to get handed a really good paying job without any work experience or references.

I'm sorry if your drug claim is strictly based on movies. It would be about the same as quoting The Godfather when the five families agree to deal drugs to the blacks as the basis of the argument. Were elements of the CIA involved in some really sneaky crap in the drug trade? There certainly is evidence of that without resorting to Hollywood as the arbiter of fact.

I'd argue that the adoption of welfare policies weakened the black family to such an extent that drug use, crime, unemployment, and poverty skyrocketed especially in urban areas. The statistics more than adequately lay out the point. One stat in particular, children born to single mothers, really helps to illuminate the problem. In the early 70's the black single motherhood rate was in the vicinity of 20-25% while the same for whites was between 5-10%. Liberal thinkers at the time wrote that this was a terrible epidemic/trend to have so high a number of single mother families, because they understood that children in those situations had a much higher chance of dropping out of school, involvement in crime, unemployment, and substance abuse. The rate of single motherhood has exploded in the decades since to the current levels of 70-75% for blacks and 30-40% for whites.

Again these were policies laid out by the Democrats, specifically under LBJ, who had government employees going door to door telling women that they(the government) would take care of them by providing housing, food, and other necessities but in order to do so the fathers/men couldn't be around. Telling women to for all intents and purposes to marry the government and replace the men/fathers and their traditional role within the family. The outcome looking back is abundantly clear, an ever expanding welfare state with millions dependent on the government for basic needs and who will not support reform/repeal of these programs.
  #63  
Old 03-03-2018, 11:17 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,144
Default

The cia deal was an example there are other examples of how the war on drugs impacted the black community, as you pointed out leaving single mothers while the father got a 30 yr prison sentence. Movies was not my source, it was just a statement. I have brought sources though and then you never respond. So google Reagen drugs and find it on your own. Speaking of sources, you are going to have to bring one for the door-to-door comment. While that was a consequence of the legislation, you are going to have to show me that is what was intended. Let’s not forget that those laws created Medicare and social security, dramatically improving life span and in general quality of life for the elderly. Again I ask would you want the police force privatized? You still have not answered my question. You know there a very few jobs with pension and the type of insurance you get right?


Edit: missed your first point. What does anything I pointed out in last post have to do with robotics taking jobs? You brought up initially white people didn’t want jobs black people had, minimum wage cane and took all the jobs from black people. I was being in back to modern times pointing out companies will pay less if they can, not sure how robotics is involved. That’s a separate deal. And I would argue if the working conditions were solid and a fair wage than all ethnicities would want certain jobs. Fact is companies can get away with indentured servitude, which is what you want right? The free market, no regulations, 4 year old working the coal mine.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 03-03-2018 at 11:51 PM.
  #64  
Old 03-04-2018, 08:30 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
The cia deal was an example there are other examples of how the war on drugs impacted the black community, as you pointed out leaving single mothers while the father got a 30 yr prison sentence. Movies was not my source, it was just a statement. I have brought sources though and then you never respond. So google Reagen drugs and find it on your own. Speaking of sources, you are going to have to bring one for the door-to-door comment. While that was a consequence of the legislation, you are going to have to show me that is what was intended. Let’s not forget that those laws created Medicare and social security, dramatically improving life span and in general quality of life for the elderly. Again I ask would you want the police force privatized? You still have not answered my question. You know there a very few jobs with pension and the type of insurance you get right?


Edit: missed your first point. What does anything I pointed out in last post have to do with robotics taking jobs? You brought up initially white people didn’t want jobs black people had, minimum wage cane and took all the jobs from black people. I was being in back to modern times pointing out companies will pay less if they can, not sure how robotics is involved. That’s a separate deal. And I would argue if the working conditions were solid and a fair wage than all ethnicities would want certain jobs. Fact is companies can get away with indentured servitude, which is what you want right? The free market, no regulations, 4 year old working the coal mine.
Father getting 30 year sentence for drug crimes? Did you know that the push for stiffer penalties for crack cocaine dealers etc came from the elected Democrats in large urban communities that were blighted by that epidemic? Did you also know that penalties for crack cocaine and meth(white people drug) are the same?

How can you argue the consequence vs the intent? If the legislation and actual language of the programs say that the government will pay for the women and children, and not the fathers/men, it pretty obvious. I deal with that situation all the time where mothers and their children are provided subsidized housing but CANNOT have anyone else living with them or lose those benefits. That often times includes the father of a child. Shelters are the same way, where a father is left out on the street will the mother and children are cared for.

I answered you question about privatizing law enforcement, I hadn't really thought about it. But I'll reply back to you with how far up the law enforcement ladder would privatization go, local, state, federal? Why stop at law enforcement how about fire and rescue services? This is probably one of the areas I'd say is within government's purview.

