Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama's Gun Control Attempt Defeated For Now  
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 779 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

As I predicted in December, no gun control would pass on the federal level. Today, the so called 'universal' background check bill failed to garner the 60 votes required for passage. Despite the President's angry remarks this afternoon, this should quell the immediate gun control / 2nd Amendment assault at the federal level. I believe the President is sincere that he will try again at a later date. Here's an article covering the aforementioned: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...background-checks-on-gun-purchases

248 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7279 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

It's sad that this happened, I don't see any problems with what Obama wanted to do, most other 1st world countries have similar checks prior to someone purchasing a weapon.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Gabby Giffords' op-ed for the New York Times:

A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip

Like 90% of Americans, I also approved of expanding the background checks to sales at gun shows and over the internet. If we're going to require background checks, then let's do it and not be namby-pamby about it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
Like 90% of Americans, I also approved of expanding the background checks to sales at gun shows and over the internet. If we're going to require background checks, then let's do it and not be namby-pamby about it.

Which goes to show you know nothing other than what the media spoon feeds you. Internet sales, legally, must go thru an FFL, which, thus requires the use of form 4473, which is the NICS background check. The gunshow loophole is nothing as such, it's a private sale between private parties of the same state. Any sales from a person of one state to another is illegal.

Start enforcing the laws on the books before you make more.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5094 times:

A shameful day for the country. The only people who should be happy about this are people who want a gun but couldn't pass a background check, and it's not rocket science to figure out what sort of people fall into that category. The inmates are truly running the asylum.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5094 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Which goes to show you know nothing other than what the media spoon feeds you.

I stopped reading what you wrote after this wholly unnecessary personal slam.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5088 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
I stopped reading what you wrote after this wholly unnecessary personal slam.

It's not a personal attack in the least bit, just the sad truth about the state of affairs in this country. People would rather be spoon fed everything rather than looking it up themselves.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Any sales from a person of one state to another is illegal.

Nice theory, but how is the seller to know that the buyer is from the same state?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 6):
People would rather be spoon fed everything rather than looking it up themselves.

Of course it was a personal slam. If you wanted to educate instead of denigrate, the sentence would have never appeared in your post.

Now, that said, like most Americans, I don't sit down and read the text of every bill before Congress. We pull our information from varied sources. If you had a correction to what I typed, and wanted to inform, you had the opportunity to do so without the flame.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
Like 90% of Americans, I also approved of expanding the background checks to sales at gun shows and over the internet. If we're going to require background checks, then let's do it and not be namby-pamby about it.

But that is not all the bill said. If that was all it was, I could have also supported it. But it includes budget items, establishes a new bureaucracy, compliance reporting and punishment on the states, etc. Read it. A good example of how something that should be very simple gets messed up when you give it to Washington to try to manage.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

This bill should have fit on one or two pages, and no budget or bureaucracy mandated.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
Nice theory, but how is the seller to know that the buyer is from the same state?

Photo ID? If I were selling a gun private party, I would at a minimum require to see their driver's license and record it for my records. But hey, if as a seller you just want to sell and take the felony, be my guest, do it how you want.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

[rant] The vast majority of US Senators are nothing but a**holes who care nothing about their constituents, but more about their jobs. 80%-90% of Americans support a bill - that had bipartisan support - and it still gets shot down! Today, I will not echo the words of a Lee Greenwood song because right now, I am damned sure NOT proud to be an American, because our politicians care more about their jobs then they do about safety. This was a common sense measure that had bipartisan support, and still gets voted down. I feel as livid as President Obama sounded. [/rant]

Marc


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1248 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

Too bad, I guess big amount of Americans then see the right for any lunatic to carry a weapon as one of the basic freedoms in their country.

I'm glad there's big ocean between this madness and the civilization we have here.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
I am damned sure NOT proud to be an American, because our politicians care more about their jobs then they do about safety.

Just curious - I haven't checked myself. But did proponents of the bill specify any recent murder/rampage that this bill would have prevented, had the Bill been in effect? Would it have prevented Sandy Hook or G Gifford's shooting? Just asking.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Just curious - I haven't checked myself. But did proponents of the bill specify any recent murder/rampage that this bill would have prevented, had the Bill been in effect? Would it have prevented Sandy Hook or G Gifford's shooting? Just asking.

They can't, because it wouldn't have. Its nothing more than a feel good attempt to politically capitalize on the murder of a bunch of children. It's a flat out attempt to move towards some idealistic world where gun control means less crime, which is not going to be the case.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5046 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
But it includes budget items, establishes a new bureaucracy, compliance reporting and punishment on the states, etc. Read it.

Thanks for the link. I've no problem with anything in the bill, and my opinion has not changed. If anything, it has only reinforced my support for expanded gun regulation, seeing how easily it may be enacted.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5042 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 10):
Photo ID?

Which are, of course, impossible to forge.  
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 10):
If I were selling a gun private party, I would at a minimum require to see their driver's license and record it for my records. But hey, if as a seller you just want to sell and take the felony, be my guest, do it how you want.

That's the problem: they wouldn't take the felony. The buyer shows a fake ID (which I'd venture to say that 25% of college students have), and then the seller is off the hook - they had no reason to know the buyer had several previous assault convictions. Or the seller can just tell the police that he checked the buyer's ID but didn't write it down - how are they to prove otherwise?

Whereas if a background check had to be done, that trick wouldn't work and the seller would know not to sell the gun. How does that not make sense?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5508 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5037 times:

The legislation was meaningless tripe, another attempt at the relentless increase in federal government power.


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5036 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Whereas if a background check had to be done, that trick wouldn't work and the seller would know not to sell the gun. How does that not make sense?

Because no one has ever stolen an identity? You steal someone's drivers license, get it remade, put your picture onto it, and viola, pass a NICS check using their information. Quite simply, criminals who want guns are going to get them. More legislation isn't going to fix a darn thing. Prosecuting all gun crimes to the fullest extend of the law is where things need to be started.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer,reply=18Because no one has ever stolen an identity?][/quote]

Sure, it's happened. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult than to just go pick up a fake ID for $5.

[quote=DiamondFlyer
(Reply 18):
Prosecuting all gun crimes to the fullest extend of the law is where things need to be started.

I'll start taking that idea seriously when the NRA stops neutering the enforcement mechanisms through budget cuts and other legislative restrictions. Until then, it's nothing but a distracting talking point.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Thread starter):
the so called 'universal' background check bill failed to garner the 60 votes required for passage.

A majority of Senators voted in favor of it, but it still did not pass. What a stupid system. The right-wing cries about how they are the victims because they are not in control. This sure looks like they are in control! Besides, 90% of Americans wanted this bill. 90 EFFIN PER CENT!! That 40+ Senators would vote for what NRA wants instead of what the MAJORITY of Americans want just shows what a broken system we have.

My advice: If they have huge amounts of money in their "war chest" don't vote for them! I don't care what letter they have behind their name. If NRA or big oil or big pharma or Koch Bros. or which ever industry supports them, they need to be ousted. And now! That is how we do revolution in this country. Not with guns and Molotov cocktails, but with votes.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1248 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 18):
Quite simply, criminals who want guns are going to get them.

Many of the people who have committed mass shootings and other such things in the US had no previous criminal history and no contacts to people who sell illegal guns, for those this kind of thing would make it significantly harder to get a gun.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

Thank god this piece of legislation did not pass.

It was simply a pathetic attempt by the Democrats to remove another part of the consitution and never should have gotten as far as it did.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Which goes to show you know nothing other than what the media spoon feeds you. Internet sales, legally, must go thru an FFL, which, thus requires the use of form 4473, which is the NICS background check.

Yup, the alleged gun-show loophole is a myth. It has never existed, it is only a talking point used by uniformed anti-gun nuts to try and destroy our freedoms. But the problem is that too many people are ignorant of firearms, how to use them and what they are for. I see that problem as only getting worse as people, especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away from the change that took away their freedoms and more used to the lack thereof.

They are simply not willing to educate themselves.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
But that is not all the bill said. If that was all it was, I could have also supported it. But it includes budget items, establishes a new bureaucracy, compliance reporting and punishment on the states, etc. Read it. A good example of how something that should be very simple gets messed up when you give it to Washington to try to manage.

Of course many of those people who didn't read the specifics of this bill where also the same people who didn't mind the fact that Pelosi would let us read the health care act to find out what was in it until after it passed.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
I am damned sure NOT proud to be an American,

You are more then welcome to go at any time to some place more fitting for your lack of faith in the US.

Frankly I lack faith in the administration, I don't make the mistake of calling that the US.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
This was a common sense measure

No it wasn't. It took away one of the core civil rights that we have. You disagreeing with that right is right up there with George Wallace, a democrat governor standing in the schoolhouse door because he didn't believe in the right of education either.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
. This sure looks like they are in control! Besides, 90% of Americans wanted this bill. 90 EFFIN PER CENT!!

I have no faith in that statistic and frankly suspect that the poll was cooked, meaning that the questions where staged to cause the outcome. It is very common if partisan polling to do that. And since most of the polling operations are based out of the east coast I have my doubts on their willingness to be impartial.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
That 40+ Senators would vote for what NRA

They voted for freedom, they voted for common sense, they voted for yours and mine civil rights. You many not choose to exercise that right but I do.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
If NRA or big oil or big pharma or Koch Bros. or which ever industry supports them, they need to be ousted.

