Edit for clarification: Bill has been proposed, but is fully expected to pass.
The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”
The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.
In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”
The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.
That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.
This is actual one of several state gun laws that challenges federal restrictions on firearms at the local level. For example Arizona, Montana and I believe a few other states have all passed laws to the effect of "If you make it here, and sell it here (in state) it's not subject to federal law. Interesting stuff. Between this and the legalization of weed in Colorado and Washington seems the feds are gonna be kinda busy on a legal front.
Supremacy clause trumps these fancy little attempts of gun rattling from the states.
To clarify: states cannot regulate the federal government or its agents. So they cannot pass laws saying what a federal employee can and cannot do. Imagine them making a law that punished IRS employees with prison for enforcing tax laws...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.
For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.
For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Um, Federal Laws supercede any state laws. If they try this it will get shot down by the federal government immediately.
Technically constitutional federal laws are supreme over state laws. Its always fun vs. the 10th Amendment. Heard of it? Neither has the US judiciary...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.
For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.
For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.
The gov uses the Interestate Commerce Clause. The 10th is pretty much irrelevant as the ICC has been expanded to literally include everything now.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
In short they ruled the Sheriff's can tell them to shove off. (This was re: the Brady act).
hotsauceman1 wrote: Um, Federal Laws supercede any state laws. If they try this it will get shot down by the federal government immediately.
Technically constitutional federal laws are supreme over state laws. Its always fun vs. the 10th Amendment. Heard of it? Neither has the US judiciary...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.
For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.
For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.
The gov uses the Interestate Commerce Clause. The 10th is pretty much irrelevant as the ICC has been expanded to literally include everything now.
I know I said that, No one's tested the Montana, AZ, Alaska and apparently Texas laws on state firearms production for state sales in court.
Kilkrazy wrote: Sometimes it looks as if some states don't want to be part of the United.
We prefer the term "Loose association"
Almost a confederacy as it were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Not sure how the commerce clause comes into play here... those guns owners are usually not crossing state lines.
But, alas... I doubt the SC would take up the case.
Because they can cross state lines they are subject. Additionally, even if you make one soley in State X for sale in State X, the argument is that, that manufacture would displace a gun that would have been bought in another state, and is therefor subject (yes actual, winning argument). After the ACW and Roosevelt's threat to pad the SC, there is no 10th Amendment, and there is effectively no limit on federal lawmaking power outside of that thar first 9 Amendments, and those just barely.
Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:
Relapse wrote: Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:
d-usa wrote: Nothing in Printz v. United States would allow a state to stop a federal agent from enforcing federal law.
If I am reading all this correctly. All it means is the Feds ca'tn force the States to enforce Federal law. Thats the job of the Feds themselves.
So if a Federal agent shows up and says we need to nab this guy he violated federal law X the local law is free to say no and not offer help.
It has to be because they'd run afoul of primacy otherwise and the law would be overturned. It still may be, depending on how the courts interpret the language of the law.
Relapse wrote: Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:
Relapse wrote: Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:
Colorado in general. Better air, lower taxes, less jerks, legal pot, great gun laws (if you care), lots of outdoors and city type activities to be had.
It's a playground for rich libertarians who love castles, built by a developer who figured out that idiot libertarians are a profitable market? I mean, it's either that or think that someone is honestly stupid enough to think their little castle is a real fortress...
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Grey Templar wrote: Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Or if you have even crude mortars, in which case you demonstrate why nobody has built a castle for anything but entertainment in a very long time.
Grey Templar wrote: Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.
I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.
Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.
Grey Templar wrote: Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Or if you have even crude mortars, in which case you demonstrate why nobody has built a castle for anything but entertainment in a very long time.
In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.
Grey Templar wrote: In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.
If society has collapsed to the point that slingshots are all that is left then someone has already looted the local national guard armory, shelled the libertarian paradise into submission, and looted everything of value from the castle. Though I suppose hundreds of years after the collapse primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers will occupy the shattered walls to protect against the local wildlife at night, so maybe it does have some value.
Grey Templar wrote: In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.
If society has collapsed to the point that slingshots are all that is left then someone has already looted the local national guard armory, shelled the libertarian paradise into submission, and looted everything of value from the castle. Though I suppose hundreds of years after the collapse primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers will occupy the shattered walls to protect against the local wildlife at night, so maybe it does have some value.
What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?
Seaward wrote: What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?
Nothing, except that the two go hand in hand often enough that when you hear about American survivalist groups you pretty much assume that even if they don't actively call themselves Libertarians that it's far more likely than not that whatever coherent political ideology they do have will be pretty close to libertarianism.
Looking at the website for these loons; "Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles."
Seaward wrote: What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?
The two aren't necessarily the same, but their ideological statements and endless ranting about "rightful liberty" and no government interference make it pretty clear they're on the extreme libertarian end of the political scale in addition to being tinfoil hat survivalists.
There was a militia here that I had friends in. They quit it when plans started being made by its leaders to raid for food in the event of a national collapse.
@Kid_Kyoto--- Except for the fact that the Federal Government is not empowered to pass such laws. The Bill of Rights specifically lays out what the Federal Government may and may not do. It also states that all powers not specifically granted to the Feds are specifically held to the People and States.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: @Kid_Kyoto--- Except for the fact that the Federal Government is not empowered to pass such laws. The Bill of Rights specifically lays out what the Federal Government may and may not do. It also states that all powers not specifically granted to the Feds are specifically held to the People and States.
Which includes regulating interstate trade and includes reasonable restrictions on firearms (just as there are reasonable restrictions on protest marches and everything else).
Seriously, are people reading an abridged copy of the Constitution?
That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.
Of course, it was a hollow clunk because the gauntlet was thrown down on a stage so that various local electorates could see it happening.
Seriously, arresting federal agents for enforcing federal law? Good luck with that. Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.
dogma wrote: Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.
Well, that would mollify the herp crowd, but the derp crowd demands more.
Grey Templar wrote: Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.
I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.
Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.
I think an underground base, would be better than a castle more concealable.
Grey Templar wrote: Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.
Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.
I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.
Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.
I think an underground base, would be better than a castle more concealable.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!
Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!
Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!
Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!
yeah... this will end well.
There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.
dogma wrote: Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.
Well, that would mollify the herp crowd, but the derp crowd demands more.
Derp Herpson is the best news anchor there is and ever will be.
I'm curious: the politicians who created this bill, how close are they to reelection? I would bet this is ultimately just a political move to get votes.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!
Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!
Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!
Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!
yeah... this will end well.
There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.
Probably because the legal weed law was a clever ruse to flush out the pot users, thinking themselves to be safe, and so making them an easy target for federal agents. And so Colorado cleverly gets the Federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up the state of all its filthy potheads.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!
Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!
Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!
Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!
yeah... this will end well.
There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.
Probably because the legal weed law was a clever ruse to flush out the pot users, thinking themselves to be safe, and so making them an easy target for federal agents. And so Colorado cleverly gets the Federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up the state of all its filthy potheads.
So when they start running the ads for "the best pizza ever made, only $2.99, call 1-800-DEAPIZZA" we know that the trap has been sprung?
Nah, its when the Drug Agent's begin disguising themselves as giant bannanas that we should be concerned. Its adaptive camo you see. The sober person can see that its a guy in a suit and will react accordingly. The stoner will attempt to eat it, its the latest test for soberiety you see. of course it will likely be abandoned after some video surfaces of a stoner eating a federal agents bannana.
Grey Templar wrote: Nah, its when the Drug Agent's begin disguising themselves as giant bannanas that we should be concerned. Its adaptive camo you see. The sober person can see that its a guy in a suit and will react accordingly. The stoner will attempt to eat it, its the latest test for soberiety you see. of course it will likely be abandoned after some video surfaces of a stoner eating a federal agents bannana.
d-usa wrote: There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.
Well, this isn't actually a law, it's a bill.
And it's symbolic. Nobody but the lunatic fringe on the left thinks another assault weapons ban is all that likely, and it seems closing "then gun show loophole" is the compromise we'll end up with. They might get the above 10 round capacity magazine ban, but I hope not.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any single provision for the reasonable restriction of firearms. Not in one single place.
The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people can meet the Government on a level playing field for one simple reason. To prevent tyranny.
Does this mean that we can have semi-auto weapons with high-cap magazines? Yes.
Does this mean that we can have fully automatic machine guns? Yes.
Does this mean that we can own tanks and fighters? Sure does.
Does this mean that we can own naval combat ships or nuclear missiles? Yep.
Do I really think we need tanks, ships, fighters or nukes? Not really. For one thing the expense in maintenance alone is rediculous, and there is plenty of evidence that plenty of people in this world are only a slight push from falling off their rockers.
Now, nowhere in the 2nd is it said that any form of weapon is illegal to own. Nowhere does it say that the Federal Government is allowed to set restrictions at all. Any restrictions must be by the State level government. And for those restrictions to apply at the Federal level, they must hold a Constitutional Convention and add a new Ammendment or revise an existing one.
And all it takes to take the 2nd away is an amendment. You don't need a constitutional convention for that. Considering that the bill of rights were 10 changes (or amendments) to the original constitution to begin with, it is pretty amazing that people don't think we could simply get rid of any of them.
"Well-regulated" means trained in the context of the Constitution. Implying that people with the guns should be experienced in their operation and on military drill/tactics.
It constantly amazes me that people hang up on those two words. It's pretty basic English comprehension, though phrased a bit archaically. I'll update it for you:
Because a well regulated militia's necessary for the security of a free state, the government's not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Does that mean membership in a militia is required to bear arms? No, of course not. It just provides the reason for keeping the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms a no-no.
And all it takes to take the 2nd away is an amendment. You don't need a constitutional convention for that. Considering that the bill of rights were 10 changes (or amendments) to the original constitution to begin with, it is pretty amazing that people don't think we could simply get rid of any of them.
People are aware that the votes do not even remotely begin to exist for that. You can't repeal an amendment, or get a new one passed, with less than 10% support.
Just because its not popular does not mean that the cries of "it's in the constitution, it cannot be changed" are valid.
Fact is that the constitution doesn't mention gun ownership at all. It was an amendment to the original paper that gave that to us and it can just as easily be taken away.
You do know that the Constitution only passed because the writers of the original document promised to add the Bill of Rights shortly afterwards. The original 10 articles are as good as part of the original because without their presence the original would never have been ratified.
He's right that they could be repealed, but I'm not sure what point he's driving at. They won't be, and even he has to know that. And until they are repealed, they have the same force as anything else in the document.
Congress can write and add/remove ammendments all day long. They can not ratify them. Only the States can. And if there are not enough States on board with the changes, the ammendments will not stand. That is the very deffinition of a Constitutional Convention.
Seaward wrote: He's right that they could be repealed, but I'm not sure what point he's driving at. They won't be, and even he has to know that. And until they are repealed, they have the same force as anything else in the document.
People thought that alcohol would never be banned, or that slavery would be banned, but it happened.
Just saying that the cries of "constitution ueber alles" are just as pointless as "ban all guns everywhere". Too much dumb extremes going on by both sides.
Yeah, it could change but so could the original document. Saying "it could change" is a pointless thing to say. Constitutional Amendments are very VERY hard to get passed.
And the point that that is what the Constitution says still stands. We, the citizens, have the right to have any weapons we want given by the constitution. That right could be revoked by conditional laws that mandate mental evalutions for certain weapons, but the fact remains that the Constitution would allow a citizen to own a functional tank or weaponized Drone if he wished.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: Congress can write and add/remove ammendments all day long. They can not ratify them. Only the States can. And if there are not enough States on board with the changes, the ammendments will not stand. That is the very deffinition of a Constitutional Convention.
That is actually not the definition of it.
We have not had a constitutional convention since the first one, despite having made several amendments since then.
We could build a Six Flags on Mars, as long as we're creating a list of possible actions we will not be undertaking within the lifetimes of anyone reading this.
Yeah, there are 2 ways to alter the constitution. A Constitutional Convention, and for an overwhealming majority of Congress to pass it. The second is far easier than the first, and even that is going to be pretty darn difficult.
Given the polarization that exists today I can't see any amendments being added at any time in the forseable future.
Both are sooo far out there in terms of probability that they may as well be of equal likelyhood. Bulding a 6-flags on Mars has about the same realistic probability as any sort of Consitutional change happening in this current political climate.
The likelihood of a state violating the supremacy clause and arresting a federal officer for enforcing federal law is just as likely as a constitutional amendment, yet here we are in a thread talking about that.
Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.
Seaward wrote: Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.
I already acknowledged your clever use of straw men, now you are just showing off.
Seaward wrote: Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.
I already acknowledged your clever use of straw men, now you are just showing off.
He's just gotten excited as he's recently learned what the word means and wants to put it in even more of his arguments.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So this means we can't have libel and slander laws?
Ban child pr0n?
Restrict when and where people may hold protest rallies?
Allow for animal sacrifice?
No noise laws?
No laws to protect classified information?
Nothing to stop reporters from tapping phones?
Of course not. We have all of those yet somehow we do not live in a dystopian tyranny.
Rights have limits, the most famous standard being my right to extend my arm ends at the tip of your nose.
So how do we do that? State, Local and Federal Courts and the Supreme Court rule on conflicts among rights.
And the US Supreme Court has never said there can be NO firearm restrictions. While it struck down an outright ban in DC it has upheld other restrictions. So no, complete firearm freedom does not and never has existed in the US.
So for those who want complete firearm freedom, the boat to Somalia sets sail over there.
An Ammendment, either being added or repealed or modified, *can not* stand without the ratification by the majority of the States. That is the law.
Prohibition, and it's subsequent reversal, was ratified by a sufficiency of the States. Women's Sufferage was ratified by a sufficiency of the States.
The original 10 Ammendments were ratified by the States as they existed at that time, not by Congressional Fiat.
Any declaration by Washington D.C. that infringes on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights is purely illegal. It does not matter how many of the House or Senate agree to the proposed law. It does not matter if the President agrees with it (or even writes yet another Executive Order). If the States decide not to accept the law, then the law is utterly powerless.
Just throwing in my 2 cents, the Bill of Rights are technically the 3rd through 12th proposed amendments. Article the First and Article the Second were passed through Congress but the majority of states never ratified the First (shame since to me it is probably the most important of them all), and the Second wasnt ratified until 1992. The point I am making is that there is no expiration date on Amendments, so even if its not ratified now, it could be ratified down the line over time as the political landscape changes.
As for well-regulated, the modern day interpretation would be tosay it means subject to federal oversight. The correct "interpretation", really translation, would be well-organized and trained. If you bother to look up period texts written/quoted from the founding fathers you will see that this is quite clear (the Federalist Papers being one of the best examples, and afaik the guiding documents by which all interpretations of the constitution should be based). Using the phrase well-regulated to imply that the federal government can infringe on the 2nd flies in the face of reality.
Also worth noting that the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms as an uninfringible natural right/law that could not and should not be taken away by any government body. There was A LOT of debate about the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. One side feared that its inclusion implied that the government could attempt to strip this right from its citizens at a later date, the other side feared that without it the same thing would occur.
Any declaration by Washington D.C. that infringes on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights is purely illegal. It does not matter how many of the House or Senate agree to the proposed law. It does not matter if the President agrees with it (or even writes yet another Executive Order). If the States decide not to accept the law, then the law is utterly powerless.
If the courts uphold it then a law does not violate our rights.
And no, States do NOT have veto power over Federal laws.
And finally the way to challenge federal laws is first in Congress, then in the courts. It is not threatening to imprison cops for enforcing the law of the land.
At least I can take comfort in knowing that if gun control foes really live in this fantasy world they'll have not chance of doing anything effective.
Keep thinking like that. Why not? It's your right to be as wrong as you wish.
Understand that ALL POWERS not specifically granted to the Federal Government are held to the states and the people. That means that every law on the books may be challenged by the States if enough of them decide to do so. You would be correct that challenging the laws as established would be done in Congress and the Courts. But you are incorrect about the rights of States to veto the laws as they apply to the States themselves.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any single provision for the reasonable restriction of firearms. Not in one single place.
The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people can meet the Government on a level playing field for one simple reason. To prevent tyranny.
Does this mean that we can have semi-auto weapons with high-cap magazines? Yes.
Does this mean that we can have fully automatic machine guns? Yes.
Does this mean that we can own tanks and fighters? Sure does.
Does this mean that we can own naval combat ships or nuclear missiles? Yep.
Do I really think we need tanks, ships, fighters or nukes? Not really. For one thing the expense in maintenance alone is rediculous, and there is plenty of evidence that plenty of people in this world are only a slight push from falling off their rockers.
Now, nowhere in the 2nd is it said that any form of weapon is illegal to own. Nowhere does it say that the Federal Government is allowed to set restrictions at all. Any restrictions must be by the State level government. And for those restrictions to apply at the Federal level, they must hold a Constitutional Convention and add a new Ammendment or revise an existing one.
So just to check, you are in fact conceding that this is a big pile of Bovine Excrement yes?
Nope. That was a realistic evaluation of the allowances and the risks involved.
Not one mention was ever made, in the Constitution, that the people are ever to be subject to the Government. There is plenty of precedent that shows that the Government is to be subject to us. Of course, over the last few decades, there has been a building precedent where the people are just rolling over and taking the status quo. This is wrong. This is not what our Founding Fathers ever intended. Hence the 2nd Ammendment.
Was it written in the days of muskets and wooden sailing ships? Sure it was. Does it mean that the only protections in the Ammendment are for ownership of that era's weapons? No. It was written so that the common man could stand against the eventual tyrrany of the Government. When they begin taking away freedoms and levying taxes for the sake of propping up an ever growing federal overloard, they are becoming tyrranical. As times have changed, as technology has developed, the weapons have become ever more powerful and sophisticated. In order to maintain parity of power, which was the intent of the 2nd Ammendment, then by extension of the Founders' logic, no military technology is allowed to be illegal to own.
