Not the desired macho image. They may be drummed out of Texas and have to wear beanies instead of cowboy hats...
14 students, 1 teacher dead after shooting at Texas elementary school: Gov. Abbott
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
GOP senate candidate J. D. Vance blames porn and lack of Christian values for the Texas shooting.
www.huffpost.com
In his statement on the Uvalde school shooting, Vance cited the absence of strong family values — and not the lack of gun control — to explain why a gunman would murder 19 children and two teachers.
“We need to address the culture of fatherlessness and drug addiction in our country, focus on the importance of family so that our next generation is guided and empowered with strong support systems,” Vance said.
The “Hillbilly Elegy” author’s attitude on porn may be a throwback to the social conservatism that defined the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “War on Porn.” Those in favor of restricting access to porn now cite the nation’s declining birth rate, the potential to promote sex trafficking and the “common good.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who endorsed Vance, hasn’t explicitly called for a porn ban. But at last year’s National Conservative Conference, Hawley argued that porn and masturbation were creating a national crisis for men.
“Again, we made a political choice that the freedom to consume pornography was more important than the public goods, like marriage and family and happiness,” he continued. “We can’t ignore the fact that we made that choice and we shouldn’t shy away from the fact that we can make new choices in the future.”
J.D. Vance: Ban Porn To Save Families
The Ohio Senate candidate told a Catholic magazine in 2021 that porn should be restricted to help an "isolated" generation thrive.
In his statement on the Uvalde school shooting, Vance cited the absence of strong family values — and not the lack of gun control — to explain why a gunman would murder 19 children and two teachers.
“We need to address the culture of fatherlessness and drug addiction in our country, focus on the importance of family so that our next generation is guided and empowered with strong support systems,” Vance said.
The “Hillbilly Elegy” author’s attitude on porn may be a throwback to the social conservatism that defined the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “War on Porn.” Those in favor of restricting access to porn now cite the nation’s declining birth rate, the potential to promote sex trafficking and the “common good.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who endorsed Vance, hasn’t explicitly called for a porn ban. But at last year’s National Conservative Conference, Hawley argued that porn and masturbation were creating a national crisis for men.
“Again, we made a political choice that the freedom to consume pornography was more important than the public goods, like marriage and family and happiness,” he continued. “We can’t ignore the fact that we made that choice and we shouldn’t shy away from the fact that we can make new choices in the future.”
GOP Platform Identifies Pornography As A National Public Health Crisis
As opposed to, say, guns.
According to Goodwin, the stronger language, identifying porn as a “public health crisis,” was pushed by a North Carolina delegate named Mary Forrester at the behest of the conservative Christian group Concerned Women for America. This quite a step beyond what the 2012 GOP platform document had to say about pornography, which I can quote in its entirety:
Whether or not pornography can be considered an “insidious epidemic,” as Forrester argues, I’d wager that it hasn’t really been the most pressing concern for most Americans lately ― nor has it made many headlines. Of course, one public health crisis that has made headlines, and that does have a lot of Americans feeling sick and scared and helpless, is gun violence ― especially in the form of mass shootings, which have surged even as overall gun violence has declined.
How do we reconcile the rise in mass shootings with the larger, more encouraging downturn in gun violence? And would it be possible, perhaps, to address mass shootings from a health policy perspective? Might that possibly be an avenue worth exploring if it means we could prevent even one more life from being brutally abbreviated?
That would seem like an area ripe for public health research. Unfortunately, government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are legally barred from doing it, thanks to this thing called the Dickey Amendment.
Back in 1993, research funded by the CDC found its way into the public consciousness in the form of a New England Journal of Medicine article titled “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.” As the American Psychological Association’s Christine Jamieson notes, “The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide.” It also “concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”
You’ll never guess what happened next! Unless you’ve already guessed that the National Rifle Association aggressively lobbied to shut down this kind of research, in which case, congratulations.
The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget ― the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year ― and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”
In 2013, President Barack Obama attempted to get the CDC back to researching gun violence by executive order. However, the chilling effect of the Dickey Amendment, combined with Congress’ unwillingness to provide dedicated funding, has kept the CDC on the sidelines. Reopening the CDC’s ability to lead research efforts remains a dead letter in the current legislative climate.
And if you thought that maybe the GOP platform committee is just starting with pornography and plans to work its way up to mass shootings ― well, it sure doesn’t seem to be trending in that direction:
GOP platform committee now debating what "junk food" is. oreos vs chocolate covered oreos.
Elsewhere in the GOP’s platform document, the committee has approved language in support of “gay conversion therapy,” a quasi-religious bit of pseudo-science premised on the idea that homosexuality can be “cured” by “praying away the gay.” Given that prayer is the same means by which many Republicans typically try to solve the problem of mass slaughter, we can at least give them points for consistency.
Apparently, some of the officers wanted to storm the room but were under orders to stand down.
Sounds like you also need to take a firearms course and do the research behind gun sales. Gun owners are a wide cross section of the population in the U.S. because it's part of their culture, and LEGAL gun owners have a higher likelihood of being more law abiding.
GET SOME!! The Jerry Miculek Story - YouTube
Civilian concealed carry holders are less likely to commit a crime than an American police officer. It is actually the Democratic party that drives the sales because their control proposals keep backfiring. That's why Obama was the greatest gun salesman in U.S. history. Do your research on the number of gun manufacturers that went bankrupt under GOP rule, like Remington and Colt. Also look up how ammo sales slumped.