Company's of course will try to keep costs down in order to maximize profits, technology plays a part in that. If I own a business/company I take all the risk in starting that company and keep it going, correct? If you come to work for me, you voluntarily applied for the job and I voluntarily accepted you, correct? We agree to a set wage and perhaps benefits in this voluntary negotiated contract, otherwise either of us can chose not to accept it and opt out, correct? So under that agreed contract you work for me for X amount of wage, and I agree to pay you, regardless of how good or bad the company is doing in selling whatever product or service. So if my company is doing poorly, I accept responsibility and may have to accept a lot less money in my pocket because contractually I agreed to always pay you the employee your set wages and benefits. Therefore I accept all the risk while you take none. If the company does good, I am rewarded for my risk and make more money for myself, and you get paid the same per our contract. I guess I missed the indentured servitude you mentioned, because I didn't see anyone being forced into a role with gun to their head.

Last edited by jessemoore97; 03-04-2018 at 08:37 AM.
  #65  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:15 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Did you also know that penalties for crack cocaine and meth(white people drug) are the same?
Not sure that is correct. penalty for possession may be the same but what happens when you stand in front of a judge is different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Company's of course will try to keep costs down in order to maximize profits, technology plays a part in that. If I own a business/company I take all the risk in starting that company and keep it going, correct? If you come to work for me, you voluntarily applied for the job and I voluntarily accepted you, correct? We agree to a set wage and perhaps benefits in this voluntary negotiated contract, otherwise either of us can chose not to accept it and opt out, correct? So under that agreed contract you work for me for X amount of wage, and I agree to pay you, regardless of how good or bad the company is doing in selling whatever product or service. So if my company is doing poorly, I accept responsibility and may have to accept a lot less money in my pocket because contractually I agreed to always pay you the employee your set wages and benefits. Therefore I accept all the risk while you take none. If the company does good, I am rewarded for my risk and make more money for myself, and you get paid the same per our contract. I guess I missed the indentured servitude you mentioned, because I didn't see anyone being forced into a role with gun to their head.
There is a cost of doing business in America.

America was built on balance. Balance in our branches of government as well as business and labor. You mentioned in a previous post how AA's had less unemployment than whites because they worked for less. Well eventually whites would have to lower their standards. Then blacks would lower their standards and what we have is a race to the bottom. We'd end up a nation of rich and poor. A caste system if you will. The country has to do what's in the best interest of the country. Not to mention if they can pay what they want, can they serve who they want? Sell and rent home to who they want? Give loans and set interest rates (payday loan) how they want? It leads us down the path we have worked hard to get off.

corporate greed will take out nearly everyone. I do ok for a living but I know I'm closer to the poor house than being set for life which I assume the case for most on this board. Laws and regulations are in place because it's been proven they are needed. I don't get how people that go to work at a place that doesn't have their name on the building support less pay.


Are you anti tariff?
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #66  
Old 03-05-2018, 01:10 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
Not sure that is correct. penalty for possession may be the same but what happens when you stand in front of a judge is different.



There is a cost of doing business in America.

America was built on balance. Balance in our branches of government as well as business and labor. You mentioned in a previous post how AA's had less unemployment than whites because they worked for less. Well eventually whites would have to lower their standards. Then blacks would lower their standards and what we have is a race to the bottom. We'd end up a nation of rich and poor. A caste system if you will. The country has to do what's in the best interest of the country. Not to mention if they can pay what they want, can they serve who they want? Sell and rent home to who they want? Give loans and set interest rates (payday loan) how they want? It leads us down the path we have worked hard to get off.

corporate greed will take out nearly everyone. I do ok for a living but I know I'm closer to the poor house than being set for life which I assume the case for most on this board. Laws and regulations are in place because it's been proven they are needed. I don't get how people that go to work at a place that doesn't have their name on the building support less pay.


Are you anti tariff?
There are a few other steps involved before anything goes before a judge, like plea deals between the attorneys. This is why I'm very opposed to new "stiffer" gun laws, because existing ones aren't being followed that are more than capable of putting violent offenders behind bars for a long time. Matter of factly many courts/judges are under prosecuting AA offenders compared to whites in violent crimes, to be rid of the perception of racism in sentencing. Plain and simple you do the crime you do the time, regardless of your skin color.