Technically it is true that any restrictions on speech are unconstitutional. However the government has imposed restrictions on it that the people have not opposed. The only reason they stand is because the people have not raised complain and/or the Judicial branch has(by its own judgement) determined they don't violate the constitution. Of course the authority of the Judicial branch, and any of the branches, only extends as far as the people will allow it. With the final judgement being the people removing the government officials from power by force if need be.
It is my opinion that there needs to be more control over the Judicial branch. The current system of lifetime appointments with little accountability to the people is not ideal and I feel it could be better. I am not sure how it could be made any better however, but I am sure a solution exists.
Understand that ALL POWERS not specifically granted to the Federal Government are held to the states and the people.
The 10th Amendment doesn't use the word "specifically". It states only that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are left to the state and people. Indeed, the absence of a word like "specifically" underpins all of the various implied powers of the Federal Government. Incorporating amendments against the states being a prime example.
But you are incorrect about the rights of States to veto the laws as they apply to the States themselves.
That's wrong. Any given state can refuse to respect, or enforce, any given federal law, but they cannot actively attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing such a law.
In order to maintain parity of power, which was the intent of the 2nd Ammendment, then by extension of the Founders' logic, no military technology is allowed to be illegal to own.
Fortunately the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees and has upheld various restrictions for over a century.
Yet when was the last time you felt that any elected official gave a damn about public opinion, cared what impositions new taxes would place on us, or actually did anything they promised to bring growth back to this country.
Having the people dependant on the government is, to my way of thinking, a form of tyranny. By not encouraging economic growth in this country and by allowing other nations to negatively impact our employment and prices for daily living, they have descended into economic tyrrany. Personally, I am a tax payer. I do not have any problem with wellfare for people who need it. I have lots of problems for those who regard wellfare as something they deserve just because they manage to draw air into their lungs. I am forced, as are all other tax payers to provide for the people who will not support themselves in addition to those who can not.
The tax burden and the laws and regulations that we function under as a society all add up to tyrrany. Is it to the point of Big Brother standing on our collective necks? No. Not yet. But they are hard charging down that road.
Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
The entire reason to keep and bear arms of equal power to the government is to force them to pay attention to us. Simply put, since we are not as well armed, they have less and less reason to care what we think.
Yet when was the last time you felt that any elected official gave a damn about public opinion, cared what impositions new taxes would place on us, or actually did anything they promised to bring growth back to this country.
Earlier today? When I got my last paycheck*? If anything I think politicians pay too much attention to public opinion, or are at least too quick to react to it. Indeed, I consider the debate surrounding taxation to be a prime example of this. The public facade has become so pervasive, and so extreme, that the development of reasonable tax policy cannot occur anywhere other than the backrooms of Congress.
As to promises: what promises? This is particular pet peeve of mine, so bear with me a bit. It is very rare for a politician to promise a specific end goal. You usually hear things like "I promise to work towards energy independence." not "I promise the US will be energy independent by the end of the year."
*I'm a political analyst at a firm devoted to public opinion research. I, and many people like me, earn a great deal of money interpreting the results of opinion polls. You don't pay a company enough to pay my salary if you don't care about the work being done.
Having the people dependant on the government is, to my way of thinking, a form of tyranny. By not encouraging economic growth in this country and by allowing other nations to negatively impact our employment and prices for daily living, they have descended into economic tyrrany.
I assume by "not encouraging economic" growth you mean that you believe present market regulations to be overly restrictive, and present tax rates to be excessive. I can see the first point, but given that present size of the government budget, and deficit, the second is a bit simplistic.
What I don't understand at all is the bit about allowing other nations to negatively impact employment, and prices. My best guess would be that you're discussing the minimum wage, and the absence of protectionist policies? The former certainly lines up with free market ideas, but the latter is a bit out of left field.
Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
Why should I care about the opinions of people that have been dead for nearly 200 years? I mean, some of them had some interesting, though certainly not original, political ideas. But for the most part they're important only for historical reasons.
Yet when was the last time you felt that any elected official gave a damn about public opinion, cared what impositions new taxes would place on us, or actually did anything they promised to bring growth back to this country.
Earlier today? When I got my last paycheck*? If anything I think politicians pay too much attention to public opinion, or are at least too quick to react to it. Indeed, I consider the debate surrounding taxation to be a prime example of this. The public facade has become so pervasive, and so extreme, that the development of reasonable tax policy cannot occur anywhere other than the backrooms of Congress.
Really? I looked at my paycheck and saw that taxes had gone up. For the record, I do not make over $250K. According to the current President's own words, I would not see my taxes rise by one dime.
dogma wrote: As to promises: what promises? This is particular pet peeve of mine, so bear with me a bit. It is very rare for a politician to promise a specific end goal. You usually hear things like "I promise to work towards energy independence." not "I promise the US will be energy independent by the end of the year."
I agree that no politician that is a typical politician will make any promises with actual deadlines. They have a remarkable tendency to fail in those due to the efforts of those, either within or without their party, who do not agree with them.
dogma wrote: *I'm a political analyst at a firm devoted to public opinion research. I, and many people like me, earn a great deal of money interpreting the results of opinion polls. You don't pay a company enough to pay my salary if you don't care about the work being done.
My personal thoughts on this are as follows; I agree that the politicos pay a lot of attention to opinion polls. They also are not above picking and choosing from amongst your industry to tell the public what those of us who were polled think. I do not believe that they are above manipulating the very way the questions are worded in an effort to engineer their desired outcome. I also tend to think that the entire industry, while I admit that it can and does serve a valid purpose, has zero business being paid for by my tax dollars.
Having the people dependant on the government is, to my way of thinking, a form of tyranny. By not encouraging economic growth in this country and by allowing other nations to negatively impact our employment and prices for daily living, they have descended into economic tyrrany.
dogma wrote: I assume by "not encouraging economic" growth you mean that you believe present market regulations to be overly restrictive, and present tax rates to be excessive. I can see the first point, but given that present size of the government budget, and deficit, the second is a bit simplistic.
What I don't understand at all is the bit about allowing other nations to negatively impact employment, and prices. My best guess would be that you're discussing the minimum wage, and the absence of protectionist policies? The former certainly lines up with free market ideas, but the latter is a bit out of left field.
Perhaps a bit, yes. However, if you look at the very fact that our Government pays an insanely large amount of its budget on entitlements, the Government directly reduces the very growth they claim to desire. After all, I don't know about you, but I can think of at least a dozen people I know who either draw wellfare and don't need it or who have friends/family who do. The willingness to not get up and work, to sit around and wallow in whatever mentality it is that makes living on wellfare ok when you are physically and mentally able to work, is what is at the very heart of our present fiscal issues at the national level. Were those people encouraged to get off of the dole and get a job, not only would the government's budget be correspondingly reduced, but its tax=base would be broadened. That is the only way to reduce taxes and encourage even more growth.
As to the part about other nations impacting us (not sure how minimum wage got brought into this, but that's cool)... Understand that I do not support increased minimum wage under the very real understanding that the increase has to be made up somewhere. That somewhere is increased prices for whatever service or product the employer provides. That, in and of itself, completely negates any benefit of increased minimum wage. Lowering the taxes that a business pays, reducing the hit of their pay-roll and insurances, etc. is the way to keep prices down and affordable. By sending jobs overseas, and by buying foreign made products over domestic ones, we tend to encourage the practice from our interface point at the cash register. By increasing prices here on domestically produced items, we drive people to buy abroad where prices are cheaper. It's all tied together, see?
The tax burden and the laws and regulations that we function under as a society all add up to tyrrany.
dogma wrote: I certainly don't feel oppressed, so I'm not sure why you do.
I do not feel oppressed as yet. However, I look at the path our current government is on and i see many parallels with historically oppressive regimes. Back room deals are deals with no public oversight and thus, no representation. Passing legislation without even taking the time to read it, which has happened twice on major legislation, is the worst case of congressional irresponsibility, and it signals a comfortable assurance on the part of the legislators that they will have nothing to worry about from public opinion.
Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
dogma wrote: Why should I care about the opinions of people that have been dead for nearly 200 years? I mean, some of them had some interesting, though certainly not original, political ideas. But for the most part they're important only for historical reasons.
The problem with that attitude is very simple. Relegating the lessons taught by our Forefathers to nothing more than mildly interesting history is the first step to not learning from that history. The reason why the Revolution was taught 200 years later was the very real lessons that that history had to still teach us today. I've heard of the current revisionist history that glosses over the hows and whys, and makes the men who led the Revolution into nothing more than casual shrugs of indifference to today's youth. I can not say that I have ever been forced to read it, fortunately, but the looks of absolute cluelessness by our youth tell me that our current education programs are not worth the time our kids are spending in class. It is social engineering. It has been creeping into our schools at ever lower age ranges for decades. If you don't see the connection between re-engineering our history and the easing of government takeover... I honestly do not know what I can do to open your eyes.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote:Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
There was no individual tax loading at that time at all, generally. Most government revenue came in the form of tarriffs, which was the lions share of all tax receipts (like 85%). They have been ever dwindling since then and are now 1.3% of federal receipts. Ben Franklin estimated individuals were paying around 12.5% taxes in 1766. That's pretty close to the 15% Mr. Romney enjoys today, for example.
Over the history of this country, we were at our most prosperous when taxes were far, far higher then what they are now. When Ronald Reagan became president, the top rate was 70% of income over $200K, for example. It was 91% at the same end for 20 years after WW2.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote:I've heard of the current revisionist history that glosses over the hows and whys, and makes the men who led the Revolution into nothing more than casual shrugs of indifference to today's youth. I can not say that I have ever been forced to read it
No offense, but your postings here make that readily apparent.
Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
Forgoing that the tax system was radically different so a straight up comparison is fairly naive, they didn't rebel becuase of the amount of taxes, but that they didn't have someone in government to represent them when taxes were being determined. They even had a simple rhyme that we are all taught as school children that people go on to forget as soon as they want to complain about high taxes: 'no taxation without representation'. It wasn't being taxed that was the issue, it was not having a say in governance, which we have today, so it isn't what the Founding Fathers were dealing with at all.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote:I've heard of the current revisionist history that glosses over the hows and whys, and makes the men who led the Revolution into nothing more than casual shrugs of indifference to today's youth. I can not say that I have ever been forced to read it
No offense, but your postings here make that readily apparent.
For some reason, I get the feeling that that was supposed to be subtle eye-opener. However, I can not take offense where none is perceived. To me, it reads as a backhanded compliment upon first glance, and only a remark about my recollection of history and understanding of current events after looking at it again. I'll be the first to admit that the school system I was familiar with was far from being the best that was available at the time I was attending. But I do remember learning much more about the formative years of our nation than kids today seem to be. What I do not understand is why the slide away from the facts is not only allowed, but uncared about.
It's fine if you don't agree with me. No one has to. I just ask that people quit turning a blind eye to the things that really are affecting us all, be they historical or current.
Take a look at all the taxes that impact our lives, both directly and indirectly... Then stop for a moment and reflect that our Forefathers balked and rebelled under a much lower tax loading.
Forgoing that the tax system was radically different so a straight up comparison is fairly naive, they didn't rebel becuase of the amount of taxes, but that they didn't have someone in government to represent them when taxes were being determined. They even had a simple rhyme that we are all taught as school children that people go on to forget as soon as they want to complain about high taxes: 'no taxation without representation'. It wasn't being taxed that was the issue, it was not having a say in governance, which we have today, so it isn't what the Founding Fathers were dealing with at all.
I made an oblique reference to that at one point. It wasn't even in specific regard to taxes, but to the backroom deals and last minute passage of legislation with no time to read it. Feel free to correct me, but Obamacare and the Fiscal Cliff deal both were passed with no time for either House or Senate to read them.
There is a huge difference between 'my representative didn't do their due diligence in regards to a piece of legislation' and 'I have no voice in government'.
It also sounds more like 'I didn't get the outcome I wanted' then 'shadowy deals and backroom shenanigans'. In a representative democracy, or really any democracy, sometimes the side we want to win doesn't.
First off, we're not a democracy, regardless of protestations to the contrary. We are a republic. Similar, but not the same.
If our representatives "don't do their due diligence in regards to a piece of legislation" doesn't that equate, for all real results, as "I have no voice in government"?
For what it matters, I did not support the idea of Obamacare, except in one regard. I agree that pre-existing problems should not be disqualifying reasons for insurance.
So... did anyone else notice that their paychecks are lighter now than they were at the end of 2012?
My personal thoughts on this are as follows; I agree that the politicos pay a lot of attention to opinion polls. They also are not above picking and choosing from amongst your industry to tell the public what those of us who were polled think.
Of course not, but that's about manipulating public opinion, not determining what it is. The internal polls within any given campaign tend to be very accurate. They have to be, because if they aren't then the campaign is essentially operating on blind chance. Indeed, the reason that politicians pay pollsters to disseminate misleading statistics, or interpretations thereof, is because they're quite aware of what the good data indicates. Probably the most recent example of this was all the noise from the Romney campaign about how internal polls showed a close race, when most every external poll showed a serious electoral vote problem.
I do not believe that they are above manipulating the very way the questions are worded in an effort to engineer their desired outcome. I also tend to think that the entire industry, while I admit that it can and does serve a valid purpose, has zero business being paid for by my tax dollars.
Of course we engineer questions, in polling you have to. If nothing else any given question is designed to be neutral, and thereby eliminate experimenter's, and respondent, bias. I will grant that some firms have other ends in mind, but that's not always the case. Indeed, if you brush up on statistics its pretty easy to see who is trying to produce a manipulative result by simply reading the relevant methodology section. And if there is no methodology, or significant gaps in the methodology section (*cough*Rasmussen*cough*) then you probably shouldn't put faith in the results.
As to your tax dollars funding it: they don't. Most of our funding comes from individual campaigns, with a small fraction coming from government offices paying for our data.
Perhaps a bit, yes. However, if you look at the very fact that our Government pays an insanely large amount of its budget on entitlements, the Government directly reduces the very growth they claim to desire. After all, I don't know about you, but I can think of at least a dozen people I know who either draw wellfare and don't need it or who have friends/family who do. The willingness to not get up and work, to sit around and wallow in whatever mentality it is that makes living on wellfare ok when you are physically and mentally able to work, is what is at the very heart of our present fiscal issues at the national level. Were those people encouraged to get off of the dole and get a job, not only would the government's budget be correspondingly reduced, but its tax=base would be broadened. That is the only way to reduce taxes and encourage even more growth.
Well, not all welfare recipients are unemployed. Indeed I suspect most are not, so that's my first problem with that argument.
My second is that you cannot expect everyone to become magically productive simply because they no longer have the option of receiving welfare. Some may work harder and advance, sure, but others will turn to crime, or simply continue to be perpetually unemployed. There isn't a lot of demand for low skill work in the US, and won't be for a long time. Of course we could provide for better education, but that costs money; as does additional police protection (going back to increased crime).
As to the part about other nations impacting us (not sure how minimum wage got brought into this, but that's cool)...
I assumed you were talking about a high (it really isn't all that high) US minimum wage allowing foreign manufacturers to undercut the US as regards labor costs.
Lowering the taxes that a business pays, reducing the hit of their pay-roll and insurances, etc. is the way to keep prices down and affordable. By sending jobs overseas, and by buying foreign made products over domestic ones, we tend to encourage the practice from our interface point at the cash register. By increasing prices here on domestically produced items, we drive people to buy abroad where prices are cheaper. It's all tied together, see?
What items do you think American companies could reasonably produce effectively that they do not already produce?
Passing legislation without even taking the time to read it, which has happened twice on major legislation, is the worst case of congressional irresponsibility, and it signals a comfortable assurance on the part of the legislators that they will have nothing to worry about from public opinion.
It helps that the public is nominally ignorant of the content of legislation, the way legislation is passed, and the issues surrounding both. That's to be expected though, politics in a nation of 300 million is a full-time job. You cannot expect everyone to take on that kind of burden in addition to their more immediate ones.
On to another pet-peeve: legislators almost never read bills in their entirety (neither do voters). They delegate that job to staffers because they have to deal with public opinion (and by extension reelection), which is 98% of American politics at the moment. The fact that any given government official admitted to this is, if anything, transparency; not some lack of government responsibility.
The problem with that attitude is very simple. Relegating the lessons taught by our Forefathers to nothing more than mildly interesting history is the first step to not learning from that history.
What lesson, that people don't like taxes? I don't even need history to determine that. Conversely, I do need history to understand that my immediate forefathers did not object to taxes much higher than we presently experience. I mean, in 1988 the top marginal rate was 28% and began at a 2011 adjusted 56k USD, now that level of earning is taxed at 25%.
Of course it is, all education is. Some people are less affected than others, but at the end of the day you are defined by what you learn. Passing some other form of instruction off as "social engineering" is just arrogant. It presumes that what you believe is right, and that anything else anyone else believes is the result of intentional delusion.
It has been creeping into our schools at ever lower age ranges for decades. If you don't see the connection between re-engineering our history and the easing of government takeover... I honestly do not know what I can do to open your eyes.
Considering that the federal government has taken a strong role since the Civil War, I'm not sure pinning the blame on changing opinions regarding the Founders is a sound decision.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: First off, we're not a democracy, regardless of protestations to the contrary. We are a republic. Similar, but not the same.
It is possible to be both a democracy and a republic. You could very easily argue that the US was not a democracy when it was founded, but after the 17th and 19th amendments it would be impossible.
My personal thoughts on this are as follows; I agree that the politicos pay a lot of attention to opinion polls. They also are not above picking and choosing from amongst your industry to tell the public what those of us who were polled think.
