Ten oz

Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

664 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About Ten oz

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Washington D.C.
  • Interests
    Homebrew, Hiking, Cycling, independent video, politics
  • College Major/Degree
    Armed Forces Resident training
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

13027 profile views
  1. Yay, GUNS!

    Because it is about you? You being alienated, disagreed with, laughed at, and etc. You've made it abundantly clear how you are treated is an important focus. IMO this issue is bigger than how you feel. It has been held back by those who insist on being of all sides while strongly boas to a single side. You own guns, cool, so do loads of people in the U.S.; you're average just like like every body else. No round of applause required. The difference is nuanced but clear. You are arguing for a continuation of the status quo claiming it is a useful approach. It isn't. Less could not be accomplished if we all agreed to do nothing. The way issues are discussed matter. The tone, attitude, and style all matter. You seem to believe that untapped potential exists within the stalest parts of the status qou. I strongly disagree.
  2. Yay, GUNS!

    What steps am I taking and not what steps do I support? Seems you are moving the goal post around a bit. To my knowledge none of us are law makers. For starters Gun Control, Climate, and Abortion are lines in the sand with me. I won't support (Vote for or give money to) candidates that hedge on those issues. I am not one of these willful ignorant types that vote for the "best" candidate is a vacuum from the policies they support. That said I am a voting resident of California. My House rep is Barbra Lee and my Senators are Harris and Feinstein. I am very pleased with them. Have have contributed money to Feinstein several times. She specifically has a very strong position on guns stemming from personal experience. I also contributed money to Harris in 2016 and have written to her.
  3. Yay, GUNS!

    As spoken by so many after every mass shooting for years now. Rinse and repeat.
  4. Yay, GUNS!

    Most kids in High School today will be voting age in 2020. Some will be/are voting age for the midterm this year. It can start now and can involve us.
  5. Yay, GUNS!

    I wish individuals agreeing was always the origin of change. It was national disagreement over Vietnam that ended U.S. participation. Close to the same time frame the South broadly rejected desegregation. Military soldiers had the escort children to school. George Wallace ran for President on Segregation forever and won 5 states outright and nearly 14% of the popular vote. Sometimes one side or the other just loses. Neat and tidy agreements where middle ground is found hasn't always prevailed. It is what we should strive for when possible but it isn't always possible.
  6. Yay, GUNS!

    I have actually never heard anyone advocate for a full on ban of all guns. I do not doubt such calls exist but they are so rare I cannot think of a single Politician, Pundit, Community Leader, or etc who has asked for a full ban on all guns. Which it is part of my point about the tone of this debate. We aren't debating between two extremes: full gun ban (-10) vs unlimited access(+10). Debate is happening from a place where gun ownership is already assured. The sticking points are over whether or not we'll have background checks and what not. If a Zero is middle between the extremes listed above current discussion is between +5 and +10. No matter what the solution is hammered out the unlimited access side will be getting way more of what they want.
  7. Yay, GUNS!

    Yet we already had an assualt rifle ban in place. SCOTUS didn't knock it down Bush let it expire. The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent any of the policy ideas most in here are calling for.
  8. Yay, GUNS!

    The 17 kids in FL certainly were. Perhaps we should focus more on them and their families than on hunters and responsible gun owners who have not contributed anything useful to the issue for decades.
  9. Yay, GUNS!

    I read this as platitude. There is no reason for me to compromise an inch an advance of even 1/10 an inch of progress. As a nation we have acquiesced too much in the name of meeting the other side half way.
  10. Yay, GUNS!

    The way other countries have solved it would be a nonstarter in the U.S..You suggest I am being confrontational now imagine if I was advocating doing what Australia did in 1996, LOL. The gun control discussion in the U.S. is overly sensitive to specific groups. People are dying. As many people die per year in the U.S. by firearms than in auto accidents. We need to have more bluntness in the debate. The tone of discussion needs to meet the level of the problem. I understand that many of us gun owners consider ourselves well-intentioned. It doesn't matter. We have a serious problem in the U.S. and everyone who votes via electing officials who do nothing or with our wallets is support of the industry share blame. I don't see how one side (in this case me) being more worried about alienating the other side (zap) than vice versa is useful. I think we have respectfully listened to more than enough self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners over the decades. Giving a little voice to others can't make anything worse just as continuing down the same rinse and repeat path isn't going to make anything better.
  11. Yay, GUNS!