So you circled back around to an argument I made already about government regulation in private business, specifically the home loan crisis. Government forced banks to give loans to people they would not have lent money to in their own business practices because it was too risky. The government in the guise of fairness forced the banks to lend money....housing crisis. I also said that businesses care about one color green. If a business doesn't want to tend a certain customer base, then you can bet another will come along and engage in that transaction. It's survival of the fitess, and those who don't adapt to changing markets and demands will fall by the wayside while something new and adaptable will replace it. Government intervention and over regulation, whether it be tariffs or bail outs of businesses "too big to let fail" only stalls innovation and ingenuity with business, technology, and the markets. Allow for competition, freedom of choice, and the strong survive.
  #67  
Old 03-05-2018, 04:58 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
There are a few other steps involved before anything goes before a judge, like plea deals between the attorneys.
Yeah, but sometimes public defenders and prosecutors are a joke.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
This is why I'm very opposed to new "stiffer" gun laws, because existing ones aren't being followed that are more than capable of putting violent offenders behind bars for a long time.
I think we need better gun laws. Putting offenders behind bars is not the problem. It's the ease of access to acquiring guns. I didn't grow up with lockdown drills in school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Matter of factly many courts/judges are under prosecuting AA offenders compared to whites in violent crimes, to be rid of the perception of racism in sentencing. Plain and simple you do the crime you do the time, regardless of your skin color.
That's a new one to me. Remind me to stay out of Iowa.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So you circled back around to an argument I made already about government regulation in private business, specifically the home loan crisis. Government forced banks to give loans to people they would not have lent money to in their own business practices because it was too risky.
That seems like oversimplifying. the notion that the crash happened because people with shoddy credit borrowed to buy houses they couldnít afford is misleading a little. wealthy and middle-class house-flipping speculators who blew up the bubble and then wrecked local housing markets when they defaulted en masse. My father in law lives in a nice subdivision on a golf course that is surrounded by empty homes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
The government in the guise of fairness forced the banks to lend money....housing crisis.
You seem to blame the poor for everything. Be it wanting a decent wage and now undeserving poor greedily reaching out for a piece of the American dream.

The reality is poor people will eat dirt to pay their mortgage or their rent. A home is a point of stability, security, and resource. Poor people can't afford to lose their home and don't have other options. wealthier people can afford to overleverage their credit on several mortgages and lose some of them.

Plus most apartment rentals also check credit history and would deny someone a rental if they had mortgage defaults. Poor people wouldn't want to risk that.

blaming the entire fiscal crisis on Fannie & Freddie, and the Community Redevelopment Act is not accurate. They account for about 20% of the loans. the rest were sub-prime lenders doing so of their own free will.

I mean, if the meltdown was a result of federal policy, we would expect problem mortgages to be evenly distributed across the US. Instead, they were concentrated, with the greatest concentration in a few formerly "hot" markets. Looks more like a speculative bubble than one caused by unqualified borrowers.

What is the average value of a US mortgage in default?

How do they explain the Mansions in default? These were not subprime borrowers.

Why is it that the biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score óand that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults?

The people making those loans did not need any nudge from the government. They were in it for the quick buck because they knew they were selling the loans on to the next sucker down the line. They got their cut and that was all they cared about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
I also said that businesses care about one color green. If a business doesn't want to tend a certain customer base, then you can bet another will come along and engage in that transaction.
Again that takes us back to a time many Americans want to leave in the past. discrimination. Do we negotiate what we pay for our food and medical care as well? Your world would be very unfair. We've been there and done that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
It's survival of the fitess, and those who don't adapt to changing markets and demands will fall by the wayside while something new and adaptable will replace it.
Does that count for people as well? College is nearly unaffordable how is one supposed to advance with low pay, how can you keep kids out of trouble when the parents have to work 70 hrs a week?

If minimum wage was raised, do you support survival of the fittest for them as well?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Government intervention and over regulation, whether it be tariffs or bail outs of businesses "too big to let fail" only stalls innovation and ingenuity with business, technology, and the markets. Allow for competition, freedom of choice, and the strong survive.
Who are these companies that regulation is killing? With limited regulation the water in your town might be as toxic as Flint or as flammable PA. As a nation we were more innovative when wages were fair and keeping up with inflation. it's not governments fault that companies would rather build cheap products and try to sell you warranties. We have more competition now in business than if we allow larger corporations to gain monopolies.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #68  
Old 03-15-2018, 08:41 AM
NDhoosier's Avatar
NDhoosier NDhoosier is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 6,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltssb View Post
I know. I know. A very hot topic. But I’m not trying to start a crap storm here. But as I read people’s thoughts on the web, I ran across something I thought was interesting.

I know we have quite a few cops on this board-speedster, ND Hoosier, Officer Tim(I believe is one). But as a civilian to a cop, would you rather have less people with guns in our society than more? Would it make your job easier? Honest question here. It kinda ties in with the gun issue today. It also probably tugs at your personal beliefs on guns. Thoughts?
Sorry I am late, but I feel obligated to answer when you mention me.

I agree very much with jessemoore's original response. I do not blame guns, I blame people. I do not mind the current gun laws, I just think they need to be enforced more efficiently and sentences to those who violate those laws should be more severe.

A good cop knows how to handle the average citizen with a gun and there are laws and court cases in place that give us police officers the protection we need in those situations. Most police officers own multiple guns and carry 24/7 for a variety of reasons and are very pro-gun themselves. I am not a gun-nut, but I know first hand that me having a gun will be a better defense than waiting for the police when a burglar breaks into my house.