Funny how you didn't list Bloombergs anti-gun group, Giffords, Anti-gun group, The super-pac that just formed from the remnants of Obummers campaign machine, Moveon.org or any other liberal or progressive hate group up to and including the democratic party itself.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
They voted for freedom, they voted for common sense, they voted for yours and mine civil rights

Like the right to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person carrying that weapon has no criminal history or history of mental disorder? Like that history?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
It is very common if partisan polling to do that

Unless FOX does the poll. Then, it is patriotic. Funny how Pew is a reputable polling company. Unless the facts skew to the "liberal" side. Then, they are made up.


Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
Funny how you didn't list

And you conveniently forgot the part where I said:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
I don't care what letter they have behind their name.

I know it bothers you that multi-national corporations contribute to the right-wing. That "bothering you" feeling is called conscience. But, also, look at the numbers. How much did the big corporations contribute to right-wing campaigns vs. left-wing campaigns and look at how many total Americans voted right-wing vs. left wing.

I stand by my original statement:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
I don't care what letter they have behind their name.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2849 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 17):
The legislation was meaningless tripe, another attempt at the relentless increase in federal government power.

Seems like your in the !0% minority there !

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
I see that problem as only getting worse as people, especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away from the change that took away their freedoms and more used to the lack thereof.

Don't you dare compare Australia to the US regarding lack of freedoms. We live a VERY peaceful nation, compared to you, with out ANY doubt. What is it again, 32,000 die a year from gun related deaths  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!

Well, you go right on singing the same o'l tune, because you are on the slippery sloop of loosing far more than we ever will because your not willing to change !

Believe me L-188, there is absoulty NO problem here in Australia or Great Britain for that matter, at least not when we see our nightly news, and whats occurring in the US.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
They are simply not willing to educate themselves.

After reading this, Ive never laughed so loud in my life.               

Mate, that's what the international Press is saying about Americans, NOT Australians.   



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently onlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):

It was simply a pathetic attempt by the Democrats to remove another part of the consitution

Um, which part would that be.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):

You are more then welcome to go at any time to some place more fitting for your lack of faith in the US.

Where did you get these talking points, Mindless-Cliches-R-US?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):

You are more then welcome to go at any time to some place more fitting for your lack of faith in the US.

Coming from an outspoken proponent of the Alaskan separatist movement your hypocritical quasi-patriotism is the most hilariously ironic thing that i routinely run into on the internet. Thanks for the laugh.

[Edited 2013-04-17 23:16:24]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 25):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
You are more then welcome to go at any time to some place more fitting for your lack of faith in the US.

Where did you get these talking points, Mindless-Cliches-R-US

Actually that is from Star Wars.

Richard LeParmentier, aka Admiral Motti passed away today.

No Mr. Stormtrooper, these are not the firearms you are looking for.

[Edited 2013-04-17 23:32:39]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away from the change that took away their freedoms and more used to the lack thereof.

You sure you got the right countries there? In what way would they be categorised as, "less free"?. If anything I would describe Australia as more loosely regulated than the USA.

The whole, "American Freedom" thing is a bit of empty propoganda. It's a great thing but certainly not exclusive. There are probably 100 countries in the world that experience a similar level of "freedom"


User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Thread starter):
Despite the President's angry remarks this afternoon, this should quell the immediate gun control / 2nd Amendment assault at the federal level. I believe the President is sincere that he will try again at a later date.



Awesome!
Glad this went down. Too bad there will be other politicians in line to cook up more anti-gun legislation in the future.

Just out of curiosity. Did this bill require that all criminals turn in their guns and be nice people?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Meaningful gun reform would have passed if the Republicans would not have subverted American democracy to a supermajority. These idiots, yes idiots who voted against the bill are spineless cowards who would rather cave in to the lies, propaganda of the massacre enabling NRA who cares more about allowing criminals to have Bushmasters that the livelihood of the children that are being killed by the weapons that they love and support. The bloodthirsty NRA and the people in Congress who claim to care about the life of children "only until born" and Bushmasters have won the first round but the American people will win at the end.

To all the people in here who are against background checks, why are you against it? Are you against wait periods too? Why should a gun be sold to husbands or boyfriends who beat their wife or girlfriend, people with mental problems or has a quick fuse? And why and I know there are some of you in here, why do you want or need unlimited assault weapons and bullets for your stash, are you planing an insurrection against a government entity of some sort or against this president who some of you have with an uncontrolled passion?

The people who are against background checks and need AR-15's are the people who would fail such an examination.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12242 posts, RR: 35
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5063 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

My state's democratic senator voted against the bill, since it was the wish of her constituents. Good for her.

Heitkamp said she has heard overwhelmingly from North Dakotans that they do not support the bill in its current form.

“I commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for working so hard to bring a serious bill to the floor,” Heitkamp said.

“I’ve thought long and hard about this, I’ve taken the tough meetings ... and at the end of the day, my duty is to listen to and represent the people of North Dakota.”



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 29):
why are you against it?

Because of this bullcrap:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 29):
The people who are against background checks and need AR-15's are the people who would fail such an examination.

What you're basically saying is that anyone who wants to own an AR-15 is legally insane and/or wants to overthrow the government.

That's not an argument: that's a personal attack with no basis in any kind of medical science whatsoever. It's bullcrap.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 30):
Heitkamp said she has heard overwhelmingly from North Dakotans that they do not support the bill in its current form.

Scientific poll of residents or simply the vocal minority?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 31):
Because of this bullcrap:

I oppose bg checks because its bullcrap, felonies, I'm mad now, no real answer.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 31):
What you're basically saying is that anyone who wants to own an AR-15 is legally insane and/or wants to overthrow the government.

That's not an argument: that's a personal attack with no basis in any kind of medical science whatsoever. It's bullcrap.

There is no reason in this country why these guns are needed for personal defense. People who collect large caches of assault riffles often tend in this country have real grievances with the government and as I have seen before in here and in other sites tend to be or at least read out to appear paranoid.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3127 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
It was simply a pathetic attempt by the Democrats to remove another part of the consitution and never should have gotten as far as it did.

I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment. It serves no modern purpose. I have no confidence in allowing you the right to own a gun. You should have no such right. You may, however, qualify to own a gun after appropriate training, testing, and background check. You know, like operating other potentially deadly devices, like a car. Not a right.

Yes, I've studied this, thought about it a lot. I've concluded that the usual arguments do not hold water, and are founded mostly on paranoia, illogic, and sometimes hatred.

-Rampart


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1870 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even this bill still allowed for no background check for private sale so long as no public advertisement of the selling was made. I think that was a fair compromise. There is no reason that I shouldn't prove that I am a criminal or legally pose a risk to society when buying a gun at any time. I don't fear background check's, in the past year I have completed at least 3 for jobs and other reasons. I don't see how that is a burden. If it is already done in most cases as other posters say why not have it done in all cases?

This bill also had benefits for gun owners, It made it legal now to transport a legally owned firearm through any state. (I have seen so many people arrested in JFK when checking in their guns because they lacked a NYC carry permit, which I think is totally unfair, especially since many of them were coming from hunting or some sort of sporting event where their permits where valid but flying out of NYC which doesn't recognize anyone else's permit causes them to spend a night in jail.)

Quoting sccutler (Reply 17):

The legislation was meaningless tripe, another attempt at the relentless increase in federal government power.

I don't see how this was increase in federal power. The background checks already existed.

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
I'll start taking that idea seriously when the NRA stops neutering the enforcement mechanisms through budget cuts and other legislative restrictions. Until then, it's nothing but a distracting talking point.

Right on the money. You can simultaneously say enforce the laws on the books while backing laws that make next to impossible to enforce the laws (48 hour rule for destruction of background check data)

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
It was simply a pathetic attempt by the Democrats to remove another part of the consitution and never should have gotten as far as it did.

Background checks do nothing to impede anyone that can own a firearm legally.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 30):

My state's democratic senator voted against the bill, since it was the wish of her constituents. Good for her.

I saw that ND was among the states that had 90% support for expanded background checks.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Start enforcing the laws on the books before you make more.

Would you support the removal of the 48 hour background check destruction mandate? That would definaly make tracking down failed checks easier.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 33):

I oppose bg checks because its bullcrap, felonies, I'm mad now, no real answer.

I opposed this bill, not the concept of background checks. Nice deflection from the name-calling, though.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 33):
There is no reason in this country why these guns are needed for personal defense.

     

I take it you've never woken up to a stranger with bad intentions in your room. I have. I can tell you that guns are a very useful thing to have for self-defense.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 33):
People who collect large caches of assault riffles often tend in this country have real grievances with the government

Oh, you mean like my cousins who have served honorably in both the Army and Marines, and have a decent gun collection?

Nothing more than a straw man, and a poor one at that.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 33):
and as I have seen before in here and in other sites tend to be or at least read out to appear paranoid.

LOL. You're basing your opinion of people on what they say ON THE INTERNET?

Quoting rampart (Reply 34):
I've concluded that the usual arguments do not hold water, and are founded mostly on paranoia, illogic, and sometimes hatred.

Funny, the only paranoia and hatred I see here are from the anti-gun types.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 705 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4952 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 12):
I'm glad there's big ocean between this madness and the civilization we have here.

yep, the amount of mowed down Europeans coming back to their homelands in body bags underscores your comment.

(where's my rolleyes??)

