“I see the rift between regions hostile to lawful gun owners and regions friendly to our rights only deepening, I’m afraid. We’ve got many areas in California bound and determined to make lawful gun ownership as onerous and expensive as possible, while other states are relaxing their gun laws even further.” – Gwen Patton of Pink Pistols in New Gun Laws Coming in 2017 Tell You All You Need to Know About Who States View as the REAL Threats [via ijr.com]
The true divide in America is urban vs. rural. The vast majority of Americans today have no idea where their food comes from and couldn’t survive a day without a government providing for their every need. Their worldview is created by the urban mass media that portrays rural people as ignorant, rather than self-reliant.
Recent Presidential election notwithstanding, our population is now so urbanized that they have the political power to tell us all how to live.
Government telling us how to live our lives plays a large part in removing responsibility from the population. But in truth, people living in urban areas have less control over their own lives no matter what government does. They’re more likely to be hurt by a recession. Picture the mechanic in a small town vs someone at an assembly plant in Detroit. They’re less likely to own their house, there’s less room for gardening, they’re less likely to have space to hunt, they’re less likely to own a car even. It’s a bi-product of having less space per person.
The sad thing is governments over larger cities almost always get elected on the message that they will control the landlords, the gangs, the business owners, ect. Which further removes people from reality.
Governments know very well that as the inexorable trend towards urbanization continues, they need to control the population – fast. They need to dumb them down, get them compliant, disarm them, and instill the group think that Big Brother is the only one who can help them.
It’s been working so far.
The problem with government in general is almost no one of any station voluntarily takes less power for themselves. This is the case no matter your lot in life. But with governments, your power is directly over other people. You write taxes, set laws that everyone should live by ect. Our founding fathers looked at the ridiculous levels of government in England and tried to set the Constitution to eliminate or at least slow the process of our government growing that absurd. However, if you want to talk about what’s inexorable… it’s the growth both in size and power of all governments everywhere.
I think a majority of the problems in the country are urban problems.
Gun violence: Urban problem.
Racial tensions: Urban problem.
Can’t live off $10 per hour: Urban problem.
Democrats: Urban problem.
And then they try to force urban solutions to urban problems onto the rural communities and it works out about as well as you would expect.
$10 an hour??? Ok…where in our country does that cover rent/house payment (not to mention the deposits to get started), utilities, car payment, car/home/health/life insurance, groceries for the family, and all the things that break down and/or wear out at the worst possible time, etc.? Personally, I don’t know what the answer to the minimum wage question is. But I’m pretty sure $10 ain’t it.
Um… Right here. Plenty of people earn $10 per hour. It’s entirely possible to live off that if you… you know, budget properly. I’ve never earned more than $10.50 in my life, and yes. I’m single, but I’m sure I could find a work around to low wages if I had a wife.
Reggie Browning,
I disagree. A person who works full time (176 hours per month == 22 working days per month x 8 hours per day) and makes $10 per hour only makes $1,760 per month. But … and a HUGE “but” at that … you have to subtract TAXES from that $1,760 per month. Even assuming that federal income tax is effectively zero, state income tax, state sales tax, state property tax, and federal F.I.C.A. are going to total at least 20%. So, that gross income of $1,760 is going to translate into $1,408 per month. Even as an individual, that is not enough money to pay for housing, heat/electric, transportation, and food … not to mention clothing, repairs, furniture, healthcare, and retirement savings.
If you increase that 50% and allow for supplemental assistance in the form of serious gardening, fishing, hunting, and who knows what else, that is doable albeit a meager existence.
You’re assuming housing costs are all the same. I used to live (I ended up moving back in with my parents for a while due to life reasons.) in a tiny little apartment that was basically the size of a single room… Actually it was. It was the kitchen of a house that the landlord converted into 3 apartments. I paid only $475 per month, and that covered all the utilities including heating. My job also included a bit of overtime (I could volunteer for all kinds of overtime if I wanted.) which did boost my pay. My job did include some basic health insurance so that wasn’t a problem. My truck is an ancient used car so there were no payments. There is no tax on food in Ohio and you only need a couple of thousand calories per day. Basically, you learn how to stretch a dollar, you cut back on luxuries, internet pretty much being my only luxury while living there, and you can have a meager existence on $10 per hour.
Of course, I was not saving for retirement or anything like that.