Having said that, there are things we can do to help prevent school shootings and what New York City did recently is the opposite of what needs to be done. Armed police/security, one-way-in-one-way-out during school hours, metal detectors, etc. That all costs money though, which no one likes to hear, the upgrades to airport security as done wonders since 9/11.

The biggest issue I see by the anti-gun people is simply ignorance of what an assault weapon is, what a semi-automatic gun, etc. These are basic terms, but there is a large portion of the population that does not understand it. CNN recently did a segment where a retired general was all fluffed up to spout liberal non-sense about an AR-15. He shot 5 rounds slowly and said "that is single-shot, now I will go full semi-automatic." All he did was fire faster, but he made it seem like he pressed a switch to make it shoot faster. Others do not understand that most handguns these days are semi-automatic. I can fire 17 rounds from my service pistol as fast as an AR-15 can. So please, if you (anyone reading this) are going to join this national gun debate, educate yourself on the terms. Dont say dumb stuff like "you should need a conceal carry permit for an AR-15 and shotgun."

Also, the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. So, when people compare our gun stats to other countries, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to give up other rights like those countries have. This is an extreme example, but North Korea does not have much gun violence either, who wants to be a citizen under that government? Again, while that is extreme, 99% of other countries have slightly stricter freedoms that the US. Australia does not have the same freedom of speech that we do and most consider Australia a country much like ours, just south of the Equator with funny accents.

The point of this amendment is to keep the government from gradually controlling more and more of our lives and allowing us to maintain the freedom that only the US currently provides.The 1st Amendment is already under attack and countries like Canada are already limiting speech or trying to force its citizen's to use certain speech. Just look up Evergreen college or Jordan Peterson. So currently, the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are under attack, is that what people want, less freedom?

Last edited by NDhoosier; 03-15-2018 at 09:00 AM.
  #69  
Old 03-15-2018, 06:37 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
Sorry I am late, but I feel obligated to answer when you mention me.

I agree very much with jessemoore's original response. I do not blame guns, I blame people. I do not mind the current gun laws, I just think they need to be enforced more efficiently and sentences to those who violate those laws should be more severe.
If they are not being enforced whats wrong with trying something new? I think we have adequate laws to enforce speed limits but signs don't always work and you guys can't be everywhere. Now they use camara which I hate but if it makes the streets safer. We have to at least pretend to give a damn about these kids being killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
A good cop knows how to handle the average citizen with a gun and there are laws and court cases in place that give us police officers the protection we need in those situations. Most police officers own multiple guns and carry 24/7 for a variety of reasons and are very pro-gun themselves.
I don't have a problem with that at all. It's the guy who is not a LEO that for some reason feels the need to strap on a gun each morning. That person is suspect to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
I am not a gun-nut,
.
Thank you.

I think a lot of people--myself included treated "pro gun" and "gun nuts' as one in the same. There is a difference. Does pro gun mean you support the carrying and use of guns without restriction? I may be pro gun, I know I'm anti gun nut.

And why do I have to use a muzzleloader during certain hunting periods? why not pull the second amendment out for that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
but I know first hand that me having a gun will be a better defense than waiting for the police when a burglar breaks into my house
Do you live in a community where there is a lot of break ins? If people in high crime areas made that argument I could understand but when I hear congressmen and such make that statement, I just laugh. It's like when they describe that "What if you're walking down a dark alley" scenario? When are you walking down a dark alley????



Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
Having said that, there are things we can do to help prevent school shootings and what New York City did recently is the opposite of what needs to be done. Armed police/security, one-way-in-one-way-out during school hours, metal detectors, etc. That all costs money though, which no one likes to hear, the upgrades to airport security as done wonders since 9/11.
Having one way in and out is a fire hazard and illegal. But lets be honest schools in rough neighborhoods have those metal detectors and security. How often do you see mass shootings in those schools. Either we need to start having security and metal detectors everywhere or find a way to discourage gun nuts from going off the deep end. I'm OK with either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
The biggest issue I see by the anti-gun people is simply ignorance of what an assault weapon is, what a semi-automatic gun, etc. These are basic terms, but there is a large portion of the population that does not understand it. CNN recently did a segment where a retired general was all fluffed up to spout liberal non-sense about an AR-15. He shot 5 rounds slowly and said "that is single-shot, now I will go full semi-automatic." All he did was fire faster, but he made it seem like he pressed a switch to make it shoot faster. Others do not understand that most handguns these days are semi-automatic. I can fire 17 rounds from my service pistol as fast as an AR-15 can. So please, if you (anyone reading this) are going to join this national gun debate, educate yourself on the terms. Dont say dumb stuff like "you should need a conceal carry permit for an AR-15 and shotgun."
That's fair but from the opposite side you see people on the right saying that we are trying to get all guns banned which is a lie. So both sides are misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhoosier View Post
Also, the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. So, when people compare our gun stats to other countries, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to give up other rights like those countries have. This is an extreme example, but North Korea does not have much gun violence either, who wants to be a citizen under that government? Again, while that is extreme, 99% of other countries have slightly stricter freedoms that the US. Australia does not have the same freedom of speech that we do and most consider Australia a country much like ours, just south of the Equator with funny accents.