___

Seriously, I"m all for background checks, the stronger the better. I'm a die hard democrat but believe in the right to bear arms, but I want you to be as least crazy as possible. Or at least have some record of you having that gun. Have no interest in taking them away from law abiding citizes. Both sides of my family had guns. Mothers side in Montana hunted in season, fathers side in Norther California did as well. My father even collected Winchester rifles and displayed them. I just don't think there is a need for military gauge weapons for the average citizen.

But I hate comments like that above. Apart from my family both sides, I have never seen a gun in person except on a cop, never heard one being shot and never knew anybody who has been shot. And I grew up in Los Angeles, lived in San Francisco, New York City and Honolulu. I guess I'm one of the few who has't run for cover.


User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

The problem with these gun threads is that they eventually revert back to the same arguments. I must have read 100 of these over the years, and I can tell you, none of you seem to have anything to say that hasnt been said 100 times before. And to give you a little hint, nobody wins, nobody changes their mind. Nobody gets anymore enlightened. There is an equal amount of "evidence" to support either argument. And you have all become so practiced at the rebuttal of this evidence that everything gets cancelled out.

I would suggest that the court of public opinion is the best way to settle this. Call a referendum and go with the result.

What I am interested in, and does perhaps present an opportunity for new discussion, is the political remifications for Obama. It almost feels like a "no confidence" vote. He came out swinging with a suggestion of fairly grand changes after Sandy Hook. What he ended up asking for was not that extreme, (when you consider the spectrum of changes he could have tried). He went and did the 100 days after, "that's not who we are" speech.

And then finally, he doesn't get this through.

So the grand result is, nothing has changed. There is no greater, or lesser likelihood of a Sandy Hook happening tomorrow.

Lame duck? I am sure he would have hoped it to be one of those moments that define a Presidency


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

Bombing in Boston: Blame the Bomber(s)
Shooting in Colorado/CT: Blame the gun.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Not to be insensitive, but Obama really tried to play to the heartstrings of America, allowing the Sandy Hook parents to be present at voting. Im confident we will find a balance to gun control eventually. The Democratic Senator listened to her constituents, and I applaud her for it. Ultimately it comes down to stakeholders, i.e who has a vested interest in a policy area. If gun owners spoke out against these bills, its no different than senior citizens and the AARP speaking out against healthcare reform.

I would like to see:
1) No more use of the word "assault" in the bill's language. I swear some get a hard on every time it is mentioned.
2) Increased mental screening/funding for mental health treatment. Im not saying if a kid had depression in 8th grade he should never be able to touch a firearm when he is healthy, but many of these mass shooting are committed by the mentally unstable.
3) Increased funding for firearm training and awareness. Perhaps funded by the states etc. Or the NRA (doubtful). Or perhaps the local PD (maybe they have spare officers around that could provide training...idk just spitballing)
4) Mandatory background checks. It should happen, I am sure it will, eventually.
5) If you own a gun, you must own a gun safe (This may already be the case, not sure if it is or not)

[Edited 2013-04-18 03:35:21]


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
I see that problem as only getting worse as people, especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away

The US is now ranked 10th on the economic freedom index. Behind Canada, Australia and those horrible socialists in Denmark.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4888 times:

Like many, I am disappointed in the failure of this bill, but it was a terribly flawed one, designed to fail.

The background checks would also present very limited benefit as it wouldn't allow for real mental health checks as would be in conflict with medical privacy laws. This law would have also stepped on state laws as to transit of guns and bullets illegal in a state like on an airplane flight and transferring between flights in a state (like EWR in New Jersey, with strict gun laws). The additional bureaucracy would have cost taxpayers money, something most politicians are dead against.

I guess it will take a few 'middle eastern males' doing a terror act with guns in a public place before any real change in gun laws.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 42):
Not to be insensitive, but Obama really tried to play to the heartstrings of America, allowing the Sandy Hook parents to be present at voting.

Why should they otherwise not be allowed to be present in voting?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
I take it you've never woken up to a stranger with bad intentions in your room. I have. I can tell you that guns are a very useful thing to have for self-defense.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Funny, the only paranoia and hatred I see here are from the anti-gun types.

Despite what the liars at the NRA says, being against assault riffles is not the same as being anti gun.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 29):
Meaningful gun reform would have passed if the Republicans would not have subverted American democracy to a supermajority.

Have to correct you here: it was Harry Reid who set the rules to require 60 vites. This was because he didn't want NRA-sponsored amendments to pass. Unfortunately, it cane back to bite him.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 31):

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 29):
The people who are against background checks and need AR-15's are the people who would fail such an examination.

What you're basically saying is that anyone who wants to own an AR-15 is legally insane and/or wants to overthrow the government.

No, he's saying that people who want to own AR-15s AND don't want to bother with a background check are likely to be a problem. And I agree. If you can pass a background check and want to buy an AR-15, then go right ahead. But the idea that we should continue providing an easy avenue for those who could not pass a background check to get their hands on those sorts of guns (or any guns at all for that matter) is ludicrous.

Background checks are good enough for buying from a dealer. Why are they so inappropriate for gun shows or other private sales?

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 42):
Bombing in Boston: Blame the Bomber(s)
Shooting in Colorado/CT: Blame the gun.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If it were as easy to legally obtain a bomb as it is to legally obtain a gun, you can bet that you'd be hearing a lot of people wanting to do something about that. So the comparison isn't valid at all.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 44):
The additional bureaucracy would have cost taxpayers money, something most politicians are dead against.

Here's a novel idea—place the burden of any costs for background checks onto the gun owners. If they want to buy a gun, pay the full cost, don't lay the cost onto the rest of society.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3127 posts, RR: 6
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Funny, the only paranoia and hatred I see here are from the anti-gun types.

That would be a typical response for a knee-jerk reaction. I didn't say anti-gun. Own one, if you qualify. Own several, if you qualify. But you shouldn't have a right to it. I might agree that I am paranoid about the NRA, and have some hatred for them. An organization formerly aligned with hunters' interests has now become a bullying lobby that manages to dictate to our government in opposition to a 90% majority of the general citizenry. Where's my protection against that sort of subversive influence? A gun?


User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 705 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4813 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 41):
What I am interested in, and does perhaps present an opportunity for new discussion, is the political remifications for Obama. It almost feels like a "no confidence" vote. He came out swinging with a suggestion of fairly grand changes after Sandy Hook. What he ended up asking for was not that extreme, (when you consider the spectrum of changes he could have tried). He went and did the 100 days after, "that's not who we are" speech.

A No Confidence vote? On a grand national scale? 54-46 vote. Many are for it. Laws get voted on and it happens or doesn't happen. I didn't get a chance to vote on it. I know my Senator did. Who I elected. In the way I would want that person to.

But again, your proposed argument for the most part will be answered in a way that is dependent on whether or not someone is FOR or AGAINST Obama. Do you honestly think otherwise? I believe he has our best interest at heart and that of the countrys. Love that he went to bat and was passioniate about it. Why would I blame his effort? He's a smart man. Now XXX Poster who is against Obama (and we'll hear about it on this thread), will more than likely answer your discussion in a way you are probably hoping to hear. "I" don't think Obama will have political ramifications. If anythinng if the general consensus polls say 90% of the population is for some background checkis, it'll be a talking point come 2016. Two steps backward, one forward. We'll get there.


But I agree, these threads never never change a persons opinion. You can argue and state a case all you want. And it is the same usual rehash over and over.

[Edited 2013-04-18 05:46:29]

User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
A shameful day for the country. The only people who should be happy about this are people who want a gun but couldn't pass a background check, and it's not rocket science to figure out what sort of people fall into that category. The inmates are truly running the asylum.

I am quite happy about it failing and I am a CWP holder, and also hold a Department of Defense clearance. Needless to say, I can pass any background check.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4796 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
Thank god this piece of legislation did not pass.

Now it is 11%...If you apply the same logic to the Boston Marathon, then we should ban all marathons as "if we can save one child's life, then its worth it." (Biden, relative to Sandy Hook). Nonsense.!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
Frankly I lack faith in the administration, I don't make the mistake of calling that the US

If the broader attempt at background checks was a sincere gesture by this administration to curve the appetite of gun wielding idiots running around the streets this measure would have my support but given the past 5 year climate of this administration and it's performance where America is concerned and by America, I mean what it stands for, then I would support it but Mr. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid and all the others have a backhanded method of getting what they want. Right or left...this administration has been gutting this country like a fish. A word exists for this behavior, most forgot it and some never heard of it. It's called "Communism". For the parents of the children lost @ Sandy Hook and loved ones of others lost as a result of gun violence, their are no words and no solutions. The mentally deranged are everywhere and always will be. The parents of these children have every right to respond with outrage at the availability of such weapons but sadly as demonstrated the other day, kitchen cooking devices can also kill...The most dangerous weapon on the market today is the human mind. This is currently being demonstrated by this administration.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3127 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4789 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 49):
But I agree, these threads never never change a persons opinion. You can argue and state a case all you want. And it is the same usual rehash over and over.

Sort of. These threads (and discussions elsewhere) have altered my opinion. My previous stance was to be pro-gun control but open-minded and listening, reasonable. Now, I'm not. I'm now taking a hard line in equal and opposite reaction to pro-gun hardliners. My only worry on that is that if I get vociferous about it, they are armed and I'm not. You don't see gun control people sending death threats, but the other way around.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 50):
I am quite happy about it failing

A position which I'm sure America's criminals are glad you have.

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 50):
Needless to say, I can pass any background check.

Then needless to say, you have no need to worry about having to pass a background check to buy a gun.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4702 times:

Bottom line is that none of these fascist gun restrictions would have prevented Sandy Hook. Period.