Hell, I wish I’d made more than $10 an hour most my life. No, ’twasn’t easy to raise kids and pay for the house, but I did it without any help from people making more than I (with exception of my employers, that is). Hell, I built bathrooms that cost more than my three acres and house, and was a highly-paid ‘professional’ in my area.
I know a lot of people who tell me they can’t make ends meet on $15-20 an hour and I laugh at them with the simple comment, “Then stop being stupid with your money.”
No, I ain’t livin’ high off the hog in retirement, but I saved enough to get by doing the things I want to do, so get off your high horse and stop tellin’ me people can’t do what I did.
I’ve lived all over the place so I know that housing costs are not the same. The problem with making $10/hour is that while you can do it in the short term, especially when you have the safety net of moving back in with mom and dad, it’s not sustainable.
Over a long enough timeline something will come along that will, quite literally, bankrupt you if you’re living on $10/hour.
Example: About two months ago I was diagnosed as having a lazy pancreas (I don’t make quite enough insulin which was never a problem when I was active every single day but I got a bit lazy going back to school). In other words, at the time I was a diabetic. Now, that shit’s already under control with a mild increase in exercise and some other lifestyle changes. However, that first month by itself cost me $3000 out of pocket. No chances for payment plans. Nothing like that. Fork it over or you don’t get what you need. Fuck this up and we’ll have to cut your feet off in a few years type shit. The pharmacy ain’t just gonna hand you a $200 glucometer and $140 worth of test strips for the month. The doctors don’t do their work for free, neither do the labs that test your blood.
On top of that, for the next four to eight months I will have to pay ~$150 for my supplies (if I don’t break anything) and $100 to see a doctor every month. Plus I have to get lab tests every three months to verify that I’m not lying to the doctors, that’s another $50. All these costs are with insurance BTW, for which I pay $580/month. Just to “monitor” my condition costs $800 every three months, $3200 a year. Combine that with the up front costs and you’re talking $6200 for your first year and that’s if you’re as lucky as I am. If you’re not you can add a few grand to that cost. At $10/hour the up front cost on this mild version of diabetes is gonna run you 15.5 full work weeks.
By the time we’re done here we’re talking $13,160/year. 32.9 work weeks at 40 hours.
For sure, the question is is the move towards urbanization is planned and controlled? There seem to be some strong evidence that is the case. Urban people as you have said are less independent and self sufficient….easier to control large groups of people in crowded setting vs more self sufficient people spread out?
Then please explain why states with strict gun laws have crime, murder and suicide rates lower than “pro-gun” states.
“Pro-gun” states have higher incidents of violent crime, murders and suicides. The only reason criminals in “strict law” states get guns is because they smuggled them from lax law states. The very same lax law states that refuse to address their problems as I mentioned above. Oh and “pro-gun” states with high gun ownership are known to even cook/fudge their statistics to make it seem like crimes are “low” when it really is not.
I suggest Ms.Patton look at countries that have passed laws like Europe, Canada, Singapore, Japan and especially Australia as these countries have watched their crime rates and suicide rates go down instead of “up” when they passed gun laws to protect the freedoms and rights of their own people and not trample on them by increasing ownership of guns. Most of these countries have not falling for debunked manure that “More guns, Equals less crime.”
Owning a gun is a false illusion of safety and you or a loved one are statistically more likely to have your own weapon used on yourself or a loved one than stopping a criminal attack.
Saying Japan has a good suicide rate = lie.
Saying it has seen a reduced suicide rate because of gun laws = double ultra lie.
Someone help me out….does listing Yahoo as your website in the comment section somehow add legitimacy to your trolling?
Then go live in Japan, troll.
Chicago, IL.
heyjackass.com has a nice annual breakdown.
“especially Australia as these countries have watched their crime rates and suicide rates go down instead of “up” when they passed gun laws ”
LUULLLZZZZZZZ
Explain how our murder and crime rates have gone down dramatically more in the same time period during a historical expansion of gun rights.
Protip: you can’t protect freedom and rights by telling citizens what they’re not allowed to do.
Seriously if you’re not even going to do basic factchecking on your copypasta why do you even try? Does Watts pay you per post? Do I need to remind you yet again how you criticized the lax gun laws in “New Vermont”?
Every statement you have made is easily and quickly debunked with even the most cursory research. Your statements do not stand the test of logic or history. At least pretend you’re not totally full of shit and cite some sources.
Raise your game, our trolling standards are a little higher here.