The point of this amendment is to keep the government from gradually controlling more and more of our lives and allowing us to maintain the freedom that only the US currently provides.The 1st Amendment is already under attack and countries like Canada are already limiting speech or trying to force its citizen's to use certain speech. Just look up Evergreen college or Jordan Peterson. So currently, the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are under attack, is that what people want, less freedom?
If my knowledge of history is correct America had no rules in the beginning. A nation of total freedom. That didn't last long. You need some structure along with common sense. As I've said before the second amendment is outdated and been bastardized to the point you can't discuss it reasonably.

The 2A was great when America was mostly wilderness with unknown threats possibly lurking in the woods. That's no longer the case.

It was fine when we were trying out this new democracy thing. We didn't want the president suddenly deciding he wants to be king. Back then, the army and the militias had the same weapons. I don't care how often you go into the woods to shoot cans, unless you have some tanks you're just pretending.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #70  
Old 03-15-2018, 07:00 PM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,325
Default

Here's an idea...

Instead of blaming guns, the NRA, the left, the right, etc, etc, etc...why don't people take responsibility for their children? Everyone wants to blame the school system, video games, movies, etc...but it's the parents' job to ensure that their child grows up as a reputable member of society. School shootings are not caused by the NRA or the guns themselves. Parents relying on teachers, friends, etc to set a good, positive example for our kids is the problem. Sticking your child in front of a TV for hours because you don't have time to deal with them is a problem. I'm not a perfect parent, I know this. If my child were one of these school shooters, I would be to blame. Not the fact that I own guns, not the NRA, not some other BS reason. They are my children and my responsibility. I am responsible for their actions.

Could guns laws be more strict? Sure, but before making new laws let's try to enforce the ones we have. Increase the age limit to purchase a gun, that should be done anyway. An 18 year old is a moron. Don't sell an AR to a moron. Hold people accountable for their actions instead of offering plea deals and lenient sentences for gun-related offenses. It's not difficult, but everyone is so worried that they will offend someone or hurt someone's feelings that they're not willing to place the blame where it should go.

As far as the NRA is concerned, do they have too much power? Absolutely, but so does every other lobby group. No one is complaining about the pharmaceutical lobby as people die on opiods daily. Attention on that lasted all of a month or two. No one is complaining about the tobacco lobby, and the list goes on and on. If you're going to complain about the NRA, complain about all of them and get them out of government. Groups should not be allowed to buy votes.

Everyone has opinions on this issue and everyone believes that they are on the right side of things. No one is willing to give, nor are they willing to have an honest discussions without taking cheap shots at each other. Face it, neither side will ever get what they want...so deal with what we have and make the best of it. Teach your children how to grow into responsible adults and understand that their failures are a reflection on you.
__________________
  #71  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:31 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Here's an idea...

Instead of blaming guns, the NRA, the left, the right, etc, etc, etc...why don't people take responsibility for their children? Everyone wants to blame the school system, video games, movies, etc...but it's the parents' job to ensure that their child grows up as a reputable member of society. School shootings are not caused by the NRA or the guns themselves. Parents relying on teachers, friends, etc to set a good, positive example for our kids is the problem. Sticking your child in front of a TV for hours because you don't have time to deal with them is a problem. I'm not a perfect parent, I know this. If my child were one of these school shooters, I would be to blame. Not the fact that I own guns, not the NRA, not some other BS reason. They are my children and my responsibility. I am responsible for their actions.
I call BS.

