No one else is providing means to me for housing and food. I haven't killed anyone or stolen anything. Everyone I work with falls under this description as well. Weird.
And if you don't provide them a means to get housing and food (with jobs), don't be surprised when they murder you and yours and take what you have by violent means. People generally don't starve to death without putting up some kind of fight.
And none of those links actually provide any evidence of public housing itself CAUSING that crime. Making you actually provide evidence for your statements continues to be on-topic.
They are talking about how de-concentrating poverty has not had the effects that were hoped for. That's an entirely different argument.
Do you have any measures that Chicago itself can undertake that you think would address the violence?
Yes. With Chicago's size and influence on the state of IL, they can push their federal representatives to force the issue. The IL reps can filibuster every piece of legislation presented, grinding DC to a halt until the issue of the drug war and it's devastating affect on America, in particular poor minorities, is adequately addressed.
There. I just explained how Chicago can solve the drug war problem.
That is not a realistic solution, and would lead to far-reaching legislative chaos.
That is not a realistic solution, and would lead to far-reaching legislative chaos.
And as we all know, all of the best leaps forward for society have avoided chaos at all costs...
No, it's just that it invites every single state with any issue it wants addressed to hold the entire nation hostage until it gets what it wants. Penny wise, pound foolish.
I fail to see the problem. If we elect people to office who would use such a power over petty issues, then gridlock is what we deserve. We practically have that now with the Republicans filibustering over stupid crap. If we're going to get gridlock, let's at least get something out of the deal.
DANG! California doesn't even have a law like that! I can sell my gun to any psycho I want in cali.
Wrong.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001-09000&file=8100-8108
Not only that but Federal law bars you from doing so.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
Hell, even IL had this one already covered before this stupid law was passed.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...hapterID=53&SeqStart=52200000&SeqEnd=55100000
Edit: Unless you were speaking to enforceability. Then I have no answers.
I can sell it to any unknown psycho I want. Its the law abiding people who do all the damage as soon as they decide to no longer be law abiding. Anyway, whos looking forward to buying a micro stamped gun?
You can. You said there wasn't a law. Also, my edit covers what I figured you were getting at.
Nothing is illegal until you get caught.
I guess my point was that I can sell to someone without a background check. But if I sold to someone who shouldn't have it, then the law is broken anyway so whats the point of the background law? Its like a useless law ontop of a useless law, thus your enforceability comment.
However, I could sell to someone who shouldn't have it without my knowing, and I wouldn't want to do that actually. In this case, I would like a check on the buyer to protect myself from liability or from unknowingly breaking the law. The checks themselves aren't bad, its the slippery slope they are grounded on that's bad.
And you know what's crazy? The government actively refuses to let "regular Joes" into NICS to search. They won't even let FFL03s have access.
They don't want 100% background checks, or they'd open up NICS. They want a backdoor new tax on gun transfers.
And you know what's crazy? The government actively refuses to let "regular Joes" into NICS to search. They won't even let FFL03s have access.
They don't want 100% background checks, or they'd open up NICS. They want a backdoor new tax on gun transfers.
Silly me for thinking they actually gave a shit about public safety. Of course its about money. That actually makes sense. But if they let anyone do checks don't you think people would freak about privacy?
Then why don't they let FFL03s? We go through the same approval process an 01 does.
No one else is providing means to me for housing and food. I haven't killed anyone or stolen anything. Everyone I work with falls under this description as well. Weird.
I realize the conversation moved beyond this, but I have to ask, did you miss where he mentioned jobs?
Because people with gainful employment tend to stay out of trouble.
Did you miss where I mentioned I as well as others aren't provided anything and we aren't killing and stealing?
I have to provide for everything. If I lose my job or don't have one, I go and get a new one, I don't steal and kill in the meantime.
You have jobs, no? And the opportunities for them preceded your getting them?
I didn't miss it. It didn't seem related to the preceding point.
I'm not arguing. I'm agreeing. It doesn't seem right to handicap citizen's ability to view information, and then punish them for it by making them pay money. If they cared about public safety regarding firearms as their primary concern, then it would be an easy fix for the back ground check issue. They could easily set up a website where you could simply get a "yes" or "no" answer regarding a potential buyer at minimal taxpayer expense. The info is already there. A website could simply mirror the latest info.