Is the NRA corrupt? I would say yes.
Should the U.S. be addressing the underlying issue of poor mental health care instead of trying gun control, which backfires every single time? Probably.
Will anything change? Probably not.
Last edited:
Apparently, some members want to contaminate every mass shooting attack with the January 6th incident.
Some members have no problem with hypocritical stances and need to be called out. To some of them, everything is the fault of lefties.
Assuming 99.9% of american gun owners are great guys and totally sane and law-abiding, how many gun-owning assholes and psychos are there out there? 100,000? 300,000? America's a big country.
So shouldn't there be a check on potential gun owners to make sure that that 1% doesn't go and murder 19 kids one afternoon?
If the "firearms course" can help me with my math, let me know.
A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people at a party.
abcnews.go.com
May 26, 2022
Police: Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd
Authorities say a woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people at a party
abcnews.go.com
May 26, 2022
The 2nd itself isn't. The GOP and the extreme conservative judges they appoint are though.
The expression "well regulated" has been consistently used to place limits on who can own, what they can own, and where they can carry. All that needs to be done is to move the line a little.
Criminals are already banned from gun ownership. That can just be adjusted to include anyone being tried for a violent crime and people under need of emergency mental health care.
A gun is a tool. It has no conscience. It can be used for both good and evil. If you were Ukrainian, you would be scouring the country to get your hands on one to defend your country.
How many people drive? How many driving assholes and psychos are out there that drive drunk and kill people? More people die from fatal collisions in my city than homicides on a consistent basis. As well, there are on average 150 drunk drivers a month who receive a 90 day prohibition for driving drunk in my city. Why aren't there alcohol interlock devices on every single car?
Taking a firearms course and learning how to use them will give you first hand experience to formulate your own opinion as opposed to having the media feed you what you should believe.
Regulations that are often introduced go for the easy low hanging fruit instead of addressing the real problem.
For the U.S., the horse has left the barn. That's the sad reality with as many guns as people in the country, but people don't like hearing that. Not all problems can be solved.
Last edited:
Thank you. That is exactly the point. The AR-15 is not a practical hunting rifle and any hunter who needs a low powered semi-auto shouldn't be allowed to hunt.
You won’t see that here either.
However you will see the aftermath of a Leftie showing love for democracy and police as they KILL the Capitol Police:
The cold-blooded murder of a Capitol police officer while he was doing his job protecting the Capitol building plus his injured partner, that the lefties like to forget. And no gun required.
Last edited:
Again, conveniently ignoring caliber is separate from platform and also proving you don't know what people hunt.
Ignorance must be bliss for you.
Both the platform and the calibre of the AR makes it in inefficient hunting gun. Maybe the semi-auto helps the drunk hillbillies in their porch shooting squirrels but and hunter who needs a semi-auto to take down their prey should lose their licence.
Simply put, the appeal of the AR are quite simply so people can feel macho with the army's gun or people so paranoid they think they will need to gun down mobs of zombies.
You keep missing the point.
First of all, cars are necessary. Our world doesn't function without them. You could ban every gun in civilian hands in Canada tomorrow and it wouldn't have an impact, except on the leisure industry.
What would going to gun playtime do to change my mind? I'm ex CAF - albeit a long time ago.
All I have to do to "win" this argument is to show that Ramos wouldn't have killed those kids with gun control legislation. And you know something, under Canadian gun control legislation he wouldn't have had those firearms. And those kids would still be alive.
Now you can tell me about how all your gun buddies are amazing guys and how there are so many guns already out there in the US and that gun control would make no difference. But you already lost the argument.
And the only reason gun control legislation never works is because people like you and your GOP asshole senators and congressmen make sure it never passes, despite being supported by the vast authority of Americans. Because it sure af works in every other country in the developed world.
Simply put, you are wrong, but since you don't do any research and haven't looked into hunting, you make these stupid statements.
Guns are necessary.
If you ban every gun in civilian hands in Canada tomorrow, that would impact the food supply because farmers wouldn't be able to control varmints. Prairie dogs would take over along with coyotes. Deer would ruin cornfields. Even in Japan, they still sell guns to deal with these problems. Then there's the animals that hunt livestock. Canada is mostly rural and they need guns. That's why there's millions in Canada. A gun is a tool. Forgetting the fact the the Inuit indiscriminately shoot everything in sight with no regards to conservation, they wouldn't be able to protect themselves properly from polar bears when they're out on the land.
You say you're ex CAF, so if you were army and had any exposure to the Rangers, you would know my last statement to be true.
The Canadian argument is totally invalid. The Taber, Alberta shooter was 14. Not legally able to use a firearm unsupervised. All the firearms used in the Nova Scotia mass shooting were illegally obtained and the shooter had no license, yet a mass shooting still happened. You want to know something else? There's going to be another mass shooting in Canada.
Just face the facts that for almost 100 years, there have been mass shootings occurring in the U.S. on a regular basis.
You can't change it. You can waste a lot of energy thinking legislation will prevent it, but it won't. Columbine is the school shooting everyone refers to, and that's 20 years ago. Sandy Hook, Denver, etc. Still happening. There has to be a cultural shift and a willingness to deal with Mental Health issues on the front end, because dealing with it on the back end is impossible with as many guns as people in the U.S.
That's the sad truth whether you want to accept it or not.
Start looking into things more. Depend less on the press, or else you're going to start sounding like basketcase.
Last edited:
