We Come In Peace

It's a facetious argument to make. Chicago has tough laws on the books yet lacks the means to enforce them properly, specifically when it comes to illegal sales. Having laws on the books and having the necessary means to enforce them are two different things. The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place. Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for our current gun-state mentality and it's arguments like this that do a disservice to the debate. There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen. The fact is that the majority of homicides in this country, especially in urban centers, are perpetrated by hand guns, not assault rifles. The cause of the violence is not just the easy access to weapons, but a plethora of causes ranging from apathy within the urban community and the MSM to the staggering levels of poverty in our cities to the prison industrial complex that operates largely unchecked in this country. Not one serious person has suggested banning all guns. Not one. What they are suggesting is looking at the laws that are on the books and seeing if there is a way to write better laws. Laws that actually DO have the chance to staunch the unending epidemic facing our nation. Will new laws and proper enforcement of them work? No one knows for sure. But being unwilling to even engage in the discussion based on arguments like this is just intellectually lazy. I understand your point and thank you for making it more clear to me. But let me ask you, isn't there a difference between having laws on the books and having the means to enforce those laws? What good are strict gun laws if federal and state authorities lack the ability to see that they're properly enforced? The majority of all illegal weapon sales in this country are perpetrated by less than 1% of gun brokers. Yet, despite the amount of laws on the books, no agency, state or federal, has the ability to shut these dealers down. Why is that? Why is the NRA working so hard to prevent the ATF from doing their job? See, this is where your argument diverges into something else entirely. There's no question that the solution to this epidemic will not be found through legislation alone. There must be personal responsibility as well. But one doesn't preclude the other. To say that we need to look at every reason for gun violence BUT for guns themselves is as foolish as the people who say that gun legislation alone will accomplish the task. It won't. Neither will pretending that unfettered access to lethal weapons of mass devastation has nothing to do with the matter.

No. I still don't understand why you continue to hold up the murder rate in Chicago (or other urban areas) as a means to make the point that a renewed debate on guns in this country isn't necessary. One would think the facts you keep pointing out, whether they're ignored by the MSM or not, paints an even more urgent need to sensibly address the topic. There's also a fundamental error in the article you posted. Namely King's quote that: "But when a black man shoots an unarmed black man in many urban cities, the black community yells silence" -- that is just ignorant and untrue. There's a difference between apathy to the urban plight and silence.

Which creeps?

Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter. Both parties answer to the same master and it ain't the voter.

This is why we get a long. Well done.

Well... he liked to chase box. I know that much.

Not true. Her entire article is slanted towards her audience -- pushing her agenda (and yours). You claim to use unbiased and independent sources while railing against others who post on here using liberal sources trying to sell a product. Yet, you do the same just from the other side of the political coin. That's fine, I'm not saying you can't do that (obviously). But it's ironic that you're doing the very thing you rag on other people for doing. Read the article, not just the quotes. She's slanted her entire article. It's a fear piece designed to scare the reader rather than present an honest assessment of the situation or the debate.

And because, like all liberal minded professors, he was so closed minded. Incapable of thinking outside the box.

But zero regulations and subjugating our national interests to that of the free market isn't extreme? I know you're not advocating that in your previous post, I'm just asking where the line is drawn.

Michelle Malkin, noted conservative blogger and author who has 4 books available for sale pushing her agenda of disparaging the progressive agenda. She's not at all interested in pushing copy. Another dynamite, independent and objective source by the B-Man.

Isn't there a middle ground between both the extreme cases you're painting?

I've been warning you guys for months now... **** is going down.

Neither do I.

Yes, and as a liberal minded professor he was "closed minded" as Nanker likes to joke.

Did you listen to the Congressman's testimony? I heard that one too. But everyone knows it's bunk. Disinformation to keep their agenda alive.

Everything you post is hilarious. I thought it was intentional?

Even bigger... February 1954 at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. Eisenhower met with several representatives of an advanced species of ETs. During that meeting several treaties were signed with the visitors in exchange for technology that the Military Industrial Complex has kept hidden for decades. The kind of technology and power that has the ability to reshape our entire world and economy. Less than 7 years later, Eisenhower issued a stern warning against the MIC and the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" that threatens "our liberties and democratic process"...

:lol: :lol:

You're leaving out the most important part of Eisenhower's presidency.

No, 3rding is right there with you. As are a handful of others that frequent PPP. You're not alone. But not being able to see Fox's obvious and consistent slant is as silly as not being able to see MSNBC's. Not being able to see your own bias when making fun of the professor's is equally as ironic.

For sure. But I wasn't laughing at the professor's obvious bias. I was laughing at Koko's.

It's not an opinion if it's objectively quantifiable. So you're wrong not once but twice. The delusion is strong in you. I approve.

Oliver Stone's.