the same folks that spout the "guns don't kill people" line are the same ones that blame the religion of islam for terrorist attacks instead of "people". If my kid hits another kid with a stick, I don't blame the stick but I still take the stick away. My dad went to school with a knife in his pocket everyday before he was even a teenager. Times change. We can't govern with ancient laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Could guns laws be more strict? Sure, but before making new laws let's try to enforce the ones we have.
Sometimes to enforce laws you need more LEO's. Which don't seem to be happening. i've heard people say enforce the current gun laws for years. It's not working. What else do you got? The ball should be in the pro gun's court. I would love for you guys to take the lead on this. Control your children if I am to use your previous analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Increase the age limit to purchase a gun, that should be done anyway. An 18 year old is a moron. Don't sell an AR to a moron. Hold people accountable for their actions instead of offering plea deals and lenient sentences for gun-related offenses.
While I agree with you completely, it annoys me just as much having it come out of your (2A worshipers for lack of a better word ) mouths. Are you saying 18 year old morons or morons in general don't have 2A rights? Can't have it both ways. This is why we say common sense gun laws just like you proposed but somehow it's infringing upon your rights when the same words come from the left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
It's not difficult, but everyone is so worried that they will offend someone or hurt someone's feelings that they're not willing to place the blame where it should go.
I don't agree with that. it is a very difficult problem but I think reducing the problem is easy. I don't see anyone being afraid to hurt feelings. The right has no problem blaming the left and vice versa.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
As far as the NRA is concerned, do they have too much power? Absolutely, but so does every other lobby group. No one is complaining about the pharmaceutical lobby as people die on opiods daily. Attention on that lasted all of a month or two. No one is complaining about the tobacco lobby, and the list goes on and on. If you're going to complain about the NRA, complain about all of them and get them out of government. Groups should not be allowed to buy votes.
I see your point and agree but i do think if someone would get high on oxy or smoke a pack of camels and go on a killing spree, I think voices would be raised. Don't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Everyone has opinions on this issue and everyone believes that they are on the right side of things. No one is willing to give, nor are they willing to have an honest discussions without taking cheap shots at each other. Face it, neither side will ever get what they want...so deal with what we have and make the best of it. Teach your children how to grow into responsible adults and understand that their failures are a reflection on you.
it's the politics of it that's the problem. As a nation we are Yankees and Red Sox. I don't know how we get out of this hole.

I hope I'm not offending someone if so tell me, but I love that Hoosier sort of separated pro gun from gun nut. I feel like I can work with pro gun.

To be fair I guess we have anti gun nuts. I can't think of a simple title for someone that want guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.

Any help?
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #72  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:53 PM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I call BS.

the same folks that spout the "guns don't kill people" line are the same ones that blame the religion of islam for terrorist attacks instead of "people". If my kid hits another kid with a stick, I don't blame the stick but I still take the stick away. My dad went to school with a knife in his pocket everyday before he was even a teenager. Times change. We can't govern with ancient laws.
Parenting changed...that's the point of my post. Like I said previously, take responsibility for your children and quit leaving it up to everyone else.

Quote:
Sometimes to enforce laws you need more LEO's. Which don't seem to be happening. i've heard people say enforce the current gun laws for years. It's not working. What else do you got? The ball should be in the pro gun's court. I would love for you guys to take the lead on this. Control your children if I am to use your previous analogy.
I'm all for reasonable gun control. Saying that certain guns are an issue is not reasonable. All guns are deadly. Singling out an AR is not being reasonable, it's being reactionary.

Quote:
While I agree with you completely, it annoys me just as much having it come out of your (2A worshipers for lack of a better word ) mouths. Are you saying 18 year old morons or morons in general don't have 2A rights? Can't have it both ways. This is why we say common sense gun laws just like you proposed but somehow it's infringing upon your rights when the same words come from the left.
I'm not saying that they have no 2A rights. You cannot purchase a handgun in my state until you are 21, why are rifles any different? And thank you for painting me as a 2A worshipper when you have no idea who I am outside of a limited amount of posts of a ND forum. I've never heard a 2A worshipper say that the NRA had too much power...but, you be you.

Quote:
I don't agree with that. it is a very difficult problem but I think reducing the problem is easy. I don't see anyone being afraid to hurt feelings. The right has no problem blaming the left and vice versa.
You missed the point. We have lenient sentences so that people do not have hurt feelings. If people weren't afraid of 'special circumstances,' crimes committed while in possession of a firearm would have mandatory sentences...but due to the F up that was mandatory sentences for drug crimes, no one has the balls to enact something that would actually put a dent in gun crime...so they blame the gun.

Quote:
I see your point and agree but i do think if someone would get high on oxy or smoke a pack of camels and go on a killing spree, I think voices would be raised. Don't you?
So, because people are only killing themselves, it's ok? Because oxy has been leading to the increased of the use of heroin, it's ok? Just because it's only a *little* wrong doesn't make it right.

Quote:
it's the politics of it that's the problem. As a nation we are Yankees and Red Sox. I don't know how we get out of this hole.
Neither do I, but placing the blame on inanimate objects instead of the parents is not taking an honest look at the problem, in my opinion. Sure, guns are deadly...we get it. So are a lot of things out there. My point is simple...quit blaming everything else in the world and hold the parents accountable. That's where it all starts and ends.

Quote:
I hope I'm not offending someone if so tell me, but I love that Hoosier sort of separated pro gun from gun nut. I feel like I can work with pro gun.

To be fair I guess we have anti gun nuts. I can't think of a simple title for someone that want guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.

Any help?
A random person on an internet forum isn't going to offend me. Like I said before, we all have opinions and we all think we're right. Unfortunately, neither of us will ever be completely right. Not one person on this board has the answer to all of this.