And our petulant Lecturer in Chief says it's only round 1.

Fine. We can go as many rounds as you like.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4662 times:

As I read the responses, here is what I am seeing:

Hooray!! Anyone can get any kind of gun and as much ammo as they want! Yay! We can stockpile for when the government suspends the Constitution! Yay! More guns! Hooray!! And shame on the people of Newtown for caring about children being shot to death. How dare they! They should be proud Americans that we can all own any weapon we want. Damn commies.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4663 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 51):
petulant Lecturer in Chief

Can't really take your post seriously if you don't respect the office, no matter who is elected to serve in it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 53):

Can't really take your post seriously if you don't respect the office, no matter who is elected to serve in it.

I do not respect the man in office. I have massive respect for the office of POTUS--just wish the current occupant did. How dare you twist my words.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25148 posts, RR: 46
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4649 times:

Couple random comments

o This was guaranteed to die anyhow when it got to the House. But getting stalled in Senate was a blow for Obama, which I doubt he expected.

o Why require ID's when purchasing guns, if its so taboo to ask for ID's when voting ?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 779 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4645 times:

Let's remember in this conversation that Harry Reid is pro-gun and has the backing of the NRA. The NRA is glad to have him as Senate majority leader and yesterday's vote proved he is worth every penny in campaign donations.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4645 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 54):
How dare you twist my words.

You typed them, not me. Nowhere did I see "president of the united states" in your post, as you should have referred to him if you had any respect for the office, no matter who was elected to serve in it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4634 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 55):
Why require ID's when purchasing guns, if its so taboo to ask for ID's when voting ?

1) What states do not require IDs when voting?

2) Since when does someone have the ability to kill or injure someone with a vote?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
What states do not require IDs when voting?

Oregon, for one. You may register to vote with as little as showing a utility bill in your name (which is not verified), then as all of our voting is via mail, your signature is verified on the ballot before counting your vote. No official or picture ID required.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):

Here's a novel idea—place the burden of any costs for background checks onto the gun owners. If they want to buy a gun, pay the full cost, don't lay the cost onto the rest of society.

Yup, I'll go for that, the day that each person applying for a drivers license has to pay all the paperwork costs of getting that license. Hell will freeze over before the latter happens.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 57):
You typed them, not me. Nowhere did I see "president of the united states" in your post, as you should have referred to him if you had any respect for the office, no matter who was elected to serve in it.

Don't be fatuous. I called him the Lecturer in Chief.

That's pretty tame compared to the things people called W, after all, right?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4604 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 60):
Yup, I'll go for that, the day that each person applying for a drivers license has to pay all the paperwork costs of getting that license.

I pay the fee that's asked of me by my state to register as a driver and my car to operate on the roads, plus road taxes incorporated in the price of gas at the pump. If what's charged doesn't cover the cost of my driving, it isn't the fault of drivers like myself, we're simply paying what's asked of us. If you have data to show that these fees should be increased, I'm all ears.

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
That's pretty tame compared to the things people called W, after all, right?

During the time that President Bush was in office, anyone here who dared to call the former president by anything other than by his correct title was swiftly rebutted by the very same argument I've presented to you. And I agree with it. If you only show respect for the office when the person you favor occupies it, then you're only an 'American of convenience', when it's convenient for you to be one. I feel badly for you that you've chosen to be an American of convenience rather than a patriot, especially when discussing constitutional rights.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
1) What states do not require IDs when voting?
http://bit.ly/13kHMJV  



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4589 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 59):
Oregon, for one. You may register to vote with as little as showing a utility bill in your name (which is not verified), then as all of our voting is via mail, your signature is verified on the ballot before counting your vote. No official or picture ID required.

That's not exactly true. They do have to make sure you are who you say you are and are a legal resident of that address. They do this through DMV. There is a background check, of sorts. So, you do have to have a state issued picture ID, even if you don't present it at the time of registration.

When I say "you" I mean any random person.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4584 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 64):
They do have to make sure you are who you say you are and are a legal resident of that address. They do this through DMV.

You can download the Oregon voter registration form on the internet (I'd link it, but I don't like to link PDF files), and see what forms of ID are acceptable. If you have no driver's license, you may still vote by registering with an unverified utility bill. The registrar of voters must accept you as a voter with that document as ID, even though they cannot verify you via the DMV with a utility bill.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4586 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 59):
Oregon, for one. You may register to vote with as little as showing a utility bill in your name (which is not verified)

So you do have to show some credentials as to who you are.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4573 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 66):
So you do have to show some credentials as to who you are.

Technically, you are simply showing a credential for the name you'd like to use to register to vote. It doesn't verify that you are actually that person.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25148 posts, RR: 46
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
1) What states do not require IDs when voting?

California.

I registered my nephew last year to vote without ever showing ID. We check the boxes, promised he was a citizen, and all done. Also never had to show ID at the polls either.

He could have been John Doe at 123 Main Street, or some deceased person, or illegal alien for that matter.

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
2) Since when does someone have the ability to kill or injure someone with a vote?

Are you worried about killing or injuries ?

If so lets make sure we get ID's on people buying kitchen knives, power tools, fertilizer, or pressure cookers and nails now.
A few men managed to create huge global havoc with box cutter in 9/11. Don't see a rush to ban such purchases.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 68):
Are you worried about killing or injuries ?

Yup, better get that Assault Bomb Ban going, because you know, bombs aren't already illegal, yet people still use them.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
I see that problem as only getting worse as people, especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away from the change that took away their freedoms and more used to the lack thereof.

Thanks for my laugh of the day. For all those "less free" countries to match America's current standards of freedom, they'd have to backslide to a significant degree. There was a time when America was indeed a beacon of freedom for the world to emulate -- but sadly, those days are long, long gone.

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 38):
The problem with these gun threads is that they eventually revert back to the same arguments. I must have read 100 of these over the years, and I can tell you, none of you seem to have anything to say that hasnt been said 100 times before.

  

I'm thinking of recommending that all future gun threads be carved out and put in a special "America" section where only Americans can comment. The rest of us have no dog in this fight, with the possible exception of Mexico and Canada which both have a serious problem with illegal guns crossing the border from the US.

This story outlines the problem:

American guns fuel violence in Canada

In an investigative report, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation discovered that Canadian criminals often use guns illegally acquired from the United States. Shady gun dealers in the U.S. supply our northern neighbors with weapons through a smuggling route known as the “Iron Pipeline” or “Blue Steel Highway.” Toronto’s police chief, Bill Blair, tells the CBC that up to 70 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in his city were sold in the U.S.

http://www.latitudenews.com/story/am...ican-guns-fuel-violence-in-canada/

I don't expect anything to change down there -- not ever. When you equate civil rights with gun ownership, you've lost all credibility.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 69):
Yup, better get that Assault Bomb Ban going, because you know, bombs aren't already illegal, yet people still use them.

Might as well make them legal then, so that the law-abiding citizens who want to use bombs can do so without having the big bad government knowing what they're doing.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 71):
Might as well make them legal then, so that the law-abiding citizens who want to use bombs can do so without having the big bad government knowing what they're doing.

Did I say that? No, the point I'm making is that it's very obvious the current laws didn't work. But hey, if you truly believe that if some laws don't work, more is better, then well, I feel sorry for you.

Laws keep honest people honest. Criminals don't give a crap about the laws. I'd rather have the law abiding citizen have the ability to defend themselves versus waiting for the keystone kops to show up.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 72):
Did I say that?

No, but that's the same logic that people who say "criminals are going to get guns anyway, so we don't need new/tougher laws" use. And it's just as flawed with bombs as it is with guns.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 72):
No, the point I'm making is that it's very obvious the current laws didn't work.

Clearly not. Thus, we need different laws.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 72):
But hey, if you truly believe that if some laws don't work, more is better, then well, I feel sorry for you.

No, that's how a lawful society works. You have an objective, you design laws to meet the objective, and if the objective still isn't being met then you alter the laws. Repeat as necessary. You don't just throw your hands up, declare defeat, and walk away from the laws entirely if they're not doing exactly what you want.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 72):
I'd rather have the law abiding citizen have the ability to defend themselves versus waiting for the keystone kops to show up.

Explain to me how the hell having to get a background check to buy a gun in any way reduces one's ability to defend themselves.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
Explain to me how the hell having to get a background check to buy a gun in any way reduces one's ability to defend themselves.

Because when POTUS says that this was just the first step, it's very obvious that he wants to go after more than just a background check. He wants to take guns away, limit what we can buy and all sorts of crazy ideas that city dwellers will never understand why the rest of us don't like it.

Quite frankly, if the states want to ban something, great. Let them, it's their right. The fed's, not so much.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 74):
Quite frankly, if the states want to ban something, great. Let them, it's their right. The fed's, not so much.

Your argument would hold vastly greater weight if the right to bear arms was a right given to you by the states, but it isn't, it's a federal constitutional right. Limiting that right for those who are incapable of exercising it safely is a federal responsibility.

[Edited 2013-04-18 10:15:55]


International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 75):
Your argument would hold vastly greater weight if the right to bear arms was a right given to you by the states, but it isn't, it's a federal constitutional right. Limiting that right for those who are incapable of exercising it safely is a federal responsibility.

If that argument held any water, the California and NY AWB's would be unconstitutional. So which is it?

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4507 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 76):
If that argument held any water, the California and NY AWB's would be unconstitutional.

