jac

Last active
2 months, 3 weeks ago
  • jac commented on the diary post …to those he favours by jac.

    2013-08-27 14:43:54View | Delete

    Thanks for reading. It is sad that such anger has and does proliferate from various religions based on the words of Christ. His words… turn the other cheek… and the meek shall inherit the earth… were meant to teach a change in human reaction from the previous millennium of… an eye for an eye. I [...]

  • jac wrote a new diary post: …to those he favours

    2013-08-25 08:52:56View | Delete
    A few days ago, the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. Justice Richard C. Bosson, at the end of his specially concurring opinion, wrote these two paragraphs… On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation [...]
  • We’re in a battle for all the rights generations of our parents and grandparents suffered and in some cases died to insure for us. Today’s conservative would like nothing more than to reverse the entire body of one-hundred-fifty years of hard won victories. They’ve truly been the minority for decades-ridding the apathy of so many [...]

  • jac commented on the blog post Logic goes down in a hail of gunfire

    2013-05-01 09:55:53View | Delete

    I hope she doesn’t :-)

    It’s a great starting point, but strengthening background checks are just one of many gun laws in need of reform.

  • jac wrote a new diary post: Dive In… Saving Humanity

    2013-04-17 18:13:14View | Delete

    The culmination of twenty years of planning, thirty years ago evil crept into power in America.  Words, twisted and corrupted, were used to puff out the chests of middle class white men.  Fear, just as twisted and corrupted, was used to make the same demographic willingly fill the pockets of bankers with their riches. The last three decades are glowingly [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-14 14:19:44View | Delete

    justasking, I’ve tried to answer your questions. Some questions don’t have answers, but I’ll try again. I’m responding to reply 47 below, don’t damn me if you don’t see an answer to one of your earlier replies. Paragraphs 1-4 1) Yes. No. 2) & 3) & 4) I answered in reply 40, but I’ll restate. [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-14 12:09:37View | Delete

    Assault weapons are one point in gun law reform, which is multifaceted.

    In my article I talk about background checks in the context of how voices change the direction or twist the conversation into something it isn’t.

    Very similar, incidentally, to your comment.

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-14 07:20:48View | Delete

    As long as privacy is maintained and breeches of trust are prosecuted. Employer’s already do background checks and job seeker’s prospects have always been at their whim. I know a recruiter that would disqualify anyone not driving an American car. It’s too easy to say, “It had nothing to do with her credit report, her [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-14 04:34:39View | Delete

    Wayne LaPierre and Ted Cruz come to mind. Both, I believe, only play roles for money. Talk is cheap, of course no one will say, “Well, I for one think gun violence is a good thing” (except in private, like the gun manufacture’s), but when it comes time to sit and decide they can’t walk [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 21:00:28View | Delete

    Why is it considered such a heavy lift? People see problems, people talk about problems, people make decisions, people implement decisions, problems go away or people try again. When one or more side refuses to or can’t see problems nothing gets done. From what I see, Washington isn’t getting anything done because a few people [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 20:46:14View | Delete

    I give a damn about gun violence everywhere and have for a very long time. I also believe that it wasn’t any particular event, but the conversations that began after each event that pushed the majority of American’s to begin mobilizing for gun law reform. The movement isn’t only about assault weapons, or magazines, or [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 20:07:02View | Delete

    So, if the law has teeth it’s stupid and if it doesn’t have teeth it’s stupid… isn’t that convenient for gun enthusiast’s? Are you saying we shouldn’t limit magazine size because magazines jam easy? I don’t know what Sen. Sanders believes about guns, but I do know that the majority of American’s who want to [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 19:50:58View | Delete

    I think the dialogue alone in the last four month has changed the way the country thinks about guns and that is the most important part of gun law reform; changing the culture. Today in that different gun culture we’ve created maybe Nancy Lanza would think twice about having a house full of weapons, so, [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 18:56:58View | Delete

    Honest background checks would have zero loopholes. My ideal would be; no gun could be sold or given away without one.

    The dialogue on reforming any gun law is the important step because it announces that every side believes gun violence is unacceptable even if not accepting it means making changes to our gun culture.

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 13:36:08View | Delete

    I used the sexual assault imagery because I honestly felt violated after reading Erick’s fantasy. Perhaps, not in the black and white way you wished, but I did answer. How do we know…. justasking, maybe with a change in the way we look at gun law, which would include honest background checks, Nancy Lanza might [...]

  • jac commented on the diary post The Absurd Reality of Conservatism, the Second Amendment and Gun Law Reform by jac.