Of course not, but that's about manipulating public opinion, not determining what it is. The internal polls within any given campaign tend to be very accurate. They have to be, because if they aren't then the campaign is essentially operating on blind chance. Indeed, the reason that politicians pay pollsters to disseminate misleading statistics, or interpretations thereof, is because they're quite aware of what the good data indicates. Probably the most recent example of this was all the noise from the Romney campaign about how internal polls showed a close race, when most every external poll showed a serious electoral vote problem.
I do not believe that they are above manipulating the very way the questions are worded in an effort to engineer their desired outcome. I also tend to think that the entire industry, while I admit that it can and does serve a valid purpose, has zero business being paid for by my tax dollars.
Of course we engineer questions, in polling you have to. If nothing else any given question is designed to be neutral, and thereby eliminate experimenter's, and respondent, bias. I will grant that some firms have other ends in mind, but that's not always the case. Indeed, if you brush up on statistics its pretty easy to see who is trying to produce a manipulative result by simply reading the relevant methodology section. And if there is no methodology, or significant gaps in the methodology section (*cough*Rasmussen*cough*) then you probably shouldn't put faith in the results.
As to your tax dollars funding it: they don't. Most of our funding comes from individual campaigns, with a small fraction coming from government offices paying for our data.
I can freely admit to being somewhat mollified on this point, then. I may not agree that manipulating the numbers is a good thing, but it's much easier to stomach if it is being done in response to the contract from a given campaign.
Perhaps a bit, yes. However, if you look at the very fact that our Government pays an insanely large amount of its budget on entitlements, the Government directly reduces the very growth they claim to desire. After all, I don't know about you, but I can think of at least a dozen people I know who either draw wellfare and don't need it or who have friends/family who do. The willingness to not get up and work, to sit around and wallow in whatever mentality it is that makes living on wellfare ok when you are physically and mentally able to work, is what is at the very heart of our present fiscal issues at the national level. Were those people encouraged to get off of the dole and get a job, not only would the government's budget be correspondingly reduced, but its tax=base would be broadened. That is the only way to reduce taxes and encourage even more growth.
dogma wrote: Well, not all welfare recipients are unemployed. Indeed I suspect most are not, so that's my first problem with that argument.
My second is that you cannot expect everyone to become magically productive simply because they no longer have the option of receiving welfare. Some may work harder and advance, sure, but others will turn to crime, or simply continue to be perpetually unemployed. There isn't a lot of demand for low skill work in the US, and won't be for a long time. Of course we could provide for better education, but that costs money; as does additional police protection (going back to increased crime).
It is true that most welfare recipients are at least partially emloyed. And it would seem that they are the able bodied ones who mostly deserve the assistance, as long as they are never ceasing the struggle to move onward and upward. I understand that in many areas where th edole is so pervasive, it is because there are few, if any jobs. So, the question then becomes, how would you go about bringing in more jobs? I can think of only one way to do it, and that means making it economically viable for a potential employer to bring jobs into those areas.
As to the part about other nations impacting us (not sure how minimum wage got brought into this, but that's cool)...
dogma wrote: I assumed you were talking about a high (it really isn't all that high) US minimum wage allowing foreign manufacturers to undercut the US as regards labor costs.
It isn't that high depending upon where you are and what you're used to paying/being paid.
Lowering the taxes that a business pays, reducing the hit of their pay-roll and insurances, etc. is the way to keep prices down and affordable. By sending jobs overseas, and by buying foreign made products over domestic ones, we tend to encourage the practice from our interface point at the cash register. By increasing prices here on domestically produced items, we drive people to buy abroad where prices are cheaper. It's all tied together, see?
dogma wrote: What items do you think American companies could reasonably produce effectively that they do not already produce?
The question is less what could they produce more effectively, than it is what couldn't they produce? When one looks at everything that has gone into chasing jobs out of this country, you can not help but see (in some cases) artificially inflated pay-rolls, insanely plush pensions, and the necessarily following increased prices that a producer has/had to charge. Were those conditions great for the employees who were working for those companies? Sure were. But look at the steel industry or the automotive industry now. Those two reasons are very much in the forefront of why the industries are in the condition they are. The steel industry became so overpriced that not only do we not manufacture most of our steel anymore, we send scrap to China to be processed and returned to us at a much lower cost, including trasportation across the Pacific. The Big Three in the auto industry are, if you look past the facades, are very fragile, and still are carrying a lot of overburden from the boom years of the 70's through the 90's. Of course new regulations and taxes weigh in on this as well.
Were it more economical for businesses to operate in this country, there is literally nothing that we could not produce at least as well as any other nation's industries.
Passing legislation without even taking the time to read it, which has happened twice on major legislation, is the worst case of congressional irresponsibility, and it signals a comfortable assurance on the part of the legislators that they will have nothing to worry about from public opinion.
dogma wrote: It helps that the public is nominally ignorant of the content of legislation, the way legislation is passed, and the issues surrounding both. That's to be expected though, politics in a nation of 300 million is a full-time job. You cannot expect everyone to take on that kind of burden in addition to their more immediate ones.
On to another pet-peeve: legislators almost never read bills in their entirety (neither do voters). They delegate that job to staffers because they have to deal with public opinion (and by extension reelection), which is 98% of American politics at the moment. The fact that any given government official admitted to this is, if anything, transparency; not some lack of government responsibility.
I can not argue your points all. Yes, it is true that governing a nation of 300 million is a very busy job, and it's only going to get worse. But I submit this to you... If the regulations and constant passing of laws that generally are already on the books in one fashion or another were instead halted in place and the stuff on the books was actually enforced rather than buried, then their job loading would be significantly reduced. None of absolves those we elect from their responsibility to vote how their constituency sent them to Washington to do.
The problem with that attitude is very simple. Relegating the lessons taught by our Forefathers to nothing more than mildly interesting history is the first step to not learning from that history.
dogma wrote: What lesson, that people don't like taxes? I don't even need history to determine that. Conversely, I do need history to understand that my immediate forefathers did not object to taxes much higher than we presently experience. I mean, in 1988 the top marginal rate was 28% and began at a 2011 adjusted 56k USD, now that level of earning is taxed at 25%.
No... Taxes were only a part of it as Ahtman expounded upon. The lesson is not standing by while an electorate that disregards their oaths to uphold the Constitution continues to vote themselves more power and less responsibility. The Electorate is beholden to us, not the other way around. They have laughed at how they have us over a barrel, and with the weight of public ignorance on their side, they are very correct. The only real difference now is that we have 545 would-be tyrants in D.C. rather than one tyrant across the Atlantic. The results of action/inaction are both more immediate and more pervasive, if less in your face today than it would have been then.
dogma wrote: Of course it is, all education is. Some people are less affected than others, but at the end of the day you are defined by what you learn. Passing some other form of instruction off as "social engineering" is just arrogant. It presumes that what you believe is right, and that anything else anyone else believes is the result of intentional delusion.
Again I can not argue with the points. What I wonder is just how much of what I learned in school was engineered by a social agenda and how much was actual history. I also wonder how much of what I was taught was mixed with learning how to think rather than being indoctrinated with bare a minimum of functional what to think.
It has been creeping into our schools at ever lower age ranges for decades. If you don't see the connection between re-engineering our history and the easing of government takeover... I honestly do not know what I can do to open your eyes.
dogma wrote: Considering that the federal government has taken a strong role since the Civil War, I'm not sure pinning the blame on changing opinions regarding the Founders is a sound decision.
I admit that I didn't realize that there was a form of the Department of Education clear back to 1867. What a brief reading of what the duties of that original institution were encompassed nothing more than counting and tracking the numbers of schools and what they taught. Also a quick read of the Department of Education in it's current form shows that it was begun under Carter in '79. Over the ensuing years, the DE has become less a monitoring agency than it has a means of regulating what is taught and how. Changing the curriculum at a national level, which is more and more the case every year, is their responsibility, unless I'm much mistaken. Otherwise, why would anyone care about placement or standardization tests?
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: First off, we're not a democracy, regardless of protestations to the contrary. We are a republic. Similar, but not the same.
dogma wrote: It is possible to be both a democracy and a republic. You could very easily argue that the US was not a democracy when it was founded, but after the 17th and 19th amendments it would be impossible.
Unfortunately this is true. In any case, as we have agreed with the work-load of our current electorate, I really don't know that it would be possible to have a true Republic anymore.
No, we're not. People have these completely flying rodent gak crazy ideas that people used to be all totally learned. It's not true. We've never been more educated than we are now.
Now, you might look around and say 'man but there's so many stupid people around.' Well it used to be a hell of a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Somalia is the most bootstrappy country in the world. It's truly a libertarian utopia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: First off, we're not a democracy, regardless of protestations to the contrary. We are a republic. Similar, but not the same.
You don't know what you're talking about.
A republic just means you don't have a monarch as you formal head of state. So the UK (and by extension Australia, New Zealand and other members of the Commonwealth) are not a Republic. Whereas the USA, where the head of state is elected by the people every four years, is a republic.
Whether you're a republic or not you can be all sorts of anything else. You can be a dictatorship and a republic. Or an oligarchical semi-democracy and a republic (like ancient Greece). Or, in the case of the USA, you can be a representative democracy and a republic all at once.
No, we're not. People have these completely flying rodent gak crazy ideas that people used to be all totally learned. It's not true. We've never been more educated than we are now.
Now, you might look around and say 'man but there's so many stupid people around.' Well it used to be a hell of a lot worse.
Have you read material published back then? The reading comprehension level is way above what many people today read in College. Try the Federalist Papers, that was something written for everybody. Its got some very complex language.
Compare our school reading material for 1st-4th grade children with what they used in those same grades. The material was much more complex back then.
No, we're not. People have these completely flying rodent gak crazy ideas that people used to be all totally learned. It's not true. We've never been more educated than we are now.
Now, you might look around and say 'man but there's so many stupid people around.' Well it used to be a hell of a lot worse.
Have you read material published back then?
Have you ever contextualized the society of the time back then with who were allowed to publish, or could afford to publish things back then? It wasn't a cross section of society, and the vast majority of people were not well educated, and literacy levels are nowhere what they are today either.
Unless your family was waaaay out in the boonies, or your local town couldn't afford a teacher, you went to school. And you had pretty advanced learning material when you did. The textbook was usually the Bible, because it was the one book every family had and you would have regardless of how much money you made. Can you imagine 1st-5th grade kds today reading a book with the same reading level as the Bible? They would struggle.
The reading level of the people back then was more advanced at an earlier age than we have today.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless your family was waaaay out in the boonies, or your local town couldn't afford a teacher, you went to school. And you had pretty advanced learning material when you did. The textbook was usually the Bible, because it was the one book every family had and you would have regardless of how much money you made. Can you imagine 1st-5th grade kds today reading a book with the same reading level as the Bible? They would struggle.
The reading level of the people back then was more advanced at an earlier age than we have today.
You think there was better, and more widely available, public education in the mid 18th century?
I can freely admit to being somewhat mollified on this point, then. I may not agree that manipulating the numbers is a good thing, but it's much easier to stomach if it is being done in response to the contract from a given campaign.
While appreciate your ability to listen to reason, I would also suggest that you brush up on statistics. Politics or no, its a good thing to have a working knowledge of.
It is true that most welfare recipients are at least partially emloyed. And it would seem that they are the able bodied ones who mostly deserve the assistance, as long as they are never ceasing the struggle to move onward and upward. I understand that in many areas where th edole is so pervasive, it is because there are few, if any jobs. So, the question then becomes, how would you go about bringing in more jobs? I can think of only one way to do it, and that means making it economically viable for a potential employer to bring jobs into those areas.
How would you, as the Federal government, bring jobs back into a steel town?
The question is less what could they produce more effectively, than it is what couldn't they produce?
Were it more economical for businesses to operate in this country, there is literally nothing that we could not produce at least as well as any other nation's industries.
Do you know anyone that would work for the rates that Indonesian and Chinese unskilled laborers earn?
If the regulations and constant passing of laws that generally are already on the books in one fashion or another were instead halted in place and the stuff on the books was actually enforced rather than buried, then their job loading would be significantly reduced.
Politicians don't actually enforce laws, they merely respond to their constituents; many of whom want changes to the law.
The lesson is not standing by while an electorate that disregards their oaths to uphold the Constitution continues to vote themselves more power and less responsibility. The Electorate is beholden to us, not the other way around.
Weird typos aside, that's idealistic nonsense.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: Over the ensuing years, the DE has become less a monitoring agency than it has a means of regulating what is taught and how.
I'm not aware of any US Department of Education policies that regulate teaching.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless your family was waaaay out in the boonies, or your local town couldn't afford a teacher, you went to school. And you had pretty advanced learning material when you did. The textbook was usually the Bible, because it was the one book every family had and you would have regardless of how much money you made. Can you imagine 1st-5th grade kds today reading a book with the same reading level as the Bible? They would struggle.
The reading level of the people back then was more advanced at an earlier age than we have today.
You think there was better, and more widely available, public education in the mid 18th century?
People had a more advanced level of reading skills. Thats all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Just some stats for people who actually think the generation born in the information age is dumber than other generations (or less educated).
Did I ever claim they were dumber?
Dumb =/= your level of reading comprehension. Likewise you can be intelligent without being able to do high level math.
People back in the 1800s were not less intelligent than people around today. They were quite intelligent.
If anything, without today's gadgets and modern technology you had to be even more intelligent to solve your problems. You couldn't just go look it up on Google you had to think about it.
dogma wrote: How would you, as the Federal government, bring jobs back into a steel town?
I don't know enough about the steel industry to even begin to make a guess. I do know that some companies have managed to survive with the additions of new tech, but it has also made keeping the numbers that they once employed unsustainable. Anymore than that would require someone who was well versed in that segment of industry to answer. There's obviously a demand, even in today's economy.
dogma wrote: Do you know anyone that would work for the rates that Indonesian and Chinese unskilled laborers earn?
No. But I also don't know anywhere in the U.S. where cost of living would even begin to allow it. All part of the same issue. Higher wages demand higher prices. Higher prices which all cry out for higher wages, especially if one wants to add any luxuries. That's just the way it is. My chief lament is that there are people who are more than willing to feed the beast by pining for higher minimum wages. It'll just drive prices up again, sending more jobs out of the country, and making those of us left working have to earn more just to maintain our own current status.
If the regulations and constant passing of laws that generally are already on the books in one fashion or another were instead halted in place and the stuff on the books was actually enforced rather than buried, then their job loading would be significantly reduced.
dogma wrote: Politicians don't actually enforce laws, they merely respond to their constituents; many of whom want changes to the law.
Never said they did. I merely said that they make their own work loads worse by passing new laws that layer over existing laws that, were they enforced, would negate the need to pass new laws.
The lesson is not standing by while an electorate that disregards their oaths to uphold the Constitution continues to vote themselves more power and less responsibility. The Electorate is beholden to us, not the other way around.
I'm only half awake right now, so I'm not seeing the weird typos. How is it idealistic nonsense? Is the government not beholden to us? Is that not a direct result of the Revolution and the creation of a new government? Were those not lessons learned during the years leading up to the Revolution?
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: Over the ensuing years, the DE has become less a monitoring agency than it has a means of regulating what is taught and how.
dogma wrote: I'm not aware of any US Department of Education policies that regulate teaching.
Then who is it that sets/monitors the national standards of education? If they don't do something to justify their existence, then why is there a segment of the government that siphons off 10's of billions of dollars a year?
Otherwise, why would anyone care about placement or standardization tests?
dogma wrote: Because they're easy means of assessing the ability of students, absent any other criteria.
And who uses or needs them? I can understand the State level education departments being interested. I fail to see why the Federal level really has any need to exist or be involved, beyond compiling information from the states themselves.
Less Educated is not the correct word to use. They were not less educated. Given what there was in total to teach they were not less educated. Its just that in the time between now and then we've begun to teach more things to people. But the people of times past were not less intelligent.
Just because you are taught more things doesn't make you smarter. Knowing more things isn't what defines your IQ.
its the ability to rationally think through a problem that makes you smarter. These people's situations would have by a matter of forcing them to think more made them smart. Its all the hard work of previous generations that creates what we have now. If anything that only logically makes people today use their brains less, because they can simply use what has been learned before. Sure they can now go farther, but more people won't do that. There are smart people around today, but the Geneticists and Doctors of today are not more intelligent than the Farmers and Doctors of the 19th century. The people that lay the foundation of a science are probably the smartest people that ever go into that field of study, they started with nothing after all.
Grey Templar wrote: Less Educated is not the correct word to use. They were not less educated. Given what there was in total to teach they were not less educated. Its just that in the time between now and then we've begun to teach more things to people. But the people of times past were not less intelligent.
Just because you are taught more things doesn't make you smarter. Knowing more things isn't what defines your IQ.
its the ability to rationally think through a problem that makes you smarter. These people's situations would have by a matter of forcing them to think more made them smart. Its all the hard work of previous generations that creates what we have now. If anything that only logically makes people today use their brains less, because they can simply use what has been learned before. Sure they can now go farther, but more people won't do that. There are smart people around today, but the Geneticists and Doctors of today are not more intelligent than the Farmers and Doctors of the 19th century. The people that lay the foundation of a science are probably the smartest people that ever go into that field of study, they started with nothing after all.
While you are correct that education and intelligence aren't the same thing it's pretty common knowledge that education is more accessible, extensive and diverse in modern America than any of it's previous generations.
Yeah, its more accessable, however I feel that quality has slipped. We lost quality in order to teach more things, not all of them useful.
We need to teach our kids some more useful things. Like how to handle money, responsibility, or home economics. These need to have more of a focus.