Assault weapon bans don't infringe upon your right to bear arms, so those laws aren't unconstitutional. The constitution only guarantees your right to bear arms, not what kind of arms you're allowed to bear.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

This is the most shameful vote that I can recall in my lifetime. It is a vote that allows felons and the mentally ill free reign at gun shows.

It is also a clear demonstration of the incredible level of cowardice by Senators in fear of the NRA. And it is the best demonstration of the power of money replacing the will of the people in today's American Democracy.

Quoting roswell41 (Thread starter):
this should quell the immediate gun control / 2nd Amendment assault at the federal level.

The Second Amendment was never under assault - felons buying guns was under assault, mentally ill buying guns was under assault. The "rejection rate" from background checks by ethical gun dealers is around 5% IIRC - which is far from an assault on the Second Amendment.

All this cowardly vote does is ensuring felons & the mentally ill have an easy source to purchase weapons of choice rather than breaking into homes to steal whatever might be there.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
it's a private sale between private parties of the same state

With no checks to see if the buyer is a felon, or has a history of domestic abuse, or has serious mental problems. Just get the cash and not worry about what might happen later.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 10):
I would at a minimum require to see their driver's license and record it for my records.

Big deal - you still don't know if the person handing you the cash is a felon and will be using that gun to rob a bank or an individual in the future. What are you going to use for a buy/no buy decision? A drivers license? How about "he looks OK"?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 12):
I guess big amount of Americans then see the right for any lunatic to carry a weapon as one of the basic freedoms in their country.

We do have legal, ethical gun dealers who are religious in performing background checks. That's why we have a rejection rate of around 5%.

It is the gun manufacturers, the NRA and the politicians in their pockets who could care less about any lunatic or felon buying a weapon.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
But did proponents of the bill specify any recent murder/rampage that this bill would have prevented, had the Bill been in effect? Would it have prevented Sandy Hook or G Gifford's shooting?

You are limiting your question too much. As I noted in another thread, we now have had over a million deaths in the US by gunshot since John Lennon was shot to death - by a nut with a gun.

Maybe your question should have been focused on those 1,000,000+ deaths and how many could have been avoided with checks at gun shows and strong penalties (prison time) for straw purchasing.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 74):
Because when POTUS says that this was just the first step, it's very obvious that he wants to go after more than just a background check.

That doesn't answer my question. How does having to get a background check to buy a gun prevent you from defending yourself?

If you want to vote no on the other stuff, then you can vote no on the other stuff. But that's a completely separate issue from the individual effects of one particular piece of legislation.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 74):
Quite frankly, if the states want to ban something, great. Let them, it's their right. The fed's, not so much.

Except that requiring dealers to conduct background checks is clearly a federal issue. So I'm not sure why it should be different for gun shows or private sales, especially since the guns involved are unlikely to have spent their entire lives in one state (the whole interstate commerce thing).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 79):
That doesn't answer my question. How does having to get a background check to buy a gun prevent you from defending yourself?

I'm not against the background check expansion. I'm against in when what was proposed will do absolutely nothing to stop any crime. A vast majority of weapons used in crimes aren't purchased at a gun show. They're bought on the street by and from thugs.

But once the ball gets rolling due to an emotionally charged event, without the use of logic, the final outcome could be devastating. So, since this got shot down now, it's a good start. You want a background check law, fine, put it, by itself, in a law and run it through congress. Quite simply, all of the craziness of late is enough to make me start looking into how to get an FFL.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 80):
I'm against in when what was proposed will do absolutely nothing to stop any crime.

You don't know that. Making it harder for some people who shouldn't be bearing arms may be just enough to prevent some crimes or deaths. It's the same argument for locking your doors. Doing so prevents some crimes of opportunity, but anyone hell bent on getting into your house or car will do so if determined enough.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1936 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

When I heard there wasn't enough votes, I hadn't felt so relieved by an act of Congress in a long, long time. Common sense ruled yesterday. It was a misdirected amendment that would have done little to nothing besides take away freedom from the law abiding. It's shameful that over 50 senators voted for it.

User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 75):
Your argument would hold vastly greater weight if the right to bear arms was a right given to you by the states, but it isn't, it's a federal constitutional right. Limiting that right for those who are incapable of exercising it safely is a federal responsibility.

Sorry, its a constitutional right. We, including the feds get our rights from the constitution.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12450 posts, RR: 25
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Thread starter):
Today, the so called 'universal' background check bill failed to garner the 60 votes required for passage.

Thanks, Harry Reid, an incredible moron more concerned about his personal power in the Senate than doing his job as a legislator.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Start enforcing the laws on the books before you make more.

The idea behind the background check is to make it less necessary to enforce the laws on the books already.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
A shameful day for the country.

  

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
[rant] The vast majority of US Senators are nothing but a**holes who care nothing about their constituents, but more about their jobs. 80%-90% of Americans support a bill - that had bipartisan support - and it still gets shot down! Today, I will not echo the words of a Lee Greenwood song because right now, I am damned sure NOT proud to be an American, because our politicians care more about their jobs then they do about safety. This was a common sense measure that had bipartisan support, and still gets voted down. I feel as livid as President Obama sounded. [/rant]

  

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 29):
Meaningful gun reform would have passed if the Republicans would not have subverted American democracy to a supermajority.

Again thanks to Harry Reid who has had plenty of opportunities to abolish the supermajority but has not done so.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 31):
What you're basically saying is that anyone who wants to own an AR-15 is legally insane and/or wants to overthrow the government.

What we're saying is that anyone who wants to own an AR-15 should be checked to be sure they aren't legally insane.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 42):
Bombing in Boston: Blame the Bomber(s)
Shooting in Colorado/CT: Blame the gun.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

We're talking about background checks, so we are addressing the gunner, not the gun.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4413 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 83):
Sorry, its a constitutional right.

Uhhh, that's what I said. See:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 75):
Your argument would hold vastly greater weight if the right to bear arms was a right given to you by the states, but it isn't, it's a federal constitutional right.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 77):
The constitution only guarantees your right to bear arms, not what kind of arms you're allowed to bear.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
The idea behind the background check is to make it less necessary to enforce the laws on the books already.

You do realize how stupid this statement is, right? Oh look, all these laws, we don't enforce them, so lets make new ones to enforce that will make not enforcing the old ones ok.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 80):
A vast majority of weapons used in crimes aren't purchased at a gun show. They're bought on the street by and from thugs.

Okay, and where do those thugs get the guns from?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 85):
Uhhh, that's what I said. See:

You have to be careful how you word things. The feds are not the constitution.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 88):
The feds are not the constitution.

Constitutional rights are implemented at the federal level.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4385 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 65):
The registrar of voters must accept you as a voter with that document as ID, even though they cannot verify you via the DMV with a utility bill.

Again: no. I grew up in Umatilla County. In such a close knit community, I knew what happens with such things. They actually have to check to make sure. They have to go through the state database to make sure they are legal to vote. Same in California.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 68):
If so lets make sure we get ID's on people buying kitchen knives, power tools, fertilizer, or pressure cookers and nails now.

While we're at it, let's let 8 year olds drive and 6 year olds drink. I mean, what's stopping them?

Slippery slope argument does not work. We had an assault weapons ban in the 1990s. No problems then. People were still buying guns and using guns for hunting and crimes.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
They actually have to check to make sure. They have to go through the state database to make sure they are legal to vote.

If you're going to argue a point, make sure you have the right info. According to the Oregon Secretary of State, you may even register to vote if you're homeless, by simply using a physical description of where you sleep or the mailing address of the county election official.

I could even write out a paycheck in the name of my dead grandfather and use the stub to register him to vote, then vote his ballot. It would be illegal, but I could do it if I wanted to cast a ballot in his name.

http://oregonvotes.org/pages/faq/



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 45):
Where's my protection against that sort of subversive influence?

Read my reply about stakeholders. Gun owners aren't gonna roll over to knee-jerk gun control legislation any more than senior citizens are going to roll over on changes to SS and healthcare.

Quoting Mir (Reply 43):
If it were as easy to legally obtain a bomb as it is to legally obtain a gun

What is so horrible about being to easily and legally obtain a firearm?

I follow the Chicago Tribune on twitter. I'd say 90% of the tweets I read from them are related to gun crime. Now, I COULD be mistaken (I'm not), but Chicago has some of the MOST restrictive gun laws in the country. And yet hundreds of violent crimes are committed with them. Please tell me how many of these crimes are committed by NRA members with a legally owned firearm. Please tell me how firearm registration, limited magazines, and the inability to purchase an "assault" weapon will decrease violent crime in Chicago. Tell me how many legal gun owners go to the local gun store, buy an AR-15 (which ISNT an "Assault" weapon) and go shoot up a school the next day.


Up until 2010 handguns were outright banned in Chicago. Today, "high" capacity magazines are banned, there are no gun dealers in the city, nor any public gun range.

Through June of last year, there were more gun homicides in Chicago than number of American troops killed in Afghanistan. The total homicide count for Chicago last year? 500.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8934288

Unless you intend to ban guns EVERYWHERE in the country, the gangs and mentally unstable will find a way to procure a gun. Whether or not a gun ban is in effect.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4335 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 74):
He wants to take guns away, limit what we can buy and all sorts of crazy ideas that city dwellers will never understand why the rest of us don't like it.

I'm sure a fully automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is great for deer hunting. Hunt with a few buddies and you can get 100+ rounds into that deer before she stops running.  

Sadly we don't have a way to keep those guns out of the towns and cities.

Maybe we can simply tax them at a level that makes their rate of sale diminish. Those tax dollars would be real handy to cover medical costs for treating all the GSW's our public hospitals see every day.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 12):
I'm glad there's big ocean between this madness and the civilization we have here.


No offense but I think I'll pass on your brand of 'civilization' for now! Prefer taking my chances with the insanity we have here over Europe's tendency to have an inbred, genocidal barfight in its own kitchen every few decades.

Quoting flanker (Reply 88):
You have to be careful how you word things. The feds are not the constitution.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 89):
Constitutional rights are implemented at the federal level.

Not to be intentionally pedantic, but the Constitution does not grant or implement rights. The Constitution articulates what functions the Federal Government is empowered to perform and constrains its ability to infringe upon the rights that individuals already possess in the course of doing so. It also, to the extent possible considering the application of the the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, constrains the Federal Government's ability to infringe upon the sovereignty of the states.

If that is what you meant then my apologies.

[Edited 2013-04-18 14:20:22]

User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 93):
I'm sure a fully automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is great for deer hunting.

Now now, Ken, lets not make things up. You cannot purchase, legally, a fully automatic rifle. It is hard to convert a semi to a full unless you have a great deal of knowledge of what you're doing. Also, a fully automatic assault rifle would tear a deer to bits...not good for eating I'm afraid.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):
What is so horrible about being to easily and legally obtain a firearm?

Nothing, if you're someone who is eligible to own a firearm. If you're someone who couldn't pass a background check, on the other hand, I'd say it's a big problem.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):
Now, I COULD be mistaken (I'm not), but Chicago has some of the MOST restrictive gun laws in the country. And yet hundreds of violent crimes are committed with them.

Perhaps because Indiana, right next door, is all too happy to act as a supplier to Chicago's criminal element (among other states).

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):
Please tell me how many of these crimes are committed by NRA members with a legally owned firearm.

Very few, I'm sure. But then again, they'd still have been able to get their guns, since presumably most of them would be able to pass a background check. Those who go to the gun shows and buy guns to sell on the black market later (or perhaps use in crimes themselves), on the other hand, wouldn't be able to buy those guns. Is that not a successful outcome?

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):
Please tell me how firearm registration, limited magazines, and the inability to purchase an "assault" weapon will decrease violent crime in Chicago.

This thread is about background checks, not those things. Don't try and divert the issue.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4304 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 95):
Now now, Ken, lets not make things up. You cannot purchase, legally, a fully automatic rifle. It is hard to convert a semi to a full unless you have a great deal of knowledge of what you're doing. Also, a fully automatic assault rifle would tear a deer to bits...not good for eating I'm afraid.

I'm glad someone got to this point before I did. But, like the media wants, they have the public so clueless on guns, that they get what they want. Plain and simple, a full automatic firearm is a NFA controlled item, and has been since 1968. To obtain one of these fully automatic weapons, you have to get the appropriate tax stamp, which is a lengthy process. Not one single crime, to my knowledge, has been committed with a legally obtained NFA weapon.

But again, you hear "Assault rifle" on TV and buy it hook line and sinker. Long and short, there isn't a single assault rifle you can buy today without significant licensing requirements.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 94):
Not to be intentionally pedantic, but the Constitution does not grant or implement rights. The Constitution articulates what functions the Federal Government is empowered to perform and constrains its ability to infringe upon the rights that individuals already possess in the course of doing so.

As amended, the constitution does indeed grant some rights. For instance, the 6th amendment grants the right to a speedy trial. Other rights are granted by prohibiting laws being enacted to restrict rights.

In a completely pedantic way, the 2nd amendment does not directly grant the right to bear arms, that was even affirmed by the Supreme Court in the late 1800s, but we say it does because it's simply easier to say it that way. This is the full text of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it. It's that simple. Your right as an American to bear arms is taken for granted by the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment was enacted to make sure that no law is ever written to take those rights away.

Now, does that say that you may procure a Gatling gun with armor-piercing bullets to defend yourself? No, it doesn't. It may give you that right though if necessary for the security of the nation, but not your personal security.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2849 posts, RR: 8
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4298 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 41):
So the grand result is, nothing has changed. There is no greater, or lesser likelihood of a Sandy Hook happening tomorrow.

I wouldn't be so sure, the seed has been sown, and should another Sandy Bay happen (only a matter of time) then Obama can reclaim the moral high ground kick the debate along again, eventually something will happen.

And lets see what Harry Reid has to say about the next horrific incident that occurs ?

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 41):
I would suggest that the court of public opinion is the best way to settle this. Call a referendum and go with the result.

The NRA would somehow never allow it, as it would "infringe" on someone's right to do something !

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 94):
Prefer taking my chances with the insanity we have

You said it !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7886 posts, RR: 52
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Wow, a few months ago I feared some of the more liberal measures (that went to far, IMO) would pass, but common sense ones like background checks don't?

If there was stupid bureaucratic crap in the bill, why don't we see our Republican Congressmen/women drafting a cleaner bill?

Having gone through about 10 of these background checks, I can testify that it is NOT a big deal at all. Definitely wouldn't stop all crime, but who says it would? Not every criminal is a master mind... few are, most are not very smart and can't/won't go through the "work arounds." Just because a work around is feasible doesn't mean it will make a bill 100% ineffective...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25148 posts, RR: 46
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 93):
Maybe we can simply tax them at a level that makes their rate of sale diminish. Those tax dollars would be real handy to cover medical costs for treating all the GSW's our public hospitals see every day.

No can do. Some clever liberals tried that and got slapped by courts. Its considered punitive, and act clearly meant to limit access to an inherit right we hold as Americans. It would be like creating a tax to vote.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 99):
I wouldn't be so sure, the seed has been sown, and should another Sandy Bay happen (only a matter of time) then Obama can reclaim the moral high ground kick the debate along again, eventually something will happen.

There is no moral high ground to claim if your intended goal is to try to limit ones inherit rights in return.

Anyhow we've had double tragedies in America this week with loss of lives and hundred of injured. I think in the effort of public safety and take the high ground as you say, we need to seek ways to regulate sales of pressure cookers and nails, along with limiting existence of fertilizer plants. Its only a matter of time before more Americans are killed or injured...



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Rumors are now that obummer Will attempt to circumvent the congressional process with more executive orders. This is of course ib complete agreement with what we know about him.

If anybody had any doubts that he us an immature child yesterdays speech showed that better than any thing else he has done.

This fight unfortunately isn't over and we will have continue to be vigilant to keep liberals from taking our rights away



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 96):
This thread is about background checks, not those things. Don't try and divert the issue.

I am not diverting anything. They were provisions in the bill. Background checks make sense, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. But to believe they will single handedly defeat gun crime in the country isn't logical.

Quoting Mir (Reply 96):
Perhaps because Indiana, right next door, is all too happy to act as a supplier to Chicago's criminal element (among other states).

Over 1300 firearms have been traced by Chicago PD to an Illinois gun shop just a few miles outside of Chicago's city limits. The only way to stop movement of firearms is to strip ALL citizens of their right to bear arms. And I think you and I both know that simply won't happen.

Background checks and increased mental health awareness are a start.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12450 posts, RR: 25
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 86):

You do realize how stupid this statement is, right? Oh look, all these laws, we don't enforce them, so lets make new ones to enforce that will make not enforcing the old ones ok.

You do realize how stupid this statement is, right? [ See, I copied your exact question - clever, no? ] If law X is difficult to enforce you consider passing law Y that will allow you to not need to enforce law X as often. I don't know why anyone would think the number of laws matters. IMHO one should think the outcome is what matters.

I'm a software engineer who writes computer instructions all day. There's something like four million of them in the program I work with. I don't get judged on how many instructions end up in my part of the program, I get judged on if my part of the program does what the customers want/need it to do.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 104):
I'm a software engineer who writes computer instructions all day. There's something like four million of them in the program I work with. I don't get judged on how many instructions end up in my part of the program, I get judged on if my part of the program does what the customers want/need it to do.

Thanks for making my point, you don't get it. In your world, there is nothing but black and white. That work doesn't exist in our form of government and way of life.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 103):
They were provisions in the bill.

No, they weren't. The amendment specifically prohibits a gun registry [Sec. 122, paragraph (c), on page 28 of the linked document], and contains no references to magazine limits or assault weapons bans. You might be thinking of other amendments to the bill.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15216589...nd-Amendment-Rights-Protection-Act

This vote was about background checks and background checks only. And it still failed.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 103):
But to believe they will single handedly defeat gun crime in the country isn't logical.

Where has anyone said it will single-handedly defeat gun crime? It'll make a dent, that's all. But that's not insignificant.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 98):
As amended, the constitution does indeed grant some rights. For instance, the 6th amendment grants the right to a speedy trial.

I say a person inherently has the right to not be held hostage by the rest of his fellow men (via the government), whether there is a Constitution or not! The 6th Amendment was included to limit the government's ability to infringe upon that right (in the course of performing its Constitutional function of 'ensuring domestic tranquility' by punishing people for crimes) because the founders recognized this as a 'likely to be infringed' non-negotiable item.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 98):
Other rights are granted by prohibiting laws being enacted to restrict rights.

Let me fix that for you:

Other rights are PROTECTED by prohibiting laws being enacted to restrict rights.

Neither the government nor the Constitution grants any right to a person that he or she wasn't already entitled to. Absent the government, we'd be free to do absolutely anything we want. Obviously we institute government and accept limitations on our individual rights in order to have a functioning society. But never let anybody tell you that the source of a right is the government. The best that government can do is help you hold onto what was already yours to begin with.

Semantics, maybe but important nonetheless. Far too many people fail to recognize the true relationship between people and their government.

So to address the Second Amendment...absent the government a person is free to protect him/herself using whatever force necessary. We accept limitations on that right because we've collectively decided to empower the government to perform some of that function for us and we recognize the danger to each other of completely unrestricted firepower. The existence of the Second Amendment tells me that the people who wrote it saw the right to own firearms as a "likely to be infringed" non-negotiable item.

Unfortunately the way that they wrote the amendment didn't do us any favors two hundred plus years later. A very literal interpretation of "shall not be infringed" doesn't seem to make sense in light of the nuanced way that other amendments have been interpreted by the courts. On the other hand your notion expressed below...

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 98):
Now, does that say that you may procure a Gatling gun with armor-piercing bullets to defend yourself? No, it doesn't. It may give you that right though if necessary for the security of the nation, but not your personal security.

...in my opinion is completely wrong. The question is not whether you really 'need' a Gatling Gun, or an issue of whether or not the Government is 'giving' someone the right to have one. The issue is whether or not the government has a compelling enough justification to limit a person's freedom to have something that they want or believe that they need! Whether that want or perceived need is reasonable or not!

In the case of a Gatling Gun, as with an artillery piece or a substantial quantity of explosives, I'd say that a strong case can be made in favor of limiting the individual's freedom in favor of collective safety. In the case of things like AR-15s or 20 round magazines as a recent (perennial?) example, I don't think the government has a compelling case at all to limit that freedom. Despite a few highly sensational episodes, the aggregate public threat posed by this particular class of weapons is really next to nothing. Especially when compared to the death toll from several other freedoms that the Government has chosen not to or lacked the resolve to 'ban' that cause far more suffering and death. Can I get you a Budweiser, anybody?! What about a Big Mac or a pack of Marlboro Reds?

Of course reasonable people can disagree on how much to pile on either side of the scale, and I might be wrong about the safety threat posed by AR-15s or 20-round magazines. Either way IMO it's dead wrong to start the discussion with what the government (or any other representation of the collective) considers a free individual to 'need', be 'entitled to' or have a 'right to'...that is the pathway to tyranny. Asking instead what justification there is to limit an individual's freedom of action is a completely different and better way of looking at the world that yields more rational decisionmaking on complex issues.

[Edited 2013-04-18 17:33:14]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4184 times:

What you stated originally:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 94):
the Constitution does not grant or implement rights.

I answered:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 98):
the constitution does indeed grant some rights. For instance, the 6th amendment grants the right to a speedy trial.

You replied:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 107):
I say a person inherently has the right to not be held hostage by the rest of his fellow men (via the government), whether there is a Constitution or not!

Which was totally off-topic. I could go through your post and do a similar comparison with all of your other points, but it's not worth it, as you have now shown your hand, and that you've had an alternate agenda all along. Not worth the time to debate all of your other inaccuracies as your reply above indicates that all you wanted out of this was a cliff to grandstand from.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 42):
Despite what the liars at the NRA says, being against assault riffles is not the same as being anti gun.

The reverse of that is to say that this bill was defeated because persons are against background checks. If there is any silver lining its that folks are actually reading the fine print in the bill.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Thanks, Harry Reid, an incredible moron more concerned about his personal power in the Senate than doing his job as a legislator.

Honestly it now makes me wonder what his true agenda was during the budget battles.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
If there was stupid bureaucratic crap in the bill, why don't we see our Republican Congressmen/women drafting a cleaner bill?

As mentioned by others, thank Harry Reid and the Democratic party he serves, he set the agenda, rules and everything about bringing the bill to the floor, I have not heard him say he serves the NRA so...........


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 108):
Which was totally off-topic. I could go through your post and do a similar comparison with all of your other points, but it's not worth it, as you have now shown your hand, and that you've had an alternate agenda all along. Not worth the time to debate all of your other inaccuracies as your reply above indicates that all you wanted out of this was a cliff to grandstand from.


Contrary to your accusation I actually was trying to make a distinction that I thought was worthwhile and relevant to the topic at the time. But it probably was just pissing in the wind so I've deleted this post.

[Edited 2013-04-18 19:09:56]

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 80):
I'm against in when what was proposed will do absolutely nothing to stop any crime

And the probability is very high that not passing the law will result in an increase in crime by those who buy at gun shows and aren't checked.

Quoting flanker (Reply 83):
Sorry, its a constitutional right. We, including the feds get our rights from the constitution.

The Constitution does have limits. There is Freedom of Speech, but if you yell "FIRE!" in a packed theater you're heading to jail. Same with the Second Amendment. Think "Felons".

In both situations normal Speech and normal gun ownership is not at risk,nor will it be at risk in the future.

What is clearly at risk is the "will of the people". We have moved to a point where money is the real power, with the Holy Rollers a close second, in DC. The politicians turned into NRA lap dogs even when 70% of their constituents we in favor of the law. THAT was a real lesson in politicians turning into lap dogs, in total fear of taking care of those who they should represent.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Thanks, Harry Reid,

Might as well thank the NRA lap dogs who voted against it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Again thanks to Harry Reid who has had plenty of opportunities to abolish the supermajority but has not done so.

Reid could have done it, but felt that the Democrats would pay dearly when the GOP takes control - which will happen in a normal cycle of change.

Unfortunately I see the GOP changing the rules the day they take control because it will suit them. Harry should have changed the rules for this year because it's coming.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
I could even write out a paycheck in the name of my dead grandfather and use the stub to register him to vote, then vote his ballot. It would be illegal, but I could do it if I wanted to cast a ballot in his name.

Look at the damage you could do with your one fraudulent vote. That's why it is so minimal - the risk/reward equation is pretty queer.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 95):
Now now, Ken, lets not make things up.

Sorry, but it sounded better than "semi-automatic".   


User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Sorry, but it sounded better than "semi-automatic"

Ah, to hell with the facts, I'll just use emotion to try to get what I want. Brilliant

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 102):
This is of course ib complete agreement with what we know about him.

Like that he has signed fewer executive orders than the right-wingers before him?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 102):
This fight unfortunately isn't over and we will have continue to be vigilant to keep liberals from taking our rights away

What rights are those being taken away? The right to have a back ground check before owning a gun? Oh, the horror! How dare they make sure someone is in their right mind and legal to own a gun! Those damned liberals taking away things!

*scratches head*



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 112):
Ah, to hell with the facts, I'll just use emotion to try to get what I want.

Unlike, say, the hard core anti-abortionists who are blinded by emotion, mine was tongue in cheek, which Stabilator was able to spot.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3127 posts, RR: 6
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):
Read my reply about stakeholders. Gun owners aren't gonna roll over to knee-jerk gun control legislation any more than senior citizens are going to roll over on changes to SS and healthcare.

Understood. And I agree with your suggested measures.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 102):
Rumors are now that obummer Will attempt to circumvent the congressional process with more executive orders. This is of course ib complete agreement with what we know about him.

Well, if he did, he'd be representing the will of the people (and the Senate itself, which actually voted a majority) if he did. Which is more than the cowards in Congress are capable of recently.

What might be interesting, would be if the President was able to arrange (as in make possible) a state-legislature convention followed by a state convention ratification -- a citizen ratification. Circumvent Congress (or other representative bodies, equally influenceable) completely, and popularly ammend the 2nd Ammendment. If it is truly 90% favoring background checks, it would pass the 75% needed to ammend.


User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 92):

This guy has it...



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 115):
If it is truly 90% favoring background checks, it would pass the 75% needed to ammend.

If it is truly that and those in authority want to do the peoples will, why all the other aspects of the bill, why no do what the majority of people want, background checks, what's the other stuff for?


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 99):
moral high ground

Good god man I nearly choked on my breakfast - at least put "quotes" around that LOL.

Washington DC is so far below Moral Sea Level that residents who go on vacation get the bends.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Is any of this really a surprise, considering the NRA is the US's most influential lobby?

TDS did a great piece today contrasting what happened in Australia with the current situation in the US. Worth a watch, though there is some coarse language towards the end.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...l-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo

I always find the US's gun attitudes highly curious. I remember travelling around NC/SC a while back with my godfather who lives there. Very weird (and downright frightening also) how in some parts we seemed to be the only ones not to have a firearm. I guess much of the gun debate is a signal of how the US seems to be getting very close to being ungovernable.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
I see that problem as only getting worse as people, especially those is less free countries such as Great Britian and Australia get farther away from the change that took away their freedoms and more used to the lack thereof.

Less freedom in Australia? WTH, statements such as these say far more about the person who wrote it than anything else. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of anything I might say, though I do feel the need to point out that the Australian government doesn't torture certain prisoners and doesn't run a mid-caribbean penal colony.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
Don't you dare compare Australia to the US regarding lack of freedoms.

I believe the person who wrote that is exercising their right to reside in an alternate universe.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
Believe me L-188, there is absoulty NO problem here in Australia or Great Britain for that matter, at least not when we see our nightly news, and whats occurring in the US.
Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 27):
If anything I would describe Australia as more loosely regulated than the USA.
Quoting arrow (Reply 70):
When you equate civil rights with gun ownership, you've lost all credibility.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 77):
Assault weapon bans don't infringe upon your right to bear arms, so those laws aren't unconstitutional. The constitution only guarantees your right to bear arms, not what kind of arms you're allowed to bear.

  



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 119):
I guess much of the gun debate is a signal of how the US seems to be getting very close to being ungovernable.


I'm not convinced that an abundance of governability is a virtue.

[Edited 2013-04-19 06:43:15]

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Unfortunately I see the GOP changing the rules the day they take control because it will suit them. Harry should have changed the rules for this year because it's coming.

A sad commentary if true, rather than doing what he was elected to do during his term he is doing less to preserve a legacy for when his party is out of power?


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3943 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 27):
The whole, "American Freedom" thing is a bit of empty propoganda. It's a great thing but certainly not exclusive. There are probably 100 countries in the world that experience a similar level of "freedom"

"Probably" is an awfully big word.........I challenge you to name 100 countries that have as much freedom as we have in the U.S. (BTW........your country "probably" won't be on the list will it ?)

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 53):
Can't really take your post seriously if you don't respect the office, no matter who is elected to serve in it.

Your righteous indignation is so "touching" ! It's a shame you didn't feel so "outraged" when all the libs around here were calling President George W. Bush everything but a human being, a few years back......

For the record.........I feel exactly the same way as Slider does; and so do at least half of ALL American citizens.

If you'll bother to notice, about 80% of the time you see Obama being referenced to in the media, be it on TV, radio, in a magazine article, or just in a conversation among ordinary people, he is almost always referred to as "Obama".......by his last name ONLY; that is, if he's lucky; there are many people who still refer to him by his "other last name, "Sotero"; I don't know how many presidents you can remember, but I remember F.D.R. quite well, and every President since; Not a single one of them ever had two last names, and every single one of them (prior to obama) had no problem what-so-ever proving what his last name was, or where he was born. The guy you're so concerned about doesn't have that going for him.

Right now as I write this, there are 107 replies so far; 97 of them have American flags on them; ( I was completely off-line all day yesterday due to heavy rain and total loss of satellite signal.)

Now......as I was saying............that indicates to me that there at least 10 people replying to this thread that have no self-interest in whether this extremely bad bill was defeated or not; Oh sure, I know exactly what everyone outside of the U.S. is going to say; "This is an international forum, so we have a RIGHT to blah blah blah..........."; Yeah, it may be an international forum, but the subject being discussed is an issue concerning the U.S. A. The very minute anyone with an American flag beside their name says ONE word about ANYTHING having to do with politics or "rights" in Australia or New Zealand, they get screamed at instantly; (usually be the same people); please don't worry though......I have no plans to visit Australia anytime in the near future.......far too many highly venomous brown snakes, tiger snakes, taipans, and funnel-web spiders crawling around over there for me ! ( Not to mention the exorbitant airfare to get there and back.)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently onlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3923 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):

If you'll bother to notice, about 80% of the time you see Obama being referenced to in the media, be it on TV, radio, in a magazine article, or just in a conversation among ordinary people, he is almost always referred to as "Obama".......by his last name ONLY; that is, if he's lucky; there are many people who still refer to him by his "other last name, "Sotero"; I don't know how many presidents you can remember, but I remember F.D.R. quite well, and every President since; Not a single one of them ever had two last names, and every single one of them (prior to obama) had no problem what-so-ever proving what his last name was, or where he was born. The guy you're so concerned about doesn't have that going for him.

Are you for real?

Oh, thats right, you are.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3916 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):
Your righteous indignation is so "touching" ! It's a shame you didn't feel so "outraged" when all the libs around here were calling President George W. Bush everything but a human being, a few years back......

You may search my record on this, then issue your apology.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12450 posts, RR: 25
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 105):
Thanks for making my point, you don't get it. In your world, there is nothing but black and white. That work doesn't exist in our form of government and way of life.

Look at your smartphone - how black and white does that look to you? Laws are a lot like software instructions, they are written expressions that have to correctly describe how to deal with the complexities of real life. Your point is that the number of laws is important, mine is that it is more important that they achieve the desired effect.

To get back to the issue itself, it's silly to say that we shouldn't have Law 2 because Law 1 is not being enforced, especially when Law 1 is hard to enforce and Law 2 makes it less necessary to enforce Law 1.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Might as well thank the NRA lap dogs who voted against it.

Them too. Here's a list:

Quote:

1. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 2. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) 3. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) 4. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) 5. Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) 6. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) 7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) 8. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) 9. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) 10. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) 11. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) 12. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) 13. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) 14. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 15. Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID) 16. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 17. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) 18. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) 19. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) 20. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 21. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) 22. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 23. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) 24. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) 25. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) 26. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) 27. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) 28. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) 29. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) 30. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) 31. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 32. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) 33. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 34. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 35. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) 36. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) 37. Sen. James Risch (R-ID) 38. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) 39. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 40. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) 41. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 42. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) 43. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) 44. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) 45. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Ms. Ayotte just got me to contribute to whomever faces her in her next election.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):

Reid could have done it, but felt that the Democrats would pay dearly when the GOP takes control - which will happen in a normal cycle of change.

That's what I meant by saying he was more concerned about his personal power, he feels if he's the future Minority Leader instead of Majority Leader he wants to still be able to gum up the works of the Senate.

Face it, you get 50+ Senators, you SHOULD be able to move legislation, but Reid is happy to be part of another DO NOTHING CONGRESS. Last time the Dems were able to blame that on the GOP, he should be worried that this time it'll be him and his party getting the blame.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineb787900 From Canada, joined Sep 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Quoting arrow (Reply 70):

As someone who lives in Canada I beg to disagree. Instead of passing the blame to a foreign country, it would be wise to look at the real causes of the gun violence in Canadian cities instead. From what I noticed over the years, it oftentimes happens either among gangs and/or in economic deprived communities. Typically this is due to poor economic opportunities and limited access to post secondary education.

What really upsets me is the growing inequality in this country. According to a number of sources, the income gap is growing here at a faster rate than in the United States. Currently it is higher than in most European countries but a bit lower than in the US. To make matters worse, nearly a quarter of Toronto's population lives in poverty. Thanks to our below poverty level minimum wages, poor job market, overpriced housing market, and a number of other social issues. Additionally, the infrastructure and heath care is no where near as good as in many European countries, and the list goes on. As for the economic freedom, Canada isn't that much further ahead of the US. I'd venture to say we aren't the beacon of prosperity and civilization either (and have not been for a while). Overall, all things considered, we aren't all that much better than the US in many aspects, even if it's not what most Canadians want to hear or admit. The majority of immigrants when choosing to settle in North America, choose to settle down south and I suspect there is a reason for that. This is despite the fact that it is more difficult to immigrate to the United States than to Canada. But I have to say, it always amazes me the amount of real progress Nordic countries have archived. Well done!

As for the gun control debate, even thought it would be best to have some sort of gun control for firearm purchases in the US (similar to what is implemented in other developed countries), I do not think the problem is as huge or as devastating as what many people on here make it out to be. Homicide rate has been on a steady decline across US for several years. Having traveled extensively throughout the US, I find that most places and neighbourhoods in the US are just as safe as in Western Europe. It is however, best to avoid economic deprived areas and neighbourhoods where much of the violence occurs, typically among gangs. Again, according to various sources, rarely do people get randomly (violently) attacked in the US. Also, there have been close to 9,000 gun related deaths in the United States as opposed to 32,000 like what a well know A-net member has suggested.

Nevertheless, there is certainly a lot of room for improvement. That said, hopefully the American president will be able to achieve his goal in making the US safer.

[Edited 2013-04-19 14:15:01]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting b787900 (Reply 126):
Also, there have been close to 9,000 gun related deaths in the United States as opposed to 32,000 like what a well know A-net member has suggested.

The 32k number is correct but it includes suicides. Calling it false is pretty dishonest. You just need to understand what it includes.

The argument for not including suicides is of course that they will find some other way. While that is true for many of them data is very clear that it isn't for all.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Two kids were murdered this week in Richmond, California in broad daylight. They were leaving a friend's home and some coward walked up to them and shot them.

My question is: why is it such a big deal to have background checks? What if he had bought that gun at a gun show or off Craigslist? Now we have two less kids in the world because NRA does not like background checks.

Also: what is the Constitutional definition of a "well regulated militia"?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12450 posts, RR: 25
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Sen Ayotte, covering herself in glory meeting with victims of handgun violence:

Quote:

SIMON: I know that you voted no yesterday, and I wanted to ask, is there anything that could be fixed or changed that would make you more comfortable with gun legislation…

AYOTTE: You know obviously I’d have to look at the legislation. I can tell you that just the logistics of the legislation, the Toomey-Manchin one, the way it prioritized gun show checks over retailers. I mean just on a sort of implementation level. A lot of concern from retailers about that their the way they prioritized it putting aside the checking of it that amongst retailers there was a lot of concern from just actually gun shop owners. Which I know is sort of a different kind of group than you guys… [...]

SIMON: So their feeling was to burden others? People would be coming in doing background checks on them…

AYOTTE: Yes, yes a different burden on them, so that was one piece…

Your concern is the poor gun retailers?

Really?

Even when 86% of the citizens are in favor of improved background checks?

You can say this with a straight face to a gunshot victim?

It's stuff like this that makes one suspect that the Senator is being paid off...

Ref: thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/18/1891301/gun-violence-victim-confronts-senator-for-voting-down-background-checks/



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
what is the Constitutional definition of a "well regulated militia"?

Militias not regulated by the government may be viewed as rebellious or treasonous.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 