I look at it this way:

You have Gun Nuts...Gun People...People who aren't Gun People...and Anti Gun Nuts. I like to think I'm in the 'Gun People' group. I'm all for raising age limits, better background checks, etc...but at the same time, the **** poor job we're doing enforcing the current laws doesn't help either.
__________________
  #73  
Old 03-15-2018, 10:13 PM
coltssb coltssb is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,486
Default

Thanks Hoosier for the post. And Davis, you are filling in admirably for my lack of participation that I started.

Just throwing it out there, what about stiffer penalties for people with guns that they didnít buy legally. Helps out both sides of the argument. Caught with an illegal firearmó 5 years and no reduced sentence. (Sorry if we have this already, not sure on the gun laws or states laws on guns)

Also, raising the price on ammo. I know I know... But as Chris Rock said it, I would shoot you azz if this bullet didnít cost a thousand dolllars....paraphrasing.
Maybe he was onto something.
  #74  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:48 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Parenting changed...that's the point of my post. Like I said previously, take responsibility for your children and quit leaving it up to everyone else.
there aren't many parents going around saying my kids a little psycho who's likely to go on a killing spree. So what now?

All mass shooters aren't children but a lot of them seem to be gun nuts and...well... Draw your own conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
I'm all for reasonable gun control. Saying that certain guns are an issue is not reasonable. All guns are deadly. Singling out an AR is not being reasonable, it's being reactionary.
The AR to the casual gun person looks very Rambo like. It looks menacing and that's the reason people want them banned also the reason people are fighting for them.

It's the Pit Bull of commercial guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
I'm not saying that they have no 2A rights. You cannot purchase a handgun in my state until you are 21, why are rifles any different? And thank you for painting me as a 2A worshipper when you have no idea who I am outside of a limited amount of posts of a ND forum. I've never heard a 2A worshipper say that the NRA had too much power...but, you be you.
2A worshipper is just due to my limited vocabulary. You did call yourself a pro 2A which seems a little extra to me. You also was against revisiting the 2A just to see if it still applies to today's society. just as you said parenting has changed, so has America. I'm sorry 2A worshipper offends you but I' struggling to find a more appropriate term to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
You missed the point. We have lenient sentences so that people do not have hurt feelings. If people weren't afraid of 'special circumstances,' crimes committed while in possession of a firearm would have mandatory sentences...but due to the F up that was mandatory sentences for drug crimes, no one has the balls to enact something that would actually put a dent in gun crime...so they blame the gun.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
So, because people are only killing themselves, it's ok? Because oxy has been leading to the increased of the use of heroin, it's ok? Just because it's only a *little* wrong doesn't make it right.
The problem is you're trying to make them both equal in which they are not. Someone OD'ing on drugs they chose to take is not the same dozens of people being killed by an idiot wit a gun for no reason. If you want to start a thread about big pharma or big tobacco, I promise i will chime in on those as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Neither do I, but placing the blame on inanimate objects instead of the parents is not taking an honest look at the problem, in my opinion. Sure, guns are deadly...we get it. So are a lot of things out there. My point is simple...quit blaming everything else in the world and hold the parents accountable. That's where it all starts and ends.
Again, kids aren't the only mass shooters. And this guns don't kill people slogan is old and don't hold water. they said the cause of Greg Bryant's death was a gunshot wound and not the name of the shooter. i wish I had copyrighted that though. The money I could make in bumper stickers.

We have speed limits even though I guess cars don't kill people...

You're throwing opiods and tobacco under the bus even though they don't kill people according to your logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
A random person on an internet forum isn't going to offend me. Like I said before, we all have opinions and we all think we're right. Unfortunately, neither of us will ever be completely right. Not one person on this board has the answer to all of this.
I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to do right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
I look at it this way:

You have Gun Nuts...Gun People...People who aren't Gun People...and Anti Gun Nuts. I like to think I'm in the 'Gun People' group. I'm all for raising age limits, better background checks, etc...but at the same time, the **** poor job we're doing enforcing the current laws doesn't help either.
If all laws were enforced properly and perfectly, we wouldn't have any crimes.

If an oil company causes an oil spill in the ocean, it's their responsibility to clean it up. So I feel the good folks at the NRA should lead the charge for change. If they can't fix it then they can't bitc# when someone else steps in to solve the problem.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #75  
Old 03-16-2018, 11:03 AM
NDhoosier's Avatar
NDhoosier NDhoosier is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 6,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
If they are not being enforced whats wrong with trying something new? I think we have adequate laws to enforce speed limits but signs don't always work and you guys can't be everywhere. Now they use camara which I hate but if it makes the streets safer. We have to at least pretend to give a damn about these kids being killed.
The difference is that, with guns, you are taking rights away from citizens that they already have. Also, I think everyone wants to keep their kids safe, people just have different methods on how to do it. Lets not use that line of thinking.

Quote:
I don't have a problem with that at all. It's the guy who is not a LEO that for some reason feels the need to strap on a gun each morning. That person is suspect to me.
I only think like that with people who open carry. There is no advantage to the average joe civilian open carrying other than to show-off what he is packing.


Quote:
I think a lot of people--myself included treated "pro gun" and "gun nuts' as one in the same. There is a difference. Does pro gun mean you support the carrying and use of guns without restriction? I may be pro gun, I know I'm anti gun nut.
Definitely a difference, I am pro-gun, not a gun-nut.

Quote:
Do you live in a community where there is a lot of break ins? If people in high crime areas made that argument I could understand but when I hear congressmen and such make that statement, I just laugh. It's like when they describe that "What if you're walking down a dark alley" scenario? When are you walking down a dark alley????
I do not necessarily agree with this line of thought. I live in a good part of town. I can tell you first hand that burglaries happen in every part of the city, it is usually just for difference reasons. In the bad part of town, the burglars usually know the victims and they are looking for drugs or drug money. In the good parts of town, it is usually a random burglar trying to steal whatever is of value. I may live in a good part of town, but that does not mean I am immune to being a victim, and I think "pro-gun" are saying that they have the right to defend themselves from being a victim. Every state in the country has a version of the castle law (if you break into my threshold, you are considered a violent aggressor and the homeowner can meet you with lethal force). Texas has more expansive castle laws that go to property lines and that type of stuff.

Quote:
Having one way in and out is a fire hazard and illegal.
Fire-exits, yes, but not unlocked doors that are accessible on a daily basis. My high school of 2,000 had this philosophy. Once school started, EVERYONE had to go through the front doors, no exceptions. Obviously there would be fire doors to match the fire code.

Quote:
But lets be honest schools in rough neighborhoods have those metal detectors and security. How often do you see mass shootings in those schools. Either we need to start having security and metal detectors everywhere or find a way to discourage gun nuts from going off the deep end. I'm OK with either.
I think both honestly. We need to target the underlying problem of why some gun-nuts go off the deep end. However, we also need to put protections in place in case one slips through the cracks, which is inevitable.

Quote:
That's fair but from the opposite side you see people on the right saying that we are trying to get all guns banned which is a lie. So both sides are misleading.
This is a complex issue mostly lead by misconceptions of both sides. Most liberals want the "AR-15 style" guns of the streets. Most conservatives want to be able to keep their "AR-15 style" guns and/or purchase new ones. You have the very vocal minority of liberals who hate guns and want them all taken (Piers Morgan wants all gun gone). You have the very vocal minority of conservatives who think the government is aiming to take away all the guns. Add all those up and you get a bunch of confusion that leads to misconceptions. I will say, coming from a more conservative side, is that taking away this type of gun or that type of gun could create a slippery slope.

Quote:
If my knowledge of history is correct America had no rules in the beginning. A nation of total freedom. That didn't last long. You need some structure along with common sense. As I've said before the second amendment is outdated and been bastardized to the point you can't discuss it reasonably.

The 2A was great when America was mostly wilderness with unknown threats possibly lurking in the woods. That's no longer the case.

It was fine when we were trying out this new democracy thing. We didn't want the president suddenly deciding he wants to be king. Back then, the army and the militias had the same weapons. I don't care how often you go into the woods to shoot cans, unless you have some tanks you're just pretending.
The only thing I will say to this part is that the forefathers could never have predicted the advancements in technology of warfare. What will war look like 150 years from now? We do not even know that.

What the forefathers did understand is that they just came from a tyrannical government, so they allowed civilians to be able to arm themselves in case the government tried to subjugate its civilians. The only weapon back then were muskets, which the military used as well. Now, a militia with only muskets is nothing but fodder and completely useless. Hence, why the word "muskets" is not found anywhere in the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltssb View Post
Thanks Hoosier for the post. And Davis, you are filling in admirably for my lack of participation that I started.

Just throwing it out there, what about stiffer penalties for people with guns that they didn’t buy legally. Helps out both sides of the argument. Caught with an illegal firearm— 5 years and no reduced sentence. (Sorry if we have this already, not sure on the gun laws or states laws on guns)

Also, raising the price on ammo. I know I know... But as Chris Rock said it, I would shoot you azz if this bullet didn’t cost a thousand dolllars....paraphrasing.
Maybe he was onto something.
I definitely agree with stiffer penalties. The laws are on the books and the penalties are there as well, but there are so many plea deals and sentence reductions that it is ridiculous.

I disagree with the ammo, while I understand the sentiment, it would just anger everyone involved. Ranging from the military and police departments who have to train on a regular basis to keep up their proficiency. Do you want a cop on the road who has not shot his gun in 3 years? I am never a fan of artificially jacking up prices on anything, I guess I am a true capitalist. The guns themselves are not cheap by any means.

As a cop, I would personally like to see a more thorough gun registry database on NCIC.

Last edited by NDhoosier; 03-16-2018 at 11:08 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:20 AM.

Last Updated: February 23, 2020

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.