I feel that if we pushed reading comprehension earlier on in the school system we could improve the ability to learn in other areas and accelerate the entire learning process. Too much time is spent getting the kids writing properly when they should be reading. Reading is a far better method of teaching proper spelling and punctuation than having them memorize rules. its all about motivation. Nobody wants to learn about the proper use of commas, but if they read literature(and enjoy it) and have some minor reinforcement of the rules of grammer they will find it much more palatable to learn it. And will be more motivated to learn.
Our education system sucks in this country. One problem is that if a child misbehaves(likely because they don't like schol) we suspend them. Which is probably what they wanted in the first place. The problem is that school is seen as something undesirable. It used to be that getting suspended truly was punishement. Given the current culture its not.
One thing I can say for certain. We don't value an education nearly as much as we once did.
Never said they did. I merely said that they make their own work loads worse by passing new laws that layer over existing laws that, were they enforced, would negate the need to pass new laws.
My mistake then, but the way US legislation works is that any change to law requires the passage of a new law.
Is the government not beholden to us? Is that not a direct result of the Revolution and the creation of a new government? Were those not lessons learned during the years leading up to the Revolution?
No, it isn't. You might object to government policy, but mounting a revolution is something entirely different. And, even if it happens and is successful (which it is unlikely to be), you're still likely to end up with a government very similar to the one you rebelled against.
Then who is it that sets/monitors the national standards of education? If they don't do something to justify their existence, then why is there a segment of the government that siphons off 10's of billions of dollars a year?
They regulate standards for the receipt of federal funding.
Grey Templar wrote: Have you read material published back then? The reading comprehension level is way above what many people today read in College. Try the Federalist Papers, that was something written for everybody. Its got some very complex language.
I think you'll find that any time traveller that got suddenly transported to the modern day and was told to pick up our key documents would have just as difficult a time deciphering them. Our language is structured slightly differently, many words have changed meaning, and we've added a whole lot of new words for all the ones that have fallen out of use.
For feth's sake, it's a text based medium. So, yes, you did claim that. You wrote these exact words;
"We today are very dumbed down compared to back then."
And when you made that claim you were simply wrong.
People back in the 1800s were not less intelligent than people around today. They were quite intelligent.
If you compared average IQ scores just 100 years ago to today, you'd find scores were as much as 25 points lower than today. That makes them, by modern standards, developmentally slowed.
Now, obviously our great great grandparents weren't developmentally slowed, it's just that an IQ test measures your ability, among other things in abstract thought and some other skills that simply weren't as developed through the education system as much as they are today.
But all that's just an aside to your frankly ludicrous claim that because we have modern devices we're not as smart as in days of yore.
Grey Templar wrote: its the ability to rationally think through a problem that makes you smarter. These people's situations would have by a matter of forcing them to think more made them smart. Its all the hard work of previous generations that creates what we have now. If anything that only logically makes people today use their brains less, because they can simply use what has been learned before. Sure they can now go farther, but more people won't do that. There are smart people around today, but the Geneticists and Doctors of today are not more intelligent than the Farmers and Doctors of the 19th century. The people that lay the foundation of a science are probably the smartest people that ever go into that field of study, they started with nothing after all.
But that's not really how education, learning and becoming smarter works. The more a person learns, the more capable he is to form intelligent, rational thoughts. And the more capable he is to learn even more. Learning is, itself, a skill. I mean, take a highschool kid, even a smart one, and put him next to a guy doing a phd, and ask them to research and prepare a summary of some obscure subject. The skills acquired by the phd student will allow him to produce a better report much faster.
Today, where we learn so much more, and we learn it all through teaching and learning methods that are frankly much better than previously, means what you're saying above just doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: We need to teach our kids some more useful things. Like how to handle money, responsibility, or home economics. These need to have more of a focus.
While I agree that more practical home skills (especially household budgeting and home economics would be great) it's a bit of a laugh to think they used to have that stuff down pat in days of yore. You think historical household budgeting was in any way better than it is today? You honestly trying to claim there weren't just as many idiots drinking away their weekly wage and running out of cash?
One thing I can say for certain. We don't value an education nearly as much as we once did.
That's just not even slightly true. There is an ugly strain of anti-intellectualism... but there always has been. You honestly gonna claim people 100 or 200 years ago were walking about saying 'well I have some thoughts on the matter but I'm just a yokel who has properly read anything, I think we should wait for someone of learning to inform us on this issue before before we act hastily'. We've always been ignorant jackholes.
I think you're confusing the decline in respect for authority (which is a mixed blessing) with respect for education. People didn't shut up and sit straight because they valued learning. They shut up and sit straight because the teacher was an authority.
If the Feds somehow allowed State's to pass laws that trumped the National Governments ability to enforce National laws, would we still have a "United States" or are we back to something closer to the Articles of Confederation?
For feth's sake, it's a text based medium. So, yes, you did claim that. You wrote these exact words;
"We today are very dumbed down compared to back then."
And when you made that claim you were simply wrong.
Dumbed down =/= dumber.
Dumbed down refers to the level of reading which has been "Dumbed Down".
Todays 1st graders read simple sentances and construct simple sentances. Like "See Jane Run" etc.
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
Back on to firearms and the laws inherent apparently in the President's last press conference in this term (today) he swore that if congress wouldn't pass an AWB or lift the debt ceiling he'd do it by executive order.
I personally feel that would end poorly for everyone and everything involved.
Edit: any one actually see the press conference or have confirmation on that?
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
Reading complex sentences isn't difficult. I mean, I read Aristotle's Metaphysics when I was 10; I didn't understand it but I read it. I imagine the situation regarding the 1st grade children of yore was similar.
And, lets be honest, the Psalms aren't exactly complicated.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Back on to firearms and the laws inherent apparently in the President's last press conference in this term (today) he swore that if congress wouldn't pass an AWB or lift the debt ceiling he'd do it by executive order.
I personally feel that would end poorly for everyone and everything involved.
Edit: any one actually see the press conference or have confirmation on that?
President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that full implementation of his expected gun control proposals may be stonewalled in Congress but pledged to "vigorously pursue" recommendations from an administration task force, including a "meaningful" assault weapons ban.
"What you can count on is that the things that I've said in the past - the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, an assault weapons ban that's meaningful - those are things I continue to believe make sense," Obama said during the final press conference of his first term.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," he added. "But what's uppermost in my mind is making sure that I'm honest with the American people and with members of Congress about what I think will work."
Obama said that some measures, like the lifting of restrictions on how the federal government can collect data about guns, can be accomplished by executive order, while others will require legislation.
"Members of Congress are going to, I think, have a debate and examine their own conscience because if in fact - and I believe this is true - everybody across party lines was as moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we're going to have to vote based on what we think is best."
The president is expected to review recommendations from the task force led by Vice President Joe Biden today in a private meeting. Obama charged Biden with leading the reform effort after a mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 20 children dead.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," Obama said of the expected resistance from gun groups and many in Congress who are skeptical of an assault weapons ban. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works. What should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidence of gun violence? And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."
Addressing a question about recent spikes in gun sales, Obama blamed pro-gun groups for "ginning up fear" among firearm owners.
"Those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners -- people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship - they don't have anything to worry about," he said. "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion."
The entire press conference was full of distortions and side-slips away from actual facts.
I loved how Obama was called out on his own voting against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, and is now holding the Republicans guilty of obstructionism now that they are demanding a dollar for dollar debt increase to spending cut deal.
Having opposed the raising of the debt ceiling to finance a foolish, wasteful foreign war adventure, it obviously is wrong to support the raising of the debt ceiling to support the regeneration of the US economy.
Keynesianism has been proven a dead end time and again. Unfortunately, since I am not an economist, I can not quote numbers for an argument. What I do know is that we spend more than we take in as a nation. We are on the road to ruin because of it. The model that we are currently using suposedly bears a very close similarity to Keynesianism.
We are deeper in debt every single second of every single day. It is patently obvious that the method does not work.
As a nation, we must address our own spending. It must be cut drastically. However, in order to do that, the country must again become business friendly, so that more people can be taken off the dole and become tax-payers. That is the only way that a nation can dig itself out of the cessepool of debt.
At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
Keynesianism by itself doesn't work...
Macro-economic is about all the moving parts that paints a bigger picture.
However, saying Keynesianism has been proven wrong isn't right either...
Best example is during the Reagan years, they also massively cut taxes AND raise Government spending at the same time.
So... now, we're seeing huge government spending... where can you cut taxes? If that can be done (ala, Reagan years), I'd suspect the private industries would come roaring back.
d-usa wrote: So the government needs to spend more on private industries?
Tax breaks and hand outs are really the same thing.
Let's not get into a Keynesianism debate in this thread... cool? It'll be argued ad nauseum till kingdom come...
Not taking $100 from somebody or giving them $100, either way it costs the government $100. It's not rocket science.
Why does the government need that $100? Not as simple as that.
Edit: Further point if you want to spring board this:
-Keynesian economics is mainly a theory about how to stop an economy from imploding by virtue of government intervention (ie, increased spending)
-Now... Reaganomics (as I alluded to earlier) rejects the "government-knows-best" philosophy (Keynesian-only), by trusting entrepreneurs, competition, and the order-from-chaos principle. In essence, Reaganomics trusts the bottom-up evolutionary process of selection and adaptation, fostered by competition among suppliers for winning the consumers' loyalties. Under Reaganomics, government provides the basics: defense, justice, education, infrastructure, and a stable currency. Private sector workers, entrepreneurs, managers, and businesses provide the growing prosperity.
To wrap all this up... what does this divergence of this has to do with the OP anyways?
My argument is that tax-cutting your way out of an economic crisis is the same as spending your way out of an economic crisis. You can't argue that one will work and one will not when they are essentially the same.
d-usa wrote: My argument is that tax-cutting your way out of an economic crisis is the same as spending your way out of an economic crisis. You can't argue that one will work and one will not when they are essentially the same.
In a vacuum, yes.. either or is problematic. That wasn't my point.... you sorta need both.
Government intervention + taxcuts (or some activity to encourage private investments). It's gotta be a mixture...
The issue here is that while Government intervention is sorta easy... but, it needs to coincide policies that encourages investments in private market.... that's the challenge.
But, don't look at your politicians for guidance... to them, it's political.
Dumbed down refers to the level of reading which has been "Dumbed Down".
Todays 1st graders read simple sentances and construct simple sentances. Like "See Jane Run" etc.
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
They performed group reading, and in doing so learnt by rote. This is much the same as learning to chant the times table, and not being given the tools to understand why the times table works as it does.
They rarely gained a real appreciation of the complexity of the text, and certainly no training in how to put their own thoughts into similarly complex terms.
Simply put, if you had transported the internet to 1800, there would have been very few people capable of joining forums like this one and beginning a text based debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: How is putting us deeper in debt going to help repair the economy? You can not spend more than you have and get out of debt. It can not be done.
You do not get to simply make up economic claims. What we know about economics, what we know about aggregate demand actually fething matters.
And so yes, when you have depressed demand you run deficits. You maintain economic systems with greater government spending, and thereby prevent a downward spiral in economic activity. That's just how it is, and that's something we've known for generations.
Debt is a problem, it is a long term problem. To be fixed with long term structural reforms. Not with grandstanding nonsense that plays on economic ignorance.
No, it hasn't. That's a simply ludicrous, laughable claim.
What I do know is that we spend more than we take in as a nation. We are on the road to ruin because of it. The model that we are currently using suposedly bears a very close similarity to Keynesianism.
Yes, you are spending more than you bring in. That has sweet feth all to do with Keynesianism, and if you had any economics background you would know that. Keynes doesn't argue for deficits year after year. He says you should run deficits when the economy is down, and run surpluses when the economy is good.
Now, given you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the whole idea of Keynes, and have fallen for some economic snake oil salesman or another, I'll give you a brief run down on the whole Keynes thing. At the centre of Keynesian economics was a debate between two schools, one led by Keynes and the other by a fellow called Hayek. Hayek was a strong believer in the old school of classical economics, that everything moved to equilibrium and the important thing for government was just to not screw that up. One of those equilibrium points Hayek believed in most strongly was the idea that every dollar that is earned is spent, otherwise what is the point of that dollar? You earn it, and you spend it, or put it in a bank whereupon the bank lends it someone else to spend. Good simple sense which meant that the economy was always at a constant full capacity.
But Keynes said that a dollar is not just a thing to be spent, but also a store of value. That means a person facing bad times will be encouraged to keep more of his dollars, and therefore an entire economy facing bad times will do the same en masse. Keynes pointed out that in such circumstances there won't be anyone to borrow those funds from the bank - who invests in new businesses when the existing capacity isn't be used because no-one is buying? As such, economic activity can go up and down.
It was a fair argument between two very smart men and their very smart followers. But there was an answer, and the answer lies in this;
Econometrics developed. This meant we now had the ability to put real world numbers to economic theories. It meant we could actually figure out what the GDP (the total economic output in a given year) was and see that it went up and that it went down in business cycles exactly as Keynes had predicted. Keynes was right and Hayek was wrong. They named a town after Keynes, while Hayek died with almost his entire school having left him for Keynesianism (though he was later to be revived by the Austrian school when they used him to prop up their own bs).
There is a twist in the tail, as econometrics improved even more, and eventually came to return to classical economics, as we could now use real world figures to study and refine our classical models. This was called neo-classicalism, and it came to be used as a possible alternative to Keynesian policy. Not that one is wrong and the other is right, more that each can be used to solve different problems of different severity, in the same way that eating well and exercise is the correct answer for some health issues, while for others you need surgery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
They're divided on the complex specifics of it, but on the basics, among properly credentialled economists there is no real debate on the basics of . A recent paper by some guys called Gordon and Dahl polled the six top economists at the seven best schools, and found almost universal consensus on the big issues of economics (including the question of whether deficits give stimulus to an economy).
The issue comes when economic theory hits politics.
Macro-economic is about all the moving parts that paints a bigger picture.
However, saying Keynesianism has been proven wrong isn't right either...
Best example is during the Reagan years, they also massively cut taxes AND raise Government spending at the same time.
So... now, we're seeing huge government spending... where can you cut taxes? If that can be done (ala, Reagan years), I'd suspect the private industries would come roaring back.
Keynesianism isn't just about spending. Cutting taxes can be just as important - what matter is pumping money into the economy. Hey, you can just cut everyone a check and mail it to them (that actually happened, more or less, in a bunch of places after the GFC).
Now, that said, a series of studies have looked at which types of stimulus give you the best bang for your buck, and tax cuts do the worst. Because in poor economic times people are more likely to save that bonus money as spent it, and on top of that tax cuts tend to be weighted towards the wealthy, who are even less inclined to spend the money that just came in. On the other hand, infrastructure spending means new jobs, and new money into supplier businesses, so all that money is almost all spend again in the economy, and spent fairly quickly. Military spending works fairly well for the same reasons (provided it isn't spent on bases overseas).
All up, you get about $1.50 in stimulus for each $1.00 of tax cuts, but you get about $3.50 in stimulus for every dollar on infrastructure spending.
But the complicating factor in that is that you can't go into recession on Monday and start building a new bridge on Tuesday. That shovel ready gaff the Obama admin made is a real problem, these days infrastructure plans are months, and sometimes years in the planning. That's a problem when you need stimulus now, not in a year's time. As a result the best approach is a mixed approach, and that's even more so when you add in politics (the debt of a stimulus bill is much easier to sell when people see some money, even a very small amount, in their own hands).
With regards to Reagan, what you had there was, as you said a double barrel approach, tax cuts and increased spending. That led, as it must, to increased aggregate demand and an increasing speed to the recovery. But there were two other factors in the Reagan economy - the reasons for the decline were acute but quickly disappeared (the oil shock etc). By the time Reagan took office the recovery was already underway. Whereas now the problems of the GFC are still largely with us - financial institutions are still heavily in debt, housing is still depressed, and the instability of several sovereign states continues to undermine confidence.
The other reason for the strength of the Reagan recovery was that there was a major new industry there in the making - the microcomputer. You had every business looking to invest and grow their productivity, and you had tremendous new wealth being created out of Silicon Valley. Jobs created through that industry meant more people spending their pay cheques, dragging every other industry along with it. Today there is no such new industry, the internet is effectively replacing old forms of business, and green energy and other possible new fields are still fairly stagnant.
Seb? A little help?
Was that much help?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Why does the government need that $100? Not as simple as that.
Edit: Further point if you want to spring board this:
-Keynesian economics is mainly a theory about how to stop an economy from imploding by virtue of government intervention (ie, increased spending)
It's more than it. It basically says that there is a thing called the business cycle, and economy will move through period of sustained growth and then periods of flat growth or even into decline (as I said above, this is the Keynes Hayek debate that saw Keynes win so hard they named a town after him, while everyone forgot about Hayek). Keynes goes on to say that heightened growth and decline is bad for the overall rate of long term growth as it is wasteful (a business might set up selling overpriced fur coats in the midst of the boom, only to shut down and see all the investment in inventory and fixtures and fittings wasted, while another business that has a solid basis might feel the pinch during a recession and go bankrupt, leading to all the waste of a liquidation, only for another company to have to invest in new plant and equipment to fill the gap in better economic conditions).
Keynesian economics makes the fairly common sense conclusion that therefore it is best to attempt to stabilise the economy - draw money out of the economy when it's growth is overheated, and pump money into the economy when it is depressed.
-Now... Reaganomics (as I alluded to earlier) rejects the "government-knows-best" philosophy (Keynesian-only), by trusting entrepreneurs, competition, and the order-from-chaos principle. In essence, Reaganomics trusts the bottom-up evolutionary process of selection and adaptation, fostered by competition among suppliers for winning the consumers' loyalties. Under Reaganomics, government provides the basics: defense, justice, education, infrastructure, and a stable currency. Private sector workers, entrepreneurs, managers, and businesses provide the growing prosperity.