    You aren't posting about how to solve the problem. You are posting about the way recommendations by others make you a victim. You are disagreeing with my approach much as I am yours yet I've not resorted to pity posts about being alienated. We are all equally entitled to our opinions. You can have yours, some will agree with it and others won't. From the posts I have read of yours on the issue the majority of arguments you've made are ones which have been long repeated for decades. Positions that have been respected and tried for decades and the situation has only worsened. The voices of those who own guns and like guns and believe themselves to be safe responsible gun owners are voices that received copious amounts of influence over this debate. Nothing has gotten better. The arguments and approach you advocate haven't helped. Obviously it is debatable if they've hurt but they clearly haven't helped. Time after time people have bent to their knees and politely asked for the most modest of reforms and been told "over my cold dead body". As John Cuthber linked the current administration rolled back a regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns. That is where we are at; negative progress. I intentionally do not discuss my experience with guns in these discussions. Because whenever a gun debates come up many people first rush to qualify themselves by listing the number of guns they have as if being a gun owner legitimizes ones position. We should not have to first either show support for or apologize to gun owners before we can proceed. Politicians are careful to be photographed with guns. It is unique to gun debates. When we discussing abortion the voices of those who have had them do not dominate discussion. To my knowledge there is not a single elected official in Congress who has admitted to being involved with an abortion. Likewise drug debates. We don't start off debate by having everyone first list all the drugs they've done. Yet gun debates always includes people talking about their guns, their training, and etc. It is a self re-enforcing loop. What I want: a ban on bump stocks to include language that would ban any comparable accessory, universal background checks, law enforcement to be authorized a database to collect information about the distribution and use of guns, a tax on all guns & ammunition to cover the implementation of changes to policy, and just as there are Congressional committees which regularly meet to discuss ethics, education, Armed Services, and etc there should be one for gun violence. I don't want to ban all guns, collect any ones guns, or stop you from owning guns. I want the modest stuff most approve of passed and then discussion to continue as the industry evolves in response to change. This is an interesting question. When Janet Napalitano was Sec.of Homeland Security she released an assessment indicating a threat from domestic grown extremist groups. Republicans aggressively rebuked the assessment claiming it unfairly criticized conservative groups. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/ Since that time we have seen a growing amount of violence related to such groups. From right wing militia members killing police officers in Las Vegas during the Bundy ranch standoff, Dylann Roof (Charleston Church) be a white nationalist sympathizers, the tikki torch Nazis in Chancellorsville, and now this shooting in Florida where the shooter had participated in paramilitary training with a white nationalist group it seems that Napalitano was on to something. However just as the President was careful to not be overly critical of the Nazis is Chancellorsville they is a lot of caution among Republicans to treat white nationalist militias as terror groups because those groups are such staunch supporters of theirs. If those groups were labelled as terrorist organizations in Congress law enforcement agencies like the FBI would have for more latitude to track and investigate them. In connecting the dots with respects to Nikolas Cruz his affiliation with white nationalists in combination with other warnings would have set off more red flags. So I do feel the FBI are being scape-goated a bit for what is actually the failure of Congress to act on the assessments they have been provided by experts.
  12. Yay, GUNS!

    Going into the 2010 midterms Democrats had the majority of the House and Senate well as the White House. In large part to the Tea Party Republicans took control of the House and gained 5 seats in the Senate. Today Republicans control every branch of govt. If not for the Tea Party the supreme court would be majority democrat nominated judges at this point. The Tea Party has been wildly successful at achieve goals conservatives care about. What have I proposed that alienates you? I have said everything should be on the table for negotiation. Why does allowing everything on the table for debate alienate you; it is actually the more inclusive way to do it. Insisting on starting from a compromised position alienates everyone that wants more. Seem best to lay all grievances out. Swap out hunting for driving and what's the difference. Should we buy cars for 10yr olds and start teaching them to drive because they are going to drive one day anyway and when they are teenagers it will be too difficult to teach them?
  13. Yay, GUNS!

    What I posted is in black white for anyone to read. There is no point is debating it. I find it hilarious your response has shrunken down to something entirely superfluous and off topic. The crux of my responses to you have been that entering political discussions from a compromised position has repeated failed. When bargaining the price of something it is stupid for a person to lead off with the absolute most they are willing to pay. Rather one leads off with a price significantly less and are negotiated up. For decades now those who seek change to gun regulations have led off discussion by asking for minimum then end up walking away with nothing. I feel it is time for a stronger approach. Lead off by asking for everything, the maximum everyone in the room can imagine, and then negotiate down from there. Perhaps then the minimum can be achieved rather than nothing at all.
  14. "A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russians and three Russian entities in connection with the attack on the 2016 presidential election. The defendants are "accused of violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes," according to a statement from the special counsel's office. The indictment charges them with "conspiracy to defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft." Some of the people described in the court documents even traveled to the United States or "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with" President Trump's campaign "and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment says." https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/586500591/grand-jury-indicts-russians-linked-to-interference-in-2016-election Now that we have indictments of Russians who interfered with the election and were in communication with Trump's campaign is it possible for this thread to be merged back with Russian Collusion thread? I only ask because I would like to discuss these indictments but honestly am not sure which thread to do it in. I believe the issues have converged.
  15. Yay, GUNS!

    Exactly. We are told to come to the table with the obvious stuff every agrees on. Then after getting to the table light are told "oops looks like we can't get that done, oh well". Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Bump stocks have no purpose other than converting semi automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. Getting a ban on bump stocks should have been easy. One by one Politicians have come to the table with singular non-divisive requests that have majority support in polling and nothing happens. Time to be more aggressive. I didn't say "met". I said bring everything to the table. It is a better negotiating position. If what that leads to is a ban on bumps than great. As it stands now merely asking for a ban on bump stocks alone has led to nothing. I called your feelings redundant. I never said you weren't entitled to them. You're mischaracterizing what I've posted.