You could have saved yourself some time:
Then please explain why Vermont, which has essentially no gun laws whatsoever, perpetually has the lowest violent crime rate in the entire United States.
Remember, anyone who does not have a felony criminal record and is at least 16 years old can legally carry a firearm, openly or concealed, everywhere in Vermont (except schools), without any government vetting, permission, or licensing. Anyone can purchase a firearm in a private transaction without any government vetting, permission, or licensing. And anyone with a clean criminal record can purchase a firearm from any firearms dealer with nothing more than a federal background check and no additional vetting, permission, or licensing. And yet the violent crime rate in Vermont is effectively nil.
Where da fuckin hood at?
RAetc:. Let’s agree to disagree.
Everyone else: can we please stop feeding this one, at least? There’s no “there” there with this one.
what we need is trend tracking: Is Chicagos crime rate getting better or worse? Californias? New Hampshires?
…and then you convince politicians to observe the tracked trends and go in the direction of the states where the crime rate is not increasing.
I have to wonder what would happen if you tracked the musical tastes of the accused. would there be a trend of jazz fans doing more crimes than country boys, or opera fans dusting hip hop listeners…
It’s hard to reconcile the differences, unfortunately. That’s why we need to move toward empowering regional government. I honestly don’t have a problem with municipalities having firearms restrictions…I don’t think it’s effective, but I’d rather good people of New York City to give up their own rights and not muck up the entire country. There are increasingly fewer one size fits all legislative solutions to issues, the more we try and force the urban and rural to act the same the worse the divide will get.
“I honestly don’t have a problem with municipalities having firearms restrictions…”
Except, “…shall not be infringed.” Now if municipalities want to make it illegal to actually shoot inside the city without a damned good reason, that’s another question entirely.
As far as the question of urban dwellers giving up their own rights there is absolutely nothing stopping them from not owning guns. They just can’t demand that NOBODY owns guns.
Granted…but facing political realities I’d take not have to face off against bans on the national level ad nauseum every couple years. Desperately need to return to a state over federal system and that there in itself will fix th bulk of problems.
“If” and “when” the states acknowledge and abide by the Bill of Rights.
What you are saying is this:
It’s unconstitutional for the federal government to infringe on our rights, and I don’t want it to do that.
It’s unconstitutional for local governments to infringe on our rights, but I’m OK with that.
Your rights are infringed in each scenario, but one is OK with you, and the other is not.
Six of one…
“Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?”
I propose that it’s not gun control or a lack of gun control that leads to gun violence. Everyplace in America with high gun violence has poor education rates and high poverty rates.
Switzerland and Japan for instance both have extremely low rates of gun violence. In Switzerland, everyone serves in the military for a couple years and then goes home with their rifle. They have the highest percentage of gun owning households in Europe. Japan has banned guns almost completely and has among the lowest gun ownership rates in the world. Yet both have almost no gun violence. It’s because both countries have above average education and below average poverty.
Gun control is not the answer to gun violence. Sound economic choices is the answer. Getting teachers who want to teach and aren’t bound to teaching a test is the answer. Two parent households setting a good example and teaching their kids how to act right is the answer.
Please don’t try to suggest that being ignorant and poor makes you violent. Being ignorant and poor doesn’t make you abuse your children, rape women, vandalize property or ingest addictive drugs. Yet all those behaviors are common in our inner-cities.
Conversely, there are rural areas where the median income is just as low and jobs just as scarce (e.g. former coal mining areas in Appalachia). These areas don’t not have crime problems approaching the magnitude of impoverished urban areas.
The liberals have been trying to solve crime problems for generations, by giving money and free education to the poor. It hasn’t worked.
There is a correlation that the libtards erroneously believe to be causation. Truth is, our inner-cities are violent for the same reasons they are uneducated and poor. They are raised in morally vacuous areas, devoid of the values needed to become productive and self-sufficient.
Being ignorant and poor doesn’t make someone violent. Being wealthy and educated doesn’t make someone a good person or stop them from being a criminal. But would you REALLY like to deny that areas with poor education and high poverty have higher crime rates including violent crime? Unless you’d like to cite me some areas with significant poverty and poor education with below average rates of crime….
BTW, I listed some means for reducing crime. Can you please highlight and point out where I said anything even related to giving free money to the poor? I’d appreciate it.
“But would you REALLY like to deny that areas with poor education and high poverty have higher crime rates including violent crime?”