    2013-04-13 12:26:07View | Delete

    I did quote from the email and Erick’s article. The e-mail catch line is verbatim in my article. Here’s the pertinent sentence in Erick’s article. “Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.” Isn’t it obvious he’s using fantasy [...]

  • ThumbnailThis week, in Thursday’s “RedState” subscriber e-mail, Erick Erickson, the Conservative Christian pundit, told his followers that if Congress passes the bipartisan deal to expand background checks, hashed out by Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey, it will lead to the federal government taking the guns of everyone  “…who believe in the physical resurrection of [...]

  • jac commented on the blog post Quinnipiac: Support for Gun Control Remains Strong

    2013-04-05 20:30:33View | Delete

    The article and all of my responses on this thread have to do with reforming gun laws. I never mentioned any mass shooting and the article’s only mention was to use Sandy Hook as a measurement of time.

    I’m concerned with reforming gun law, period. I believe smart, consistent and logical reform of the gun laws in this country is long, long, long overdue and the overwhelming majority of American’s believe the same thing. My point on this thread is that even on the one part of gun law reforms that the least amount of us agree, there’s still a majority in favor of an assault weapons ban.

    Overall, I don’t focus on one type of firearm or one measure to help reduce gun violence. An assault weapons ban is only one step towards reforming gun law. Just like the example you used, automobiles, we need gun registration, licensing, inspection, insurance, education and training. Drivers are trusted to make the correct decisions only after they have met society’s demands for their own safety and that of others. Why should gun owners be any different?

  • jac commented on the blog post Quinnipiac: Support for Gun Control Remains Strong

    2013-04-05 18:06:33View | Delete

    You’re correct, the sentence I wrote about motivation is poorly written; I tried to clarify that in the next post. What I meant was when you pick up a tool you have a motivation.

    I stand by my opinion that assault weapons are designed as people killers; not hunting weapons. I’m not sure knives were originally designed to kill, but given that they were as you say, we can agree that they have dual purpose. I have no problem with single or limited number round weapons that have been designed to be lightweight, comfortable, accurate and reliable hunting rifles.

    Just to be clear, my opinions aren’t based on emotion, neither am I misinformed. If the simple act of recording or spreading or amplifying words with a quill pen, or press, or internet was in and of itself dangerous then NO I wouldn’t think free speech rights were trampled if those means were regulated. Even the conservative Scalia has said that restrictions to the Second Amendment are constitutional.

    Keep a gun under your pillow or next to your bed if you’re in such fear of an attacker; keep ten if that’s what makes you feel better. I believe owning a gun is up to you. How they are regulated is up to society and in that the majority rule.

  • jac commented on the blog post Quinnipiac: Support for Gun Control Remains Strong

    2013-04-05 13:27:54View | Delete

    This is unadulterated nonsense. You’re basically saying an inanimate object has the ability to influence people towards murder. This is like saying that the availability of abortion makes women promiscuous. If what you say had any veracity at all, in a nation with upwards of 300 million privately-owned firearms we wouldn’t be seeing one or two mass shooters in a year, we’d be seeing one or two a day.

    I didn’t basically say that at all. What I’m saying is that the designed intent of these weapons is to kill fellow humans. I’m saying that if they are used for some sort of recreation they are being misused and if you follow the logic just a bit further… it’s like hammering a nail with a pipe wrench. Though, the pipe wrench may work on a nail or two that was not the driving motivation behind the design.

    If the majority believes something false, that thing is still false. If we let ourselves be subjected to the whims of the majority every time they joined together to oppose anything, we’d still be living under racial segregation, women wouldn’t be able to vote, English would be the only permissible language, Christianity would be the only permissible religion, abortion would be illegal, medical marijuana wouldn’t be a thing anywhere and we would never see marriage equality happen, ever. The tyranny of the majority doesn’t stop being tyranny when it serves your goals.

    And, here, you’re wrong again. I think you meant to phrase it differently, but I got your point. The majority rule, that’s just the way it is; get over it. In America, the rights of the minority are protected, but none of your unalienable rights are being denied if you’re not allowed to own assault/military style weapons and it is certainly NOT tyranny for the majority to make the laws.

    Again, I never implied or stated that the weapon influences the user. Though, I would like to know what all the uproar is about. Why are these weapons so important to you? I’ve heard some very illogical answers to that question, ranging from roving bands of marauders to overthrowing the government. Why don’t guns that aren’t assault/military style serve your needs?

  • Load More