Mass shootings

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 07:00 PM)Benton Wrote: Which is different than our current trend of saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.... then making it easier for mentally ill and criminals to get guns.

Throw the mentally ill in asylums. Bring them back.

Need a serious course correction for the sake of our communities.

[*bfine32*]

(02-27-2018, 07:00 PM)Benton Wrote: Which is different than our current trend of saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.... then making it easier for mentally ill and criminals to get guns.

Oh, I swing about as left as anyone on gun laws; I think the only subject I lean more to the left on is legalizing marijuana. 

I've always said every citizen should be able to maintain a long rifle on their property with very little regulation; however, you want to take it off your property or you want to purchase a handgun the there should be requirements that includes extreme vetting (ironic huh), training and licensing. 

I understand that this proposal would not stop someone from illegally taking his/her long rifle off their property; but the same could be said for any law we propose. 

  

[Dill]

(02-27-2018, 07:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Throw the mentally ill in asylums.  Bring them back.

Need a serious course correction for the sake of our communities.

How we gonna pay for that?

Maybe you are not old enough to remember when and why the mentally ill were kicked onto the streets.

[Dill]

(02-27-2018, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
Oh, I swing about as left as anyone on gun laws; I think the only subject I lean more to the left on is legalizing marijuana. 

I've always said every citizen should be able to maintain a long rifle on their property with very little regulation; however, you want to take it off your property or you want to purchase a handgun the there should be requirements that includes extreme vetting (ironic huh), training and licensing. 

I understand that this proposal would not stop someone from illegally taking his/her long rifle off their property; but the same could be said for any law we propose.

Welcome to the party, comrade.  Been a long time comin.

[Bengalzona]

(02-27-2018, 07:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Throw the mentally ill in asylums.  Bring them back.

Need a serious course correction for the sake of our communities.

Interesting. I've found that most conservatives generally favor the state or local-monitored private care home systems.

[Benton]

(02-27-2018, 07:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Throw the mentally ill in asylums. Bring them back.

Need a serious course correction for the sake of our communities.

Figure out a way to pay for that and we’ll solve all sorts of problems. Just my opinion, but I think you’d see immediate decreases in drug abuse, homelessness and crimes.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 08:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting. I've found that most conservatives generally favor the state or local-monitored private care home systems.

This is something that will go with the government option on. It was to get the mentally ill off the streets.

I’m ok with private ran asylums as well. Just keep them in.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 09:47 PM)Benton Wrote: Figure out a way to pay for that and we’ll solve all sorts of problems. Just my opinion, but I think you’d see immediate decreases in drug abuse, homelessness and crimes.

Oh I agree with you 100%. I am ready to cut enough to pay for that. . We probably disagree on the cuts.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: How we gonna pay for that?

Maybe you are not old enough to remember when and why the mentally ill were kicked onto the streets.

Cut social security.

[Bengalzona]

(02-27-2018, 10:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Cut social security.

Anybody planning on cutting Social Security had better plan on having Uncle Sam send my a full refund for what I paid in.

Just sayin...

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 10:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Anybody planning on cutting Social Security had better plan on having Uncle Sam send my a full refund for what I paid in.

Just sayin...

I understand. It needs a sunset and a cut off. Not sure how old you are but the effective age needs raised and then cut off. Probably anyone under 45-50 shouldn’t expect it. Maybe raise it to 70-72

[Vas Deferens]

(02-27-2018, 10:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I understand.   It needs a sunset and a cut off.  Not sure how old you are but the effective age needs raised and then cut off.   Probably anyone under 45-50 shouldn’t expect it.   Maybe raise it to 70-72

Convenient.

[Benton]

(02-27-2018, 10:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh I agree with you 100%.   I am ready to cut enough to pay for that.   .  We probably disagree on the cuts.

(02-27-2018, 10:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Cut social security.

Yep. We'd disagree.

Mainly because if you cut SS, you cut the SS tax... which means there's marginal savings there to pay for it.

Cutting SS will save some operational money, but it also cuts out the money that gets stolen out of the fund for Congress spending sprees. Mainly, it's just a great way for "conservative" candidates to look conservative. 'Hey, we're going to save you money by making you not save money. Instead, we're going to deregulate investments and encourage you to put all your money in there... you know, like the roaring 20s!'

You want to fund mental health, you're going to have to tackle spending, not a direct use tax like SS. 

Personally, I'd go with: pull out of the ME, shutter 60% of military bases and close 10% of upper income tax loopholes. Viola! We'd be running a surplus at current tax rates.

[Dill]

(02-27-2018, 10:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I understand.   It needs a sunset and a cut off.  Not sure how old you are but the effective age needs raised and then cut off.   Probably anyone under 45-50 shouldn’t expect it.   Maybe raise it to 70-72

I'm on it right now. I'd give up my guns before I give up my SS.

You aren't taking it away.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-27-2018, 11:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Convenient.

What is that supposed to mean?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-27-2018, 10:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is something that will go with the government option on.  I was the mentally ill off the streets.  

I’m ok with private ran asylums as well.   Just keep them in.

You WERE?!?!  

Well we're glad you're better, though you should probably up the dosage! 

[fredtoast]

No way we are cutting SS.

This is the richest country on earth. People will not stand for the old and disabled being put out on the streets. Especially when Wall Street is pocketing the money many of them saved for retirement.

[*Nately120*]

(02-28-2018, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No way we are cutting SS.

This is the richest country on earth. People will not stand for the old and disabled being put out on the streets.  Especially when Wall Street is pocketing the money many of them saved for retirement.

I think people will stand for it as long as society can paint the people who fall through the cracks as being on the streets due to their own faults, much like we do for anyone who is currently on the streets and/or on the dole.  Even if we are pretty good at caring about people we are even better at assuming people who are in distress are there because they deserve it.

It shouldn't be too hard to convince the average person that anyone (who isn't him, because lord knows we see ourselves as victims of circumstance but rarely give others that benefit) who is destitute at that age should have worked harder, saved more, been nicer to his/her kids so they'd open their doors, etc. Rich people on wall street worked hard for their money. Poor old people on the street street are lazy freeloaders that we finally had the balls to yank out of their tax-fed luxury lifestyle. No more government lobster for you, you lazy jerk. Bank on it!

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 01:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think people will stand for it as long as society can paint the people who fall through the cracks as being on the streets due to their own faults, much like we do for anyone who is currently on the streets and/or on the dole.  Even if we are pretty good at caring about people we are even better at assuming people who are in distress are there because they deserve it.

It shouldn't be too hard to convince the average person that anyone (who isn't him, because lord knows we see ourselves as victims of circumstance but rarely give others that benefit) who is destitute at that age should have worked harder, saved more, been nicer to his/her kids so they'd open their doors, etc.  Rich people on wall street worked hard for their money.  Poor old people on the street street are lazy freeloaders that we finally had the balls to yank out of their tax-fed luxury lifestyle.  No more government lobster for you, you lazy jerk.  Bank on it!

Most people against SS do not paint those people as shiftless bums.  Their claim  either that the govt has no right to do it, or that it's going to collapse.  

[*Nately120*]

(02-28-2018, 01:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Most people against SS do not paint those people as shiftless bums.  Their claim  either that the govt has no right to do it, or that it's going to collapse.  

I don't disagree there, but as soon as they actually end up on the street is when they'll be subject to all the ire we send towards today's garden variety bums.