I didn’t deny the correlation. I actually wrote that there is a correlation.
You did not endorse welfare for crime reduction. But if you look at a correlation and assume causation, and make the inference that ignorance and poverty cause crime, then the left wing will jump on that and propose more welfare. Giving away other people’s money is the only thing they know how to do.
Let’s make a different assumption. Let’s assume that people become criminals for the same reason they become poor, for the same reason they become uneducated. They make poor choices.
In fact, I think the welfare state plays a huge part in creating crime. People only get food stamps so long as they don’t improve their lives? Section 8 housing is free if you make no money, but costs you if you do? Subsidies from the ACA is only available to those who make under a certain dollar amount?
If there is no government assistance, then people actively work to try to improve their lives. But once you say to someone “We’ll give you money, but only if you aren’t self sufficient”, then people have to weigh taking a new job vs losing their government paycheck.
What happens to a person who grows up in a single household family dependent on welfare? What do you think? More likely to hold down a job and be a productive member of society or less? Poverty stricken areas with poor education almost ALWAYS have higher crime. Guaranteeing money to people who don’t work isn’t anywhere near what I was calling for. Throwing money into school systems that abuse it and don’t raise education standards isn’t anywhere near what I was calling for.
What I was doing is offering empirical evidence that areas and countries with high education have lower crime rates including violence and gun violence. And pointing out that areas with high poverty and low education have high crime rates including gun violence. What I was doing is offering proof that gun control DOES NOT AFFECT CRIME. Somehow that truth is too much for at least one person
Timothy
President Johnson replaced black fathers with government money in the 1960s.
Now generations of black children have grown up without a father to guide them and, have been prevented from owning guns because they lived in gun free zone government housing.
Blacks and many others are hooked on “free stuff” and “free money” from the government.
That is how the government controls people.
Donald Trump can’t end the welfare state slavery system. But if he made the states completely responsible for welfare, let them run it and make their own rules, the situation would greatly improved for everyone on welfare.
Also Trump can end the gun free zones in public housing.
Most states would put limits and restrictions on welfare use. And stop interfering in the private lives of consenting adult poor people, by telling women they can’t have a husband, but they can have several children from different boy friends.
I would love to see restrictions on welfare. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you’ll feed him for life. Convince a man you’ll steal other people’s fishes to feed him forever and he’ll vote Democrat.
I don’t have a problem with social programs that provide a hand up. WIC and unemployment benefits are targeted and limited, helping vulnerable people during a transition phase. Permanent welfare like ACA subsidies, food stamps, and section 8 housing that you can only get by not bettering your life really gets under my skin
Urbanites should be restricted to One Child Per Parent, No Exceptions.
US violence is primarily urban and mostly caused by urban overpopulation and poor/non-existent parenting.
Commie much?
That’s why everyone needs to take their state and put an “exit” at the end of it. (Sorry guys) but it would be entertaining to watch California self implode in economic collapse all the while rural Californians shoot back (literally) at inner city totalitarians, who want to dictate their rural counterpart lives.
And out of the brimstone and ash, the self reliant will emerge.
I was born and raised in California. The Marijuana intoxication legalization leadership was never pro 2A. And to this day they are still anti-gun civil rights.
The homosexual elected leadership had only one person who was Pro 2A. Harvey Milk, was the only open homosexual elected to pubilc office who supported gun civil rights.
The elected homosexual leadership is anti-civil rights when it come to guns and most of the Bill of Rights. They are all “F” rated by the NRA.
The proud gay white man Jim Gray in Kentucky who lost against the libertarian Rand Paul, said in a gay publication he was glad to have his father’s guns. He just did not want me or other kentuckians to have guns.
But you are free to choose as christians and libertarians say, to vote for people who support what is most important to you.
And gun rights have never been important to homosexuals and pot smokers.
You got exactly what you wanted.
Christians are not killing homosexuals nor have they. It is your projection that is the cause here.
The people you support are importing thousands of Muslims into California and the rest the this country. Build a wall Mr. Trump and ban Muslims from coming here. No human has a right to travel to America.
Other than the Log Cabin Republicans, only Milo seems to be the only sane gay person on the public stage.
The Pink Pistols have said Gavin Newsom is a “nice man”. This is why I say they are a compromised gun rights group.
The second amendment is number two on a list of the most important things to every American.
But there are a lot of people who don’t understand this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4uQJ6_00so
At least one gay gun owner voting republican so they can keep their guns. Also Bernie Goetz, all from 10 years ago.
“Gavin Newsom is a good man”, This kind of warped thinking of homosexual gun owners in the state of California will put Gavin Newsom in the governors house.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article70333992.html
Jim gray a proud gay white man, the mayor of Lexington KY.
http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/6/21/jim-gray-testing-gun-control-way-unseat-republicans
“I see the rift between regions hostile to lawful gun owners and regions friendly to our rights only deepening, I’m afraid.”
Gwen is 100 percent correct on that observation. The political polarization is stark. We’re not interested in modifying our position, and the Progressives are currently hell-bent on doubling-down on Progressiveness.
The Prog’s losses in Washington DC is nothing like the losses they are seeing recently in the State houses and Governorships.
I recall a few years back reading of a conversation with a Progressive. The ‘gist’ of it was the Prog was asked why they were taking a position on an issue that will be devastating to the blue-collar working class. The Prog told them they didn’t need the middle class any more.
I *highly* recommend reading this article from ‘Zero Hedge’, it’s eye-opening, to say the least:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-01/how-george-soros-destroyed-democratic-party
Americans who live in rural areas and the suburbs need to stop stereotyping people who live in cities. Go meet some, talk to them, learn to understand them and their daily lives. You’ll find a lot more in common than you’d expect. Hell the GOP just elected the most urban (NY), rich (BILLIONS), global elite (BIZ ALL OVER WORLD) president ever. It’s not a real complaint. This “divide” is a creation by people who want to sell you goods or some sort of policy. Quit falling for it.
Jay,
Yes, people are people. Unfortunately, that includes the bad as well as the good (and the ugly if you like Westerns).
In my experience people in urban enclaves espouse many positions that conflict with people outside of urban enclaves. Wishing it away is not an effective strategy.
The real question to ask is, “Why do people in urban enclaves espouse so many positions that conflict with people outside of those urban enclaves?”
Jay, I have many friends and relatives who live in urban areas. They are good people who never stop to think of how dependent they are on their government. They get up in the morning and flush their toilet with municipal water. They ride public transportation to work, and play frisbee in the city park down the block.
From building codes to health inspections, every facet of their lives is scrutinized, regulated and taxed by local government.
And even though large cities tend to have many more police officers per capita than rural areas, they’ll demand more of them if they ever get victimized by the local thugs. The idea of being personally responsible for their own safety never crosses their minds.
Progressives have always been pushing their altruism, fantasy, and emotion. The really relevant question is this: how did we get to where we are today?
Answer: Progressives have inundated corporate Board Rooms, Big Money entertainment (Acting and Sports), Academia, and Urban Politics in recent decades which gave them a pulpit to broadcast their message with an air of legitimacy. Furthermore, recent advances of their agenda have emboldened and energized them into thinking that they truly were on the enlightened path to nirvana. Why would they abandon that trajectory?
Like all other Progressive failures, Progressives will attribute any failures to an insufficient implementation of Progressive doctrine and double down.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what it will take to reverse those trends. Perhaps the whole thing is self-correcting. It would certainly explain the recent election results.
the problem isn’t rural vs urban or anything else. its the INformed vs the UN-informed. that is the fight that we have always fought and always will. that is why conversing with the UN-informed is of the UTMOST importance. once you realize WHO it is you are actually fighting with, you can then form a efficient plan to address the problem: most of these people have never had to think for themselves before. So when we start to question the logic they are trying to form in their minds, that is deeply flawed, they get really pissed. Because they are frustrated that they can’t figure it out and come to the same rational conclusions that everyone else has. So it makes them feel ostracized. Which makes them even more volatile.
One of the first things we should do is find a common ground with them, like: we all want LESS homicides in our society.
Then you have to establish a base line of information. As in “do you think criminals care about laws”. if you can both agree on “no” to that question, then you can branch out from that agreed starting point to more poignant questions and eventually get around to things like DGU’s vs firearms homicides and you are your first responder.
As Robert and many others have stated, the ONLY way our argument will ever be settled is to PERSONALLY engage with these people in a civil, respectful, and informed angle. Emotions are a powerful tool and the liberals know that all to well. We should also use emotions, in appropriate ethical ways, to make these people see the error of their ways.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
If we dont try to change their minds, their minds most likely will never change.
Unless they ALL seem to get mugged, that usually wakes them up.