Sort of, that stuff is the political sell on the top of Reagonomics. Underneath there's two economic theories, the Laffer Curve and the Trickle Down effect. The Laffer Curves states that tax can hurt growth and incomes by so much that you can actually raise more money by lowering taxes. This has been shown to be quite wrong (while it works in theory, no country taxes at anything like that rate of tax, or hasn't since the old 90% days). The Trickle Down effect has been more complex to prove/disprove, and perhaps the final conclusion is that it works a little, over the very long term (the Economist posted a finding that said you get I think it was about 0.1% extra growth from policies that put more money in the hands of the rich - whether that's worth the income inequality is a subjective decision for the reader to make).
The net result of all of that is that the early boom of the 1980s was basically a wasted opportunity for the US. Gifted with a new industry, it could have set up the government coffers for a generation. Instead it put in place a tax and spending structure that meant deficits in good times and bad - and was the first big step in leading to the deficit issues the US has today.
Easy E wrote: At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
They're divided on the complex specifics of it, but on the basics, among properly credentialled economists there is no real debate on the basics of .
Yeah, hence why I said "at best" economists are divided on the topic.
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen to what other have to say. In my limited experience you can't tell anyone anything or force them to believe a what you are saying. However, you can lead them to ask questions and gain understanding for themselves.
While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
One argument, I've seen presented here, is that the 2nd requires the maintenance of a well regulated milita, but what militia requires more than a sidearm and longarm?
While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
They're (for the most part) enthusiasts who purchase, and practice with weapons as a hobby rather than out of practical concerns. Of course there are also people who the apocalypse, or some kind of impending totalitarian regime, but they're very much in the minority.
Its similar to to the difference between the person who owns one utilitarian car, and the person who owns several of various design purpose.
Easy E wrote: Yeah, hence why I said "at best" economists are divided on the topic.
Sure, and I should concede I overstated my point a little in my earlier post. There is considerable debate on macroeconomics, but those debating points aren't on points the economics of maths. No-one will debate whether the increasing government spending will increase overall demand, the debate will be more on whether or not you should do this (the freshwater school will tell you that recessions either don't exist, are good for the economy, or are natural responses within the market - people choosing not to look for work).
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen to what other have to say. In my limited experience you can't tell anyone anything or force them to believe a what you are saying. However, you can lead them to ask questions and gain understanding for themselves.
That's realy well put, and is a great way to approach a lot of discussion.
The problem, I think, is that too many people who know little or nothing about a subject come in not looking to learn, but to tell everyone what they think. They can't be led to ask because they think they know all about the subject already. When discussing a subject with someone like that, you need first of all to break down
The problem, I think, is that too many people who know little or nothing about a subject come in not looking to learn, but to tell everyone what they think. They can't be led to ask because they think they know all about the subject already. When discussing a subject with someone like that, you need first of all to break down
A lesson I learned teaching Introduction to International Politics whenever the subject of the UN came up.
While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
One argument, I've seen presented here, is that the 2nd requires the maintenance of a well regulated milita, but what militia requires more than a sidearm and longarm?
Cheers
Andrew
A carry gun.
A duplicate back-up for if/when the carry gun goes down for maintenance.
A shotgun for the house.
A duplicate back-up for if/when the shotgun goes down for maintenance.
That's technically all I need. I have more than that; I bought an HK45C to act as my carry gun before I discovered I didn't like it as much as the P30, and I just haven't gotten around to selling it. Anyone who takes any pleasure at all in shooting owns a 1911, so I own a couple of those as well.
While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
One argument, I've seen presented here, is that the 2nd requires the maintenance of a well regulated milita, but what militia requires more than a sidearm and longarm?
Cheers
Andrew
Do you own tools? Or paint brushes for models perhaps? Why do you need more then one hammer? Or more them one paint brush? Different tools for different jobs. Then there's collectors who stack various historical firearms. Examples:
I know a guy who owns one of every primary infantry rifle (and a couple specialty rifles) used by the United States since 1775. (M1A and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles obviously stand in for the more modern stuff). I know several people with collections of WW2 weapons, ranging from variants of M1 Garands to one fellow who's looking to collect /all/ the things.
While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
They're (for the most part) enthusiasts who purchase, and practice with weapons as a hobby rather than out of practical concerns. Of course there are also people who the apocalypse, or some kind of impending totalitarian regime, but they're very much in the minority.
Its similar to to the difference between the person who owns one utilitarian car, and the person who owns several of various design purpose.
Not going to tease you for the phrasing, but a solid survival rifle/bug out bag never hurt any one. Even the CDC's on board with the whole Zombie Apocalypse thing because being prepared for that means you're prepared for pretty much any other basic emergency situation as well.
New York's ridiculous laws, unsurprisingly, got rammed through by the Democratic legislature. I'm curious if manufacturers are going to start making 7-round mags, or if NY's just SOL.
Seaward wrote: New York's ridiculous laws, unsurprisingly, got rammed through by the Democratic legislature. I'm curious if manufacturers are going to start making 7-round mags, or if NY's just SOL.
What does 7 rounds vs. 10 rounds really do in the first place? Besides annoy 1911 owners.
Seaward wrote: New York's ridiculous laws, unsurprisingly, got rammed through by the Democratic legislature. I'm curious if manufacturers are going to start making 7-round mags, or if NY's just SOL.
What does 7 rounds vs. 10 rounds really do in the first place? Besides annoy 1911 owners.
Make clueless idiots feel like they've done something for the public good.
We know from the gun owner map that very few people in New York will be affected anyway. There are only a few hundred pistol licences in effect, from what I can remember of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: We know from the gun owner map that very few people in New York will be affected anyway. There are only a few hundred pistol licences in effect, from what I can remember of it.
I thought that map was only for two counties, not the whole state?
Not going to tease you for the phrasing, but a solid survival rifle/bug out bag never hurt any one. Even the CDC's on board with the whole Zombie Apocalypse thing because being prepared for that means you're prepared for pretty much any other basic emergency situation as well.
General preparedness isn't quite the same thing as stockpiling weapons and ammunition.
Bruce Reed, Vice President Biden’s chief of staff, told liberal activists late Tuesday that Obama’s package would also include a federal gun trafficking measure to stop straw-man purchases and crack down on trafficking rings after a number of mayors raised the issue, said a person familiar with the plan.
Obama also is expected to present up to 19 executive actions that his administration will take, the lawmakers and advocates said. These steps include enhanced federal scientific research on gun violence and a modernized federal database system to track guns, criminals and the mentally ill.
Most of these actions are relatively narrow in scope, however, and experts have said that without accompanying legislation they will do little to curb gun violence, at least in the near term.
Asked about the constraints on Obama’s executive powers, Carney said, “It is a simple fact that there are limits on what can be done within existing law.”
.............
Already, there are warning signs about the hurdles Obama’s agenda may face on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said it would be exceedingly difficult to pass an assault-weapons ban, which appears to be the most polarizing of Obama’s proposals.
“Let’s be realistic,” Reid told a Nevada PBS affiliate last week. “In the Senate, we’re going to do what we think can get through the House, and I’m not going to go through a bunch of these gyrations just to say we’ve done something.”
House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) echoed that calculation on Tuesday by acknowledging the difficulties that gun-control legislation would face in the Republican-led House.
“That’s been the case based on past history,” Hoyer told reporters.
Looks like Harry Reid has gun owners back or at least accepts reality. So that's solid. Here's a real question I want feedback on guys. What would we as gun owners accept or even push for for gun control? An AWB's unacceptable, a mag ban's stupid and untenable. However, Universal Background Checks might be a pain in the ass, but I don't see a problem with it. Annoying for me if I want to sell off a rifle or whatever? Yes. Really bad news for the law abiding? No. Especially if they can set up a method to allow Joe Citizen to do a background check for firearms sales purposes on his own without going through an FFL. Increased control on handguns maybe? Those seem to be the primary issue when it comes to actual violence in this country. What we know about the Big O's proposed executive orders don't seem terrible either. Criminal, Mental health tracking, Federal crack down on strawman buys/weapons trafficking. All of that sounds like stuff that's gonna keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. I mean nothing major's gonna happen till we improve education across the board, get the economy out of the s bend and kick poverty hard in the dangly bits but these things could actually do some good.
Not going to tease you for the phrasing, but a solid survival rifle/bug out bag never hurt any one. Even the CDC's on board with the whole Zombie Apocalypse thing because being prepared for that means you're prepared for pretty much any other basic emergency situation as well.
General preparedness isn't quite the same thing as stockpiling weapons and ammunition.
Sure but having a gun, knowing how to use it and having ammo to hand is never a bad idea for general preparedness.
Looks like Harry Reid has gun owners back or at least accepts reality. So that's solid. Here's a real question I want feedback on guys. What would we as gun owners accept or even push for for gun control? An AWB's unacceptable, a mag ban's stupid and untenable. However, Universal Background Checks might be a pain in the ass, but I don't see a problem with it. Annoying for me if I want to sell off a rifle or whatever? Yes. Really bad news for the law abiding? No. Especially if they can set up a method to allow Joe Citizen to do a background check for firearms sales purposes on his own without going through an FFL. Increased control on handguns maybe? Those seem to be the primary issue when it comes to actual violence in this country. What we know about the Big O's proposed executive orders don't seem terrible either. Criminal, Mental health tracking, Federal crack down on strawman buys/weapons trafficking. All of that sounds like stuff that's gonna keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. I mean nothing major's gonna happen till we improve education across the board, get the economy out of the s bend and kick poverty hard in the dangly bits but these things could actually do some good.
The Executive Orders seem sensible, during the interview it seemed like he was focusing on things he could do within the DOJ and other agencies dealing with the criminal side of things. Definetly not coming across as jackboot brownshirts coming to take our guns away.
AWB and mag bans deal with symptoms and are just safety theater without any real actual impact. I know why they want to do it (they look scary and the people think we are doing something effective) but it's a wasted effort. The only benefit of proposing them would probably be being able to drop them later for some sort of compromise.
Universal Background checks would be a good thing, my only question would be the enforcement of it. How do you make sure that people do the checks? I have not looked into the proposals that much so I don't know.
Kilkrazy wrote: We know from the gun owner map that very few people in New York will be affected anyway. There are only a few hundred pistol licences in effect, from what I can remember of it.
I thought that map was only for two counties, not the whole state?
Yes, it is two counties, Westchester and Rockland. So probably several thousand people for the whole state.
Looks like Harry Reid has gun owners back or at least accepts reality.
No Harry Reid certainly doesn't have the gun owner's back. He's just trying to keep his track record of only permitting one bill to hit the floor a year intact, and they have to act on that Potato Day resolution.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Do you own tools? Or paint brushes for models perhaps? Why do you need more then one hammer? Or more them one paint brush? Different tools for different jobs. Then there's collectors who stack various historical firearms. Examples:
I know a guy who owns one of every primary infantry rifle (and a couple specialty rifles) used by the United States since 1775. (M1A and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles obviously stand in for the more modern stuff). I know several people with collections of WW2 weapons, ranging from variants of M1 Garands to one fellow who's looking to collect /all/ the things.
You see I dont get that argument. I understand what you are saying, I just don't 'get' it.
As you say different tools for different jobs, so please explain why, hypothetically, a person would need (pulls figure from air) 6 handguns? What different jobs do those items perform?
AndrewC wrote: While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
Let's see.
- My father, grandfather and myself all hunted together - 3x rifles, 3x shotguns, 3x 22s for a total of 9 (different firearms are REQUIRED by state LAW to be used for hunting different types of game)
- My grandfather has historical firearms from World War 2 - 2 more
- My father, grandfather and I all have a pistol of some sort - 3 more
- My father and I have multiple calibers for deer hunting due to hunting conditions and range - call it 4 more.
My father and grandfather passed away and I inherited all the firearm; ending up with 18+ from pretty legitimate reasons. All of them have sentimental value and I would only sell them under duress.
AndrewC wrote: While I can understand that some of you feel they have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the 'cultural identity' of being an American, I find it hard to understand why some of you need to own so many?
Let's see.
- My father, grandfather and myself all hunted together - 3x rifles, 3x shotguns, 3x 22s for a total of 9 (different firearms are REQUIRED by state LAW to be used for hunting different types of game)
- My grandfather has historical firearms from World War 2 - 2 more
- My father, grandfather and I all have a pistol of some sort - 3 more
- My father and I have multiple calibers for deer hunting due to hunting conditions and range - call it 4 more.
My father and grandfather passed away and I inherited all the firearm; ending up with 18+ from pretty legitimate reasons. All of them have sentimental value and I would only sell them under duress.
However in this case you actually only owned 4 weapons all for a specific purpose, and the other 14 were inherited as opposed to bought, I am trying to understand the mindset that says I will buy and own as many firearms as I want.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Looks like Harry Reid has gun owners back or at least accepts reality. So that's solid. Here's a real question I want feedback on guys.
If a Politicians lips are moving, he's lying.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What would we as gun owners accept or even push for for gun control? An AWB's unacceptable, a mag ban's stupid and untenable. However, Universal Background Checks might be a pain in the ass, but I don't see a problem with it. Annoying for me if I want to sell off a rifle or whatever? Yes. Really bad news for the law abiding? No. Especially if they can set up a method to allow Joe Citizen to do a background check for firearms sales purposes on his own without going through an FFL. Increased control on handguns maybe? Those seem to be the primary issue when it comes to actual violence in this country.
Depends on the implementation. If it's in a manner which is easily accessible and not cost prohibitive, like current internet transfers, not a big deal. If it is done so the firearm has to pass through the dealers books, thus making him buy it and then resell it, that is a big problem.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What we know about the Big O's proposed executive orders don't seem terrible either. Criminal, Mental health tracking,
How?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Federal crack down on strawman buys/weapons trafficking. All of that sounds like stuff that's gonna keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys.
See operation Fast and Furious where the ATF actively trafficked guns to Mexico, under FFL protest.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I mean nothing major's gonna happen till we improve education across the board, get the economy out of the s bend and kick poverty hard in the dangly bits but these things could actually do some good.
I concur, but I don't see any EOs or proposed legislation on that. Only legislation on "let's ban X, Y and Z".
AndrewC wrote: However in this case you actually only owned 4 weapons all for a specific purpose, and the other 14 were inherited as opposed to bought, I am trying to understand the mindset that says I will buy and own as many firearms as I want.
Not sure I am getting you, all firearms are bought for specific purpose. People buy multiple firearms for all kinds of reasons. The tool example above is a very good analogy. People end up with hordes of tools for no other reason they fill some purpose, even though that purpose may duplicate with another similar tool. People collect all kinds of stuff that is fundamentally a copy of another similar item, the same question could be posed to them and I doubt you'll get one consistent answer.
d-usa wrote: Gotta love that we are using the kids as a prop:
(I know the box isn't labeled "gun control" but still...)
Someone was joking that he would unveil his latest gimic surrounded by kids. Lo and behold here come the youngling props.
As expected, there will be no proposals addressing the mental health industry, and the ability for authorities to actually do something when they find out about a crazy wackjob, nor anything on the video game or movie industry. Just guns.
You see this is what confuses me, someone who turns round and says he owns 3 pistols, one for carry, one for home defence, and one for backup when one of the others is being maintained I can understand. There is a logic to that. Someone who owns 18+ guns because he inherited them, fine. Someone who says he owns 18 guns because he can leaves me confused as to what this person actually is.
Basically I dont understand the justification of 'because'.
AndrewC wrote: You see this is what confuses me, someone who turns round and says he owns 3 pistols, one for carry, one for home defence, and one for backup when one of the others is being maintained I can understand. There is a logic to that. Someone who owns 18+ guns because he inherited them, fine. Someone who says he owns 18 guns because he can leaves me confused as to what this person actually is.
Basically I dont understand the justification of 'because'.
Cheers
Andrew
Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.
AndrewC wrote: Basically I don't understand the justification of 'because'.
I think that's more of universal question than just a gun question. Same can be said for 40K. Why do people own multiple armies or huge amounts of the same army. Having mutliple armies I can sort of understand because GW power creeps so much, but having hordes of a single army doesn't really make sense. Why does someone need 6 land raiders of the same configuration? They typically can't fit them all in a one force org chart. They rarely are going to play a game where they can use 6 land raiders. Lastly, the current land raiders are not even considered to a good points investment.
I have over 10K points of CSM. I can't put it all on the table at one time and I don't even have models for all the options available, with extreme amounts of duplication of other models. Why did I buy this, no good reason other than, because I wanted to.
Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.
Because I have kids and it seems like a complete cop out whenever I use the reason of 'Because I said so' I'm not jusifying myself, I'm just imposing an arbitrary decision on them that has no discernable logic.
Toy soldiers? I own more than I need, and most of them unmade/unpainted
Trousers? (Remember I'm Scottish not American, same word different meaning ) Personally I only need 6 (work, casual, dress and a spare for each), but the wife keep buying me more. As for kilts I cant afford them, besides wear them here? not a chance!
I think that I'm going to bow out of this discussion, mainly because I don't want to be seen as trolling. I willl however leave one last comment, Frazz I think it does matter simply because the end result has such a terrible, final impact. In the case of figures, pants, tools etc familiarity breeds contempt and they just become things in the background and unless you stand on a chaos spikey bit with bare feet unlikely to hurt you. Firearms on the other hand are designed to inflict harm on something else, and if they become one of those things in the backround then they are not treated with the respect they need in order to be kept safe. Now, I know that everyone here will proclaim that they a paragons of virtue and that they treat all firearms with healthy respect, locking them away and storing ammo seperately, but dakkites are not everyone, and not everyone takes care. So to me owning excessive guns 'just because' is a terrible reason.
Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Do you own tools? Or paint brushes for models perhaps? Why do you need more then one hammer? Or more them one paint brush? Different tools for different jobs. Then there's collectors who stack various historical firearms. Examples:
I know a guy who owns one of every primary infantry rifle (and a couple specialty rifles) used by the United States since 1775. (M1A and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles obviously stand in for the more modern stuff). I know several people with collections of WW2 weapons, ranging from variants of M1 Garands to one fellow who's looking to collect /all/ the things.
You see I dont get that argument. I understand what you are saying, I just don't 'get' it.
As you say different tools for different jobs, so please explain why, hypothetically, a person would need (pulls figure from air) 6 handguns? What different jobs do those items perform?
Cheers
Andrew
Depends on the handguns. I could blow you off and say "Six rare variants of revolvers" and call it a day (I know a fellow who has twelve revolvers of different styles and types ranging from an old cap and ball to a Colt that's probably worth more then my car) but I'll go through and break down some possibilities for you.
A .22 for practice or hunting A rimfire competition pistol A large caliber competition pistol Carry pistol Hunting pistol (they do exist) Collector pistol (classic police revolver, luger, etc)
Just for a set of examples that all have a specific purpose.
I can own three types of shotgun for three different purposes easily if we just limit things to 12 gauge shotguns A home defense shotgun with no choke and a short barrel A long barreled birding and trap shooting shotgun a rifled hunting shotgun
All three of those types can come in different styles to qualify for different styles of sport, competition or personal preference. (For example my next shotgun purchase is a double barreled shotgun for cowboy action shooting competitions) and to comply with different state laws. I can't legally hunt with my house shotgun for example because it has too high a shell capacity. Smaller shotguns can find use for small game, or dealing with snakes and other pests on the range. (I know a couple horse ranchers who carry a .410 shotgun just for that, though some of them have switched to the Taurus Judge revolver which can also fire .410 shotshells)
For rifles that's where things get really messy Everyone should own a .22 for target shooting, instruction, practice and to save some money on the more expensive calibers. Also a handy way to teach people how to shoot without bruising their shoulders up. There are also purpose built competition .22s like the ones the Olympic shooting teams use. Various calibers and builds have various purposes and set ups. Smaller calibers like 5.56/.223 are great for varmint hunting (Prairie dogs, Coyotes, etc) and other small game, but it's not what you want for elk or bear. So the average hunted can easily have a range of three to four rifles depending on personal preference, terrain, and the game in question. X round on X action with X scope is used for X game, Y round on Y action with iron sights is used for Y and Zed game and so forth. Some folks have a thing for tack driving and long range, this also gets into competition rifles. Then we get into Modern Sporting Rifles like the AR-15 which can be used for... just about everything really. Hunting, defense, a variety of competition ranging from service rifle category shooting competitions to tactical shooting competitions like three gun. Then there's collecting as mentioned above. Many gun owners have a passion for the history and craftsmanship shown in quality firearms, especially older examples of the type. Old English double guns that have seen Africa, Military rifles that came home from one of a hundred wars in it's soldier's hands... or perhaps not, having been sent back to await a new master to serve after it's former owner fell in battle. A certain type of style of weapon that spurred a technological revolution or defined it's era such as the Colt Single Action Army, the iconic pistol of the American West.
The good news is I don't really have to justify myself to you. Or any one else for that matter. idon't mind explaining my hobby and one of my passions, or at least trying to but the bottom line is we live in free societies and are within the limits of the law free to do as we please. Collect a dozen cars of various makes and models? Every single 40k army GW has rules for at 2000 points? Rifles and hand guns? High end electronics that you assemble yourself from kits? Who am I to judge?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.
Well you can always try shooting dual pistols or what not, but it doesn't work very well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Gotta love that we are using the kids as a prop:
(I know the box isn't labeled "gun control" but still...)
Well you could just go straight to the source d-usa
I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.
and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.
I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.
aka_mythos wrote: Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.
I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.
It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.
Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.
Because I have kids and it seems like a complete cop out whenever I use the reason of 'Because I said so' I'm not jusifying myself, I'm just imposing an arbitrary decision on them that has no discernable logic.
Toy soldiers? I own more than I need, and most of them unmade/unpainted
Trousers? (Remember I'm Scottish not American, same word different meaning ) Personally I only need 6 (work, casual, dress and a spare for each), but the wife keep buying me more. As for kilts I cant afford them, besides wear them here? not a chance!
I think that I'm going to bow out of this discussion, mainly because I don't want to be seen as trolling. I willl however leave one last comment, Frazz I think it does matter simply because the end result has such a terrible, final impact. In the case of figures, pants, tools etc familiarity breeds contempt and they just become things in the background and unless you stand on a chaos spikey bit with bare feet unlikely to hurt you. Firearms on the other hand are designed to inflict harm on something else, and if they become one of those things in the backround then they are not treated with the respect they need in order to be kept safe. Now, I know that everyone here will proclaim that they a paragons of virtue and that they treat all firearms with healthy respect, locking them away and storing ammo seperately, but dakkites are not everyone, and not everyone takes care. So to me owning excessive guns 'just because' is a terrible reason.
Cheers (from a very windy Falklands)
Andrew
KNives are designed to cut and stab. How many do you have? Why? You only need one. Owning excessive knives "just because" is a terrible reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.
I agree. I can only use four at a time, and thats if I take off my shoes. On the positive, Team Wienie can man one as well, although TBone's so blind now its pretty much like bird hunting with Dick Cheney...
aka_mythos wrote: Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.
I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.
It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.
They aren't? People who buy guns aren't consumers purchasing products on a relatively free market?
Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.
Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children.
Edit: Not to mention MSNBC's usually biased enough to make Faux News blush. Kinda week over all.
aka_mythos wrote: Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.
I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.
It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.
They aren't? People who buy guns aren't consumers purchasing products on a relatively free market?
Define a consumer product. Why is it that cigarettes and guns are, but cannabis and nerve gas aren't? It is based at least partly on the legal framework.
Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.
Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children.
.
Obama makes a comment about children and he's compared to Hitler -- odd it didn't happen to , say , Barbara Bush or Hoover.. or Jesus.. or any of the many other famous people who have said things about children
So you're happy label him an extremist, whilst the NRA, in their continuing attempts to disappear up their own fundamentals and become even less important or useful than they are, attempt to claim that the children of the President of the USA are in no more danger or at risk than the child of Joe ( Joanne ? What is the female equivalent here ?) Public, and that is fine and sensible and not at all deranged beyond the point of extremism.
Gotcha.
KNives are designed to cut and stab. How many do you have? Why? You only need one.
Most knives are designed for different types of cutting/cooking/whathaveyou. They are also of cousre considerably cheaper than guns and, one assumes, break or need replacing more often too..? I guess to an extent that'd vary depending upon how often one fires ones gun or whathaveyou.
Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.
Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children. .
Obama makes a comment about children and he's compared to Hitler -- odd it didn't happen to , say , Barbara Bush or Hoover.. or Jesus.. or any of the many other famous people who have said things about children
So you're happy label him an extremist, whilst the NRA, in their continuing attempts to disappear up their own fundamentals and become even less important or useful than they are, attempt to claim that the children of the President of the USA are in no more danger or at risk than the child of Joe ( Joanne ? What is the female equivalent here ?) Public, and that is fine and sensible and not at all deranged beyond the point of extremism.
Gotcha.
What I'm saying is that he is using the concept of "the children" as political capital, which is why his press conference announcing his gun control package that is going on right now has the president literally surrounded with a group of children. It's a politically calculated move to sell his package, and it's a political ploy that's older then dirt, and one from his writings that yes Hitler was quite fond of. That happened to be one of the roots to the cartoon d-usa posted, thus why I posted the quote. Don't put words into my mouth. Calling Obama an extremist? Nope. Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.
Call the NRA extremist all you want, but they are the only lobbying group in the country (and quite literally the only one with any amount of influence) that pushes back against absurdities like 7-round mag bans, or banning cerakote finishes because Chuck Schumer saw a black gun once and nearly fainted.
And for the left, this isn't about saving lives, it's about pushing an agenda. If they were interested in saving lives, they'd be going after inexpensive handguns holding less than 10 rounds, because that's what the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides are committed with. Targeting "assault weapons" is like making drunk driving laws that apply specifically to Bugattis.
Seaward wrote: Call the NRA extremist all you want, but they are the only lobbying group in the country (and quite literally the only one with any amount of influence) that pushes back against absurdities like 7-round mag bans, or banning cerakote finishes because Chuck Schumer saw a black gun once and nearly fainted.
And for the left, this isn't about saving lives, it's about pushing an agenda. If they were interested in saving lives, they'd be going after inexpensive handguns holding less than 10 rounds, because that's what the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides are committed with. Targeting "assault weapons" is like making drunk driving laws that apply specifically to Bugattis.
The NRA does what the ACLU would do if it weren't a lefty Alinsky organization. Thats why I give to both.
Courtesy of the Whitehouse website, President Obama's 23 executive orders that were just announced:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Then this is the legislation the President would like to see:
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")
Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
End the freeze on gun violence research.
Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
er
Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
I'd like to see a 24th executive order to stop having the ATF force FFLs to sell to Cartel strawman buyers, but you know, beggars can't be choosers I suppose.
What I'm saying is that he is using the concept of "the children" as political capital, which is why his press conference announcing his gun control package that is going on right now has the president literally surrounded with a group of children. It's a politically calculated move to sell his package, and it's a political ploy that's older then dirt, and one from his writings that yes Hitler was quite fond of.
That happened to be one of the roots to the cartoon d-usa posted, thus why I posted the quote. Don't put words into my mouth. Calling Obama an extremist? Nope.
When you compare someone to Hitler that is calling them an extremist.
Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.
Nope.
They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.
The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.
But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.
Easy E wrote: So, those Executive Orders seem pretty reasonable and sensible to me.
The Legislative Agenda, well that doesn't matter so much because it will never get through the House.
A good chunk of them won't even make it through the Senate from the looks of things. I think the Universal Background Check and the bottom five are gonna have the best shot of passing.
The armor piercing bullet thing is stupid because in regards to cops, most LEOs only wear soft body armor. Bullet resistant material can only resist so much. You can be wearing full level IV body armor (Lvl III soft armor with ceramic inserts rated to stop rifle rounds) and I can still defeat your armor with a big and fastest enough bullet shooting that plate dead center. Same is true for all variants of soft armor. Doesn't matter what the tip of that round looks like or what's in it... whatever they're calling armor piercing these days. This is just as dumb as the Brady Campaign outcry about "cop killer" bullets back before Black Talon got banned.
Mag bans are silly and untenable, not to mention you can bulk print the things now from a 3D printer, just add springs. That said they might try to press on it as a compromise position. "You pass this, we leave the AWB thing dead in committee"
AWB is as I said still born, it's just the usual suspects digging after that one, with lip service from Obama.
They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.
The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.
But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.
Hmmm... executive orders are "meh"... ain't going to change anything. Passing any additional legislations ain't going to happen now.
Going to have some fun here... "hypocritical"?
I'm fine with him being protected by armed mens (SS)...
But... coming from guy who actively opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, he has zero moral authority with respect to "if it saves one child's life)... that's why he's hypocritical.
Also, coming from a guy that proposed/championed Obamacare that we're now required to protect ourselves... he and the anti-gun folks wants to make it hard for us to defend ourselves with guns.
Seaward wrote: I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."
Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.
First of all, this is the request, not law.
Secondly, I assume they are going to go with steel core as armor piercing because anything else starts getting into hunting rounds.
It'll be law soon enough. The AWB won't pass again - we've tried it, we know it doesn't work, there are too many opposed, and it's what the NRA will focus on - but I anticipate mag cap and "ammunition" bans going through, unless the administration's dumb enough to bundle it all together as one bill. We can only hope, I suppose.
And I very much doubt that getting into hunting rounds will stop them from chasing anything outside of steel core. Again, this isn't about safety, this is about an agenda.
I’ve taken the time to translate the summaries into plain English below:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Tell the government to follow the law.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Tell the regulators to stop the stupid and useless regulations.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Pay the states back for the unfunded mandates that the Feds keeps making.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Tell the Attorney General to do his job.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Start another unfunded mandate. (See #3.)
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Tell FDLs how to do something no one is ever going to bother to do.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Do the same thing the NRA already does, only half as well at twice the cost.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Do what Underwriters Laboratories already does, only half as well at twice the cost.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Tell the Feds to do their jobs.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Tell the DOJ to do its job.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
Tell myself to do my job.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Spend more money.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Tell everyone to do their goddamned jobs.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Tell the doctors to figure out why it isn’t the feds’ fault that they aren’t doing their jobs.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Figure out a way to push “smart guns” that don’t exist and wouldn’t be useful as guns if they did.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Tell everyone that Obamacare doesn’t actually mean what it says.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Tell everyone that, seriously, Obamacare doesn’t actually mean that. We had to pass it to find out what was in it, after all.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Tell everyone that I’ve been a partisan hack for the last month every time I said the NRA was crazy to want to post more cops in schools.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Do the same thing that every police agency in the country has already done, only half as well and at ten times the cost.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Tell doctors what they already know.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Tell people what the parts of Obamacare that don’t say anything say.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Tell HHS to do their job.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Hand the rest of the job of telling everyone to do their jobs off to someone else so it is no longer my job.
Seaward wrote: I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."
Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.
First of all, this is the request, not law.
Secondly, I assume they are going to go with steel core as armor piercing because anything else starts getting into hunting rounds.
Don't assume anything. This is the same group that keeps saying "clip." Outside of WWI and WWII relics, nothing has a "clip."
Having said that I'd be ok with limiting clips to 10. Even Enfields would fit under that.
I’ve taken the time to translate the summaries into plain English below:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Tell the government to follow the law.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Tell the regulators to stop the stupid and useless regulations.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Pay the states back for the unfunded mandates that the Feds keeps making.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Tell the Attorney General to do his job.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Start another unfunded mandate. (See #3.)
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Tell FDLs how to do something no one is ever going to bother to do.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Do the same thing the NRA already does, only half as well at twice the cost.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Do what Underwriters Laboratories already does, only half as well at twice the cost.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Tell the Feds to do their jobs.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Tell the DOJ to do its job.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
Tell myself to do my job.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Spend more money.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Tell everyone to do their goddamned jobs.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Tell the doctors to figure out why it isn’t the feds’ fault that they aren’t doing their jobs.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Figure out a way to push “smart guns” that don’t exist and wouldn’t be useful as guns if they did.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Tell everyone that Obamacare doesn’t actually mean what it says.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Tell everyone that, seriously, Obamacare doesn’t actually mean that. We had to pass it to find out what was in it, after all.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Tell everyone that I’ve been a partisan hack for the last month every time I said the NRA was crazy to want to post more cops in schools.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Do the same thing that every police agency in the country has already done, only half as well and at ten times the cost.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Tell doctors what they already know.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Tell people what the parts of Obamacare that don’t say anything say.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Tell HHS to do their job.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Hand the rest of the job of telling everyone to do their jobs off to someone else so it is no longer my job.
Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.
Nope.
They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.
The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.
But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.
The President and Democrats as well as the media vilified the NRA for the last couple weeks because the NRA wants armed guards available to schools. The jist of that vilification is that it introduces more danger. Many schools already have that kind of armed presence, the President's childrens school is an example. Should only the children of important people or the children of those who can afford a private education be so protected? The attendence of the President's children at that school isn't why there are armed guards, its coincidental. It is however hypocrtical to denounce the very notion that a proposal is innately dangerous when your childrens' school is point of fact proof it isn't innately dangerous. There are many reasons why the NRA's idea might not work but that isn't really one of them. It is a case of privaliage that his children are afforded Secret Service protection though it is justified. The issue is that one side says viamently something will never work, when it either factually works or at worst just wastes money, not that it fails for the reason thats asserted.
I don't thinkt he NRA can catch a break, no matter what they say its going to be framed and vilified, no mater how justified their arguement. Maybe they're the worst people in the world, and morally questionable, but that has little to do with the validity of their idea. I don't think their idea has been given half as much consideration as the the stuff now being proposed, despite the fact that there is more case evidence for its effectiveness and more proof for the lack of effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.
Like I said there are reasons why the NRA plan has flaws, cost being a big one. With ~133,000 public schools having a police officer at each would cost ~$7.8B a year ($56K/officer/year). That is as opposed to a proposed $500M. That is reason enough. Maybe there are ways to bring down that cost, but without an actual discussion we'll never know. The NRA didn't pull this idea out of nowhere as the media would imply, they listened to what the parents in areas around Sandy Hook were asking for and proposed that. The idea wasn't denounced until the NRA said it.
The political discussion by our elected officials has been a one sided dog and pony show. The greater part of their proposals are laws that existed at one point and were allowed to sunset because they were found to have a statistically negligable effect on crime while costing a significant amount. These new laws are being pushed by people who have been pushing for identical laws for the last decade. I think the word "opportunistic" best describes those who re-proposed this battery of laws. I'm willing to listen to reforms, but when "reforms" are without any empirical basis and encroach on Civil Rights and have shown tp have neglible impact we should be concerned about the monologue that is portrayed in the guise of dialogue.
The problems I see with the armed guard in every school concept are expense and also that the great majority of shootings do not take place in schools.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems I see with the armed guard in every school concept are expense and also that the great majority of shootings do not take place in schools.
Eh... while that's true... most school districts HAVE security guards.
It's just a matter of whether they and/or the staff should be armed.
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
The legislation doesn't really matter, as long as they are opposing Obama.
Sheriff's are politicians too, they just like to pretend they aren't; you don't get elected twice without being one. That letter is just as politically motivated as anything a Senator ever wrote.
Its probably not all that expensive. Certaintly nothing compared to the alternative of having them take Martial arts classes. Those things are expensive and mandate a certain level of physical fitness.
What would be required for the security at schools to be armed?
1) Background check. Already done for working at the school, I would hope.
2) Purchase of firearms and ammo. A pistol would be sufficient for the job. It wouldn't have to cost more than $1500 tops per security guard.
3) Training. There are just tons and tons of ranges everywhere that have courses for only a few hundred dollars. Thats your initial investment for the security guards training. Then you simply have the guard go to a practice range once a month, which is just a range fee plus the ammo.
All together, its not even a significant portion of the guard's yearly wage. The biggest cost for the security guard is the upfront training costs. After that its just the guards yearly wage plus his range practice. For a school thats large enough to have a few security guards the whole additional cost is just going to be a rounding error.
The idea that having armed security guards is too expensive for schools just doesn't hold water.
aka_mythos wrote: The President and Democrats as well as the media vilified the NRA for the last couple weeks because the NRA wants armed guards available to schools. The jist of that vilification is that it introduces more danger. Many schools already have that kind of armed presence, the President's childrens school is an example. Should only the children of important people or the children of those who can afford a private education be so protected? The attendence of the President's children at that school isn't why there are armed guards, its coincidental. It is however hypocrtical to denounce the very notion that a proposal is innately dangerous when your childrens' school is point of fact proof it isn't innately dangerous. There are many reasons why the NRA's idea might not work but that isn't really one of them. It is a case of privaliage that his children are afforded Secret Service protection though it is justified. The issue is that one side says viamently something will never work, when it either factually works or at worst just wastes money, not that it fails for the reason thats asserted.
I don't thinkt he NRA can catch a break, no matter what they say its going to be framed and vilified, no mater how justified their arguement. Maybe they're the worst people in the world, and morally questionable, but that has little to do with the validity of their idea. I don't think their idea has been given half as much consideration as the the stuff now being proposed, despite the fact that there is more case evidence for its effectiveness and more proof for the lack of effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.
Like I said there are reasons why the NRA plan has flaws, cost being a big one. With ~133,000 public schools having a police officer at each would cost ~$7.8B a year ($56K/officer/year). That is as opposed to a proposed $500M. That is reason enough. Maybe there are ways to bring down that cost, but without an actual discussion we'll never know. The NRA didn't pull this idea out of nowhere as the media would imply, they listened to what the parents in areas around Sandy Hook were asking for and proposed that. The idea wasn't denounced until the NRA said it.
The political discussion by our elected officials has been a one sided dog and pony show. The greater part of their proposals are laws that existed at one point and were allowed to sunset because they were found to have a statistically negligable effect on crime while costing a significant amount. These new laws are being pushed by people who have been pushing for identical laws for the last decade. I think the word "opportunistic" best describes those who re-proposed this battery of laws. I'm willing to listen to reforms, but when "reforms" are without any empirical basis and encroach on Civil Rights and have shown tp have neglible impact we should be concerned about the monologue that is portrayed in the guise of dialogue.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.
and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Second up, this is why the gun lobby is such a useless, counter-productive part of the effort to get decent gun control laws that don't meaningfully limit the proper use of firearms - because they're absolutely, 100% balls to the wall full of crazy lunatics who revel in nonsense politics.
You want good, sensible gun laws that reduces gun killings while limiting proper gun use as much as possible. Then be a reasonable, sensible person who engages in reasoned, sensible debate. You want a lot of noise and nonsense and poor laws that jerk around gun owners without making things safer? Then quote false Mein Kampf quotes and vaguely hint at evil government takeovers.
Or has there been some bug linked to making people grab a gun and start shooting people?
The Centre for Disease control looks at mortality and the factors affecting mortality. This makes them ideally suited to looking at the factors that lead to gun deaths. They in fact did a lot of good work on this issue in the 90s (and bust many myths loved by either the pro- or anti- gun control lobby groups) until they were ordered to stop.
Its probably not all that expensive. Certaintly nothing compared to the alternative of having them take Martial arts classes. Those things are expensive and mandate a certain level of physical fitness.
What would be required for the security at schools to be armed?
1) Background check. Already done for working at the school, I would hope.
2) Purchase of firearms and ammo. A pistol would be sufficient for the job. It wouldn't have to cost more than $1500 tops per security guard.
3) Training. There are just tons and tons of ranges everywhere that have courses for only a few hundred dollars. Thats your initial investment for the security guards training. Then you simply have the guard go to a practice range once a month, which is just a range fee plus the ammo.
All together, its not even a significant portion of the guard's yearly wage. The biggest cost for the security guard is the upfront training costs. After that its just the guards yearly wage plus his range practice. For a school thats large enough to have a few security guards the whole additional cost is just going to be a rounding error.
The idea that having armed security guards is too expensive for schools just doesn't hold water. .
My county Sheriff is offering special courses and a discount on carry permits for all school employees in the county. From what I understand beyond the usual carry law, shooting basics, the course will cover advanced retention techniques, defensive shooting, threat identification and a full course on how the modern LEO handles an active shooter environment. (put rounds on target as soon as possible)
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
Actually there's legal precedent here. The Sheriff as the only elected LEO in his county is the big boss for his county. Time and again Sheriffs have "removed" Federal law enforcement members from their jurisdiction if they felt their case or purpose in the county wasn't sufficient.
Now I'm not going to make you all ready through the majority decision there, and you should go else where then wiki for the full text if you want it, but the general summary is that the US Federal government cannot control or give orders to state and local officials directly.
Professor Ann Althouse has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Mack and Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Mack and Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "[b]y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."
As it was used in Printz v. United States, the Sheriffs in question literally said they would not enforce certain segments of the Brady Act that they found overstepped Federal authority and threatened the rights of their citizens.
So yes actually. Not only can a Sheriff get away with that, it's been done before. This same legal theory is what's helping protect soon to be legal pot smokers in Colorado and Washington as well, because without this ruling the DEA could order the local LEAs to violate state law in favor of federal law and so forth. All comes back to the power game. For another example see Wyoming and Texas's legislation that directly lifts a middle finger at any potential AWB or magazine ban at a national level.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.
and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Second up, this is why the gun lobby is such a useless, counter-productive part of the effort to get decent gun control laws that don't meaningfully limit the proper use of firearms - because they're absolutely, 100% balls to the wall full of crazy lunatics who revel in nonsense politics.
You want good, sensible gun laws that reduces gun killings while limiting proper gun use as much as possible. Then be a reasonable, sensible person who engages in reasoned, sensible debate. You want a lot of noise and nonsense and poor laws that jerk around gun owners without making things safer? Then quote false Mein Kampf quotes and vaguely hint at evil government takeovers.
Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
Yeah, there is plenty of noise and nonsense coming from the gun control types as well (what in the feth is an assault weapon?!) Which makes it all the worse when the gun rights people start making their own noise and nonsense.
And I apolagise if it sounded like I was originally criticising you for the bad quote. You just took a quote in good faith, and even made an effort to check it. The problem is with the people who fudged that quote in the first place, and with the lack of intellectual honesty that lets it and other nonsense continue to circulate around the gun rights movement. The end result is a lot of people firmly convinced of facts and principles that just aren't real world concerns.
And that isn't exclusive to the gun rights people. The gun control people have had a focus on assault weapons for what, 15 years now, and yet there still hasn't been enough people saying 'hang on, has anyone noticed assault weapons aren't actually a thing? Maybe we should focus on limitations on guns that are actually based around things that are real?'
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
Yeah, there is plenty of noise and nonsense coming from the gun control types as well (what in the feth is an assault weapon?!) Which makes it all the worse when the gun rights people start making their own noise and nonsense.
And I apolagise if it sounded like I was originally criticising you for the bad quote. You just took a quote in good faith, and even made an effort to check it. The problem is with the people who fudged that quote in the first place, and with the lack of intellectual honesty that lets it and other nonsense continue to circulate around the gun rights movement. The end result is a lot of people firmly convinced of facts and principles that just aren't real world concerns.
And that isn't exclusive to the gun rights people. The gun control people have had a focus on assault weapons for what, 15 years now, and yet there still hasn't been enough people saying 'hang on, has anyone noticed assault weapons aren't actually a thing? Maybe we should focus on limitations on guns that are actually based around things that are real?'
We're cool Sebs I got where you were going with it.
Well we've been yelling it for awhile now, but we're gun nuts so what do we know? The assault weapons thing is also willful intellectual dishonesty. They know that they don't exist. They also know there's no such thing as "cop killer" ammunition, but it reinforces their narrative and moves their political goals forward, so what's it really matter to them right?
I think the crux of the issue is real world concerns. Neither side seems to give a damn about them. On the right we have people screaming about tyranny and government oppression. On the left the freak out du jour is about a weapon that according to the Uniform Crime Reports for 2011... was used in a hundred less murders then hammers. So what's the point of an AWB? Besides letting them avoid addressing the actual problem and pretend to be doing something (poverty and education are way harder to legislate). At least the strawman sales issues are actually vaguely grounded in reality, but mag bans, etc are just ludicrous.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well we've been yelling it for awhile now, but we're gun nuts so what do we know? The assault weapons thing is also willful intellectual dishonesty. They know that they don't exist. They also know there's no such thing as "cop killer" ammunition, but it reinforces their narrative and moves their political goals forward, so what's it really matter to them right?
I think the crux of the issue is real world concerns. Neither side seems to give a damn about them. On the right we have people screaming about tyranny and government oppression. On the left the freak out du jour is about a weapon that according to the Uniform Crime Reports for 2011... was used in a hundred less murders then hammers. So what's the point of an AWB? Besides letting them avoid addressing the actual problem and pretend to be doing something (poverty and education are way harder to legislate). At least the strawman sales issues are actually vaguely grounded in reality, but mag bans, etc are just ludicrous.
Agreed entirely. And frankly this is just a cycle that will keep happening again and again. There's some killings by firearm that plays well in the media, people declare there's been a seachange and something really has to be done this time, some scary sounding type of gun is banned amidst crazypants shouting that this is government tyranny, and the murders by firearms stat rolls on unaffected, and things go quiet until the next killings get heavy media coverage.
It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
sebster wrote: It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
Of course there is. Despite the hoopla and hysterics, this isn't a do or die cultural war. It's just about putting some limitations on gun ownership, and about reducing the number of gun murders.
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. A gun makes noise, leaves behind more physical evidence, etc. Its actually benificial for a gun to have been used in a homicide for the investigators due to that. A knife can simply be taken away by the murderer, cleaned up, and no solid trace can be made on it. A gun leaves behind the bullet for ballistics evidence and most criminals don't pick up the bullet casings, if the gun wasn't a revolver. Then there is the gunpowder residue that often gets left behind on your hands when you use a gun.
You can usually almost immediatly tell what kind of gun you are loking for if casings are left, or are only waiting for the autopsy result to identify the caliber. Unless the knife was left behind at the scene you can only guess at its size and description, and then there are going to be thousands of knives fitting that description of all different makes.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc...
Grey Templar wrote: It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.
You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..
Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself. .
tl;dr
If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.
sebster wrote: Of course there is. Despite the hoopla and hysterics, this isn't a do or die cultural war. It's just about putting some limitations on gun ownership, and about reducing the number of gun murders.
No, there really isn't. Gun violence in America is overwhelming committed with the one firearm that everybody wants to keep legal - a handgun holding fewer than 10 rounds.
With hundreds of millions of guns in this country, there is no quick fix. There isn't even a slow fix. There's a fix that might bear fruit 100 years from now, but it's unconstitutional and would probably resort in a lot of deaths.
It has nothing at all to do with a culture war, and everything to do with the reality of the situation.
It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
In other words....Never?
For one thing, the gun control movement is suffering some apparent confusion over what the word "Compromise" means versus "Surrender" or "Appease"....
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
Guns are often overstated as the whole of the issue, but it's just as false to claim they're not part of the issue at all.
I mean, just look at the basic figures. Compare the US to other developed, politically stable countries, and you'll see a gun murder rate per capita that's anywhere from 10 to 40 times elsewhere in the world. And oh look, it just happens to have gun ownership rates that are miles above the other developed, politically stable countries.
Now, I don't think for one second that banning guns will stop that murder rate (nor is banning a significant majority of guns even slightly politcally plausible). And other factors are a key component (income inequality, drugs etc).
But any sensible conversation has to accept as a basic point that more guns really do lead to more murder by guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
And the hammer didn't put then nail in the wall, it just made it a lot more practical than punching it in with my bare fists. I mean, what you've done there is basically pretend to not understand how tool use works.
Yes, tools are nothing without human action, but they make human action an easier action. As such, guns make the taking of another human life an easier action.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it.
And yet if you compare to other stable, developed countries, you'll find in the absence of guns the murder rate is much, much lower. This means one of two things - the US is just a uniquely murderous bunch of lunatics and guns are purely a symptom of that, or that when you don't have ready access to a tool that is extremely good at taking another person's life, you tend to do it less.
I mean, just please use more sensible arguments. There are good, reasoned arguments for limiting gun legislation, but instead we get this ludicrous stuff like the above.
Sebs we do have a slight gang and drug violence problem that the rest of the Western world is getting to skip out on. That's probably not helping our murder rate any.
I don't have any citation for this but at some point in the last couple weeks someone mentioned that 90% or more of the murders in the US are criminal on criminal crime.
Seaward wrote: No, there really isn't. Gun violence in America is overwhelming committed with the one firearm that everybody wants to keep legal - a handgun holding fewer than 10 rounds.
And this is a symptom of a disfunctional argument, which is evidence of my key point - that all parties need to get far more sensible, and that if they do more meaningful gun laws could be passed (or hell, there could just be some effort at enforcing the laws already on the books).
It has nothing at all to do with a culture war, and everything to do with the reality of the situation.
The emotion and extremes with which both sides are willing to take this is evidence, perhaps not of a culture war that was poor wording on my parts, but an oppositional approach that makes little sense given the small potatoes of the debate.
There is this idea on the part of gun control advocates that this is the pressing issue of the day when on a numbers basis it simply isn't. Accidents kill 12 times as many people. Suicide kills four times as many. There's plenty of other things killing people that barely rates a mention in political debate.
And at the same time, it's a gun. Big fething whoopsie if there's one type of gun you used to own that now you can't. Or an extra check and a waiting period before you get it. It is no great sacrifice.
People will say something is impossible until all of a sudden they'll start saying it was inevitable
For one thing, the gun control movement is suffering some apparent confusion over what the word "Compromise" means versus "Surrender" or "Appease"....
That applies equally to both sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Sebs we do have a slight gang and drug violence problem that the rest of the Western world is getting to skip out on. That's probably not helping our murder rate any.
I don't have any citation for this but at some point in the last couple weeks someone mentioned that 90% or more of the murders in the US are criminal on criminal crime.
That is certainly a major part of the issue. I mean, share a border with Mexico and you're going to get more killings no matter what you do.
But the 90% figure isn't true. First up the figure it simply cannot be anything like 90% - as inter-family murder makes up 24% by itself (or 13% - there's two different figures in the link below). You see all kinds of other relationships and motivations for crime, but you see little evidence of criminal on criminal crime.
Edit for clarification: Bill has been proposed, but is fully expected to pass.
The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”
The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.
In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”
The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.
That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.
This is actual one of several state gun laws that challenges federal restrictions on firearms at the local level. For example Arizona, Montana and I believe a few other states have all passed laws to the effect of "If you make it here, and sell it here (in state) it's not subject to federal law. Interesting stuff. Between this and the legalization of weed in Colorado and Washington seems the feds are gonna be kinda busy on a legal front.
The days of wildwest cowboys have long past. aside of a nerd who took his mommy M16 (legally bought) to do that misdeed. gamgsters and other criminals in big major cities do their jobs with military-grade (and ill-gotten) weapons. Stricter gun controls law needs its stricter enforcers to make a difference.
sebster wrote: And this is a symptom of a disfunctional argument, which is evidence of my key point - that all parties need to get far more sensible, and that if they do more meaningful gun laws could be passed (or hell, there could just be some effort at enforcing the laws already on the books).
No one, so far, has shown us what those "sensible" solutions would look like. 75% of Americans in Gallup polling just after Sandy Hook said they were absolutely in favor of keeping handguns legal, yet handguns do the killing. People not convicted of a felony can pass background checks all day long, and they're not felons until they decide to murder someone. If they don't want to go that route, getting hold of a firearm illegally isn't terribly difficult in this country.
The emotion and extremes with which both sides are willing to take this is evidence, perhaps not of a culture war that was poor wording on my parts, but an oppositional approach that makes little sense given the small potatoes of the debate.
There is this idea on the part of gun control advocates that this is the pressing issue of the day when on a numbers basis it simply isn't. Accidents kill 12 times as many people. Suicide kills four times as many. There's plenty of other things killing people that barely rates a mention in political debate.
And at the same time, it's a gun. Big fething whoopsie if there's one type of gun you used to own that now you can't. Or an extra check and a waiting period before you get it. It is no great sacrifice.
Yeah, except it actually is a big deal, aside from the fact that we should never be comfortable with the government passing laws simply because it makes an overemotional section of society feel better. Lower estimates on legitimate defensive gun uses per year range well into the tens of thousands, and higher estimates take us into the hundreds of thousands or even millions. It's a public safety issue that goes both ways, and people who think one gun's as good as another are just as bad as people who think absolutely nothing should be banned.
In the end, I'm less than interested in the people who cry foul over the NRA after spending the last month shrieking about automatic weapons, cop-killer bullets, and the utter insanity of anyone who owns more than one flintlock musket.
That is certainly a major part of the issue. I mean, share a border with Mexico and you're going to get more killings no matter what you do.
But the 90% figure isn't true. First up the figure it simply cannot be anything like 90% - as inter-family murder makes up 24% by itself (or 13% - there's two different figures in the link below). You see all kinds of other relationships and motivations for crime, but you see little evidence of criminal on criminal crime.
I'm not saying that gangs aren't a big part of the problem, but they aren't just an easy way to handwave the high murder rate away.
I believe the 90% figure doesn't reference criminal-on-criminal gun homicides, but rather gun homicides involving drugs and/or gangs.
Old CDC data from the earlier part of the decade that I maddeningly cannot find my bookmark for has an interesting racial breakdown, as well. White Americans die to guns at a rate of about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are at around 4.6 in 100,000. African-American male Americans are at an absurd 38.6 in 100,000.
Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well. That system crashed 10 times this last year from the volume jamming the system, it will have to be expanded to keep up. Add to that the cost of introducing and adding all the additional confidential data the President wants to make it more thorough. When Congress passed the NICS Improvement act 6 yrs ago it bumped up the cost $10M/yr to include a single additional data field for involunatry commitment to a mental institute... and even that isn't enough funding to keep it uptodate. The cost of more data in the NICS is an indefinitate set of commitments, its however many datafields x $10M per year, forever.
aka_mythos wrote: Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well.
aka_mythos wrote: Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well.
I still don't see how that will be enforceable.
It probably isn't enforceable. But since the vast majority of gun owners tend to comply with the law, they'll do so to avoid going to prison and losing the right to have a gun when they get out. I'm sure some (a small minority) will refuse to comply and decide to become criminals.
It won't deter folks who buy guns illegally now or who decide to in the future.
Grey Templar wrote: It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.
You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..
Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself.
.
tl;dr
If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.
I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.
Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?
I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
Really? And you have facts to back this up from where, text removed. Last warning. Reds8n
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?
I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?
Crimes of passion by otherwise law-abiding citizens would probably stay at about the same levels. After all, that's why we had that hilarious article from 2005 a couple weeks ago discussing a few A&E docs recommending a ban on pointy-ended knives over in Britland.
What everyone overlooks in the gun control debate is that the majority of our firearm homicide numbers come from drug/gang violence. It's unreasonable to assume that people importing illegal drugs and fighting over it would care overly much about a firearm ban, but that won't stop a lot of folks the world over who wish we'd do things more like they would from telling us how everything should be.
Why is he going on about armor piercing ammunition. What the hell is he talking about? I've not heard of anyone defending the need for amror piercing ammunition. More importantly I've not heard of anyone having any, any for sale, or anything related to that. There's some cheap foreign junk that has (non lead or non copper) metal cores - but thats not to be a mal ninja, but because its incredibly bad ammunition. The only thing else I can think of is "leadless" ammo: but thats made to be eco friendly and its just copper.
Evidently this is the latest push to avoid that whole pending national debt nightmare/ economy still sucks HEY LOOK OVER THERE! effort.
Leon Panetta's a tool in general and has informed congress that if Obama wants to start a war they'll get permission from the UN. Not the congress. Don't expect him to know what he's talking about.
I was confused as to why armor piercing ammo was brought up by the president too, it looked like a copy paste of the Brady cop killer ammo BS from the early 90s. There's no such thing as bullet proof, just bullet resistant so it's not like cops are dying from magic bullets that rend kevlar like a man in a romance novel rips corsets.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,
The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.
1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare
Grey Templar wrote: It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.
You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..
Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself.
.
tl;dr
If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.
I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.
So guns don't make it easier to kill?
Why do we want to have guns to protect ourselves with?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,
The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.
1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare
Wait, so you think only Republicans are Second Amendment advocates? Thats an interesting view.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,
The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.
1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare
Wait, so you think only Republicans are Second Amendment advocates? Thats an interesting view.
Not at all, I'm pro-gun myself after all. I am just talking about the super conservative "gun laws shouldn't even be considered because guns are never the problem" crowd. I know we fall into the trap of thinking purely right/left, and I am guilty of that as well.
d-usa wrote: Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?
Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?
I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.
And I think a lot of his actions would accomplish things. Not this year and not the next, I think any efective law that is passed would result in improvements that would need to be measured in decades. The major proposed legislation I can see helping is the universal background check, the majority of other proposed stuff is stupid. But none of Obama's executive actions justify the screams of "King Obama is taking our guns!" that are everywhere.
d-usa wrote: Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?
Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?
I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.
I agree, I think the Pres and congress critters should explain:
1. What is the goal?
2. How does the proposed legislation/regualtion/executive order accomplish that goal?
If the goal is No More Sandy Hooks!, then nothing proposed really is going to work for a variety of reasons. Just because one group deems a proposed measure 'resonable' or 'common sense' does not mean it actually is worth enacting. The urge to 'Do Something!' seems to usually be satisfied by doing something useless at some cost.
I watched Wolf Blitzer interview a guy (I think a state congress critter from TX). Wolf opined that some of the measures(specifically universal background checks) MAY prevent some future incident from taking place. In theory it is possible. But if you look at the incidents (Aurora, Sandy Hook, the Giffords shooting) which are the impetus for this measure, none of those incidents would have been prevented. In two cases the perps did go through back ground checks and in the other the perp murdered his own mother and stole her guns.
I am offended that Wolf's is a hypothetical situation I am supposed to give up some freedom or incur some cost to avoid, but the hypothetical of 'if a good guy had a gun the perp at Sandy Hook may not have capped as many kids' is laughed at by the other side, though one can show examples of an armed good guy stopping a bad guy. Heck, that is why we arm our cops, so they can stop bad guys.
So again, tell us your goal and explain how your proposal helps meet that goal. Let us understand the costs of the proposals and then decide if the cost is worth the benefit. If the proposal does NOT help meet the goal, then it should get chucked out.
d-usa wrote: Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?
Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?
I think this is directed at me. Most of the EO's are in line with the "plain English interpretation" of I should be already doing that AS ITS PART OF MY JOB.
I am down with background checks. I am down with efforts to better report the data properly for those background checks (thanks to Dakka I've learned thats a bit haphazard).
The "lets spend money on" safety programs and betters safes is stupid and typical government. Those plans are already in place. The safes are already tested. Its not an issue.
One or two do get me nervous depending on how its executed:
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Could be nothing, could be violently unconstitutional. I don't trust Holder in any way in this area, based on his past statements.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.
and this one
11. Nominate an ATF director.
THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?
I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?
No, I think the murder would be equally likely with our without a gun.
I had a poor choice of words on my part with my post. Easier is not the correct word. If someone had a split second choice of gun or knife they would probably gravitate towards the gun unless there was some other factor.
What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.
d-usa wrote: And I think a lot of his actions would accomplish things. Not this year and not the next, I think any efective law that is passed would result in improvements that would need to be measured in decades. The major proposed legislation I can see helping is the universal background check, the majority of other proposed stuff is stupid. But none of Obama's executive actions justify the screams of "King Obama is taking our guns!" that are everywhere.
I'm fine with the universal background check, aside from the fact that it'll kill private sales. I'm amazed he's willing to even consider something that'll line gun stores' pockets like that, but Obama's not exactly a stranger to forcing the American citizen to give their money to private enterprise.
The problem is, that's not the only thing he laid on the table. We also have the "target the Ferraris!" Assault Weapons Ban, the mag cap ban, the still-mystical armor piercing ammo ban, etc.
d-usa wrote: Barring the "ban assault weapons/mags/cop killer bullets" wish list, which of your freedoms are being violated by Obama's proposal?
Currently I can buy a legally owned gun from or sell a legally owned gun to one of my buddies without having to pay someone to process a background check. A mandatory check takes that away from me and forces a cost.on to the transaction. The cost incurred is in both money and time. As someone who HAS bought a gun from a buddy and received(and given) guns as gifts I can say that though the cost may not be huge, it is there, and it does place a limit on my freedom to sell or buy legally owned personal property, however small that limit is. There are other costs too. Right now there have been times where the check system has crashed, or has incurred delays due to high volume of use. The system will need to be updated and maintained, that is tax dollars. And again, I ask:
What is the goal? How does this proposal meet the goal? If it does meet the goal, is it worth the costs?
I've shown that having this in place would not have prevented Sandy Hook or other recent incidents.
It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.
And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.
If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.
Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.
Grey Templar wrote: It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.
And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.
If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.
Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.
Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?
I don't believe that. Either its a false flag argument (because they keep screqamining about it like its a crisis) or they are looking at something else. So what is it?
Ironically San Francisco just pushed through a ban o hollowpoints. You can only purcahse hardball now. hardball has much better pentration characteristics. er....
Grey Templar wrote: It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.
And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.
If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.
Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.
Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?
Um... depleted uranium rounds? Which aren't exactly available either...
Grey Templar wrote: It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.
And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.
If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.
Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.
Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?
Um... depleted uranium rounds? Which aren't exactly available either...
Or an excuse to ban all ammunition outside of shotgun pellets. Nearly every rifle can penetrate armor at close range. Any "magnum" and several regular pistol calibers can too depending on the grade of the armor.
But the fact this keeps being brought up is troubling. the feed the MsM doesn't even ask about it is also troubling.
What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.
Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.
I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.
Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.
What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.
Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.
I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.
Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.
What is your plan for reducing the millions of guns already out there?
How do you reduce guns available to criminals who don't rely on legal gun sales?
What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.
Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.
I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.
Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.
Thats not exactly the case. It make some attempted murders. It makes a lot of potential self defense cases by women and old people murders of said women and old people. Additionally it increases the level of violence. Lots more beatings of the weak. no thanks.
And the slaughter in Rwanda was done with machetes.
Kilkrazy wrote: Your detailed research has definitely refuted my suggestions.
Well I was shot at in a state that regularly has buybacks and banned guns. Does that count?
Chicago which has some of the toughtest laws in the nation is again going to try for their personal record and break that 550 homicides barrier. I'm sure with enough willpower they can do it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leon Panetta's a tool in general and has informed congress that if Obama wants to start a war they'll get permission from the UN. Not the congress. Don't expect him to know what he's talking about.
I never really understood all the noise about that comment. He basically said that the Administration would seek permission from the international community, inform Congress that they had this permission, and then decide whether or not they would seek Congressional permission (read: seek authorization for the use of military force). I don't see how that's a problem in anyway, except that his choice of words enabled the exchange to be used as a misinformation tool. I guess people might be upset that the Administration wouldn't go to Congress first, but why waste Congress' time if you won't act without international assent, and Congress hasn't been pushing for military action?
I was confused as to why armor piercing ammo was brought up by the president too, it looked like a copy paste of the Brady cop killer ammo BS from the early 90s. There's no such thing as bullet proof, just bullet resistant so it's not like cops are dying from magic bullets that rend kevlar like a man in a romance novel rips corsets.
Political showmanship. Its an appeal to the type of people that believe armor piercing ammunition is a significant problem. There may also be a strategic element as well, if that type of language makes it into a proposed bill. Much as "The Obama Administration won't seek Congressional approval for action in Syria!" is an appeal to people that believe Obama's use of Executive authority is significant problem.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
That's not what it says. The relevant section only prohibits the mandatory collection or disclosure of such information under the guise of wellness and prevention programs. This does not mean a physician or program official cannot ask the question.
THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.
He's pushing the Senate to confirm an ATF director, which hasn't happened since 2006. I imagine he would have made that an EO, if it were within his power to do so.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.
It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.
It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.
Fraz... he's right... ACA doesn't stop docs from asking you those sort of questions...
It only prevents the Feds from using that data to create a national "registry" database. Which... really is prevented by certain Hippa laws too... I think.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.
It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.
I never read what I'm complaining about. Did you not know that? But yes its collection, my bad. I still think its sneaky bs, turning owning guns into some sort of social disease.
"Do you have any guns in the house?"
"Does a turkish cannon from the siege of Constantinople count?"
"Er I guess so. Is it safely stored"
"If by safely stored do you mean double loaded with grapeshot and pointing out the window, with a wiener dog and a lit match by the breech?"
"Er...I'll put yes."
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.
It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.
Fraz... he's right... ACA doesn't stop docs from asking you those sort of questions...
It only prevents the Feds from using that data to create a national "registry" database. Which... really is prevented by certain Hippa laws too... I think.
I'm going to predict we get a lot of silly answers to that question
"Yeah, I got fully functioning BAR my granddad left me from his days in WW2. Also got about a dozen pistols. And a bunch of unassembled AR-15 and AK-47 parts, not quite sure how many guns I could get if I put them all together though."
Grey Templar wrote: I'm going to predict we get a lot of silly answers to that question
"Yeah, I got fully functioning BAR my granddad left me from his days in WW2. Also got about a dozen pistols. And a bunch of unassembled AR-15 and AK-47 parts, not quite sure how many guns I could get if I put them all together though."
Well there is this big thing in the shed my granpappy called a "field howitzer" does that count?
I dunno if they're covering it nationally but another part of the BRILLIANT new gun law here in NY is that there is a 100 dollar fine for anyone caught with more than 8 rounds in their gun. That means if you're popping off rounds in quick succession on your private land and a game warden or state police hears you, you'll most likely be getting a fine. fething ridiculous.
And precisely as I feared the blame shifting from the NRA calling for "mental health reform" instead of meaningful gun reform has had disastrous effects. I should have gotten my pistol permit when I had the chance seeing as I highly doubt I'll be able to now.
As I understand it, the can look over HIPAA laws and check if anyone has ever had any mental health issues, ie. counseling, therapy, etc. And I can't think of a single doctor, anywhere, that will under any circumstances actually say one of their patients presents no dangers to background check for a gun. Talk about liability charges.
And this donkey-cave governor is still going to sell land rights to fracking industries.
Seaward wrote: No one, so far, has shown us what those "sensible" solutions would look like. 75% of Americans in Gallup polling just after Sandy Hook said they were absolutely in favor of keeping handguns legal, yet handguns do the killing. People not convicted of a felony can pass background checks all day long, and they're not felons until they decide to murder someone. If they don't want to go that route, getting hold of a firearm illegally isn't terribly difficult in this country.
Exactly. Nonsense conclusions that are the result of debate leaders failing to focus on relevant issues.
Yeah, except it actually is a big deal, aside from the fact that we should never be comfortable with the government passing laws simply because it makes an overemotional section of society feel better. Lower estimates on legitimate defensive gun uses per year range well into the tens of thousands, and higher estimates take us into the hundreds of thousands or even millions.
We went over this. I demonstrated quite clearly those numbers and their methodology are crazy pants nonsense. Pretending there's any credibility to those numbers is choosing to be ignorant.
It's a public safety issue that goes both ways, and people who think one gun's as good as another are just as bad as people who think absolutely nothing should be banned.
Absolutely agreed.
In the end, I'm less than interested in the people who cry foul over the NRA after spending the last month shrieking about automatic weapons, cop-killer bullets, and the utter insanity of anyone who owns more than one flintlock musket.
Both groups are as bad as each other, and both need to be removed from the debate before any sensible solutions can begin to develop.
I believe the 90% figure doesn't reference criminal-on-criminal gun homicides, but rather gun homicides involving drugs and/or gangs.
It doesn't reference anything. It's just a made up number passed around certain circles because it has truthiness to them, and lets them pretend the 10,000 firearm murders each year aren't a genuine social issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aka_mythos wrote: Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list?
Cost estimates are always low. If you say it's going to cost $500 million, well then it'll be budgeted for initially at $500 million, and start to grow from there. If you cost it at a billion, well then it'll be budgeted for initially at a billion, and grow from there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.
And the simple fact is that point is utterly ludicrous. Guns are a tool, and tools are valued by humanity because they make tasks easier. When something is easier it gets done more often.
As such, the US has a murder rate that many times higher than other politically stable, developed countries. With most of those murders carried out with firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Crimes of passion by otherwise law-abiding citizens would probably stay at about the same levels.
Utter nonsense.
For every 100,000 people, the US has 4.8 murders per year. Canada has 1.6. The UK has 1.2. Australia has 1.0. France has 1.1. Germany has 0.8.
Now, you can hypothesise that the USA is somehow a culturally more murderous collection of lunatics, or you can accept reality, and realise that a nation with a proliferation of tools that make killing easier are going to do more killing.
What everyone overlooks in the gun control debate is that the majority of our firearm homicide numbers come from drug/gang violence.
In this very thread I pointed out that just wasn't true. You even responded to that post. Come on man.
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Maybe if the ATF actually focused on law enforcement instead of selling guns to the cartels and locking up innocent people they wouldn't need the help to make a difference.
THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.
Obama has submitted a director for the ATF at least 3 times. He simply cannot get them confirmed, due to heavy NRA lobbying. There is an article here with some backstory you may find illuminating. That being said, I'd rather not have an ATF director because, much like the TSA, I'd rather not have an ATF at all. In my opinion they simply have no responsibilities that aren't already well within the purview of other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI; and the general competence of the ATF inclines me to think they couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions to do so were printed on the heel.
Frazzled wrote: ronically San Francisco just pushed through a ban o hollowpoints. You can only purcahse hardball now. hardball has much better pentration characteristics. er....
You sure this has actually happened? I know it was considered about a month ago, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they actually passed a ban. If so, it would be very odd, since in these hypothetical home defense or police shooting scenarios they are the safer choice for bystanders and noncombatants.
Seaward wrote: I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.
Especially since that first sentence I think would be a rather surprisingly large umbrella. I'm fairly confident a total ban on AR-15s would be constitutional, for example. Not practical, not effective... but constitutional.
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Huh?
Man, perfect timing! Read that link I dropped for Frazzled.
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Maybe if the ATF actually focused on law enforcement instead of selling guns to the cartels and locking up innocent people they wouldn't need the help to make a difference.
They are not allowed to keep actual records on background checks, they are not allowed to keep records on guns used in crimes, they are not allowed to inspect a business more than once a year.
I am almost willing to turn my guns into scrap metal just so I don't have to associate with the stupitidy that is the NRA and the foaming-at-the-mouth gun idiots that are out there.
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Huh?
Man, perfect timing! Read that link I dropped for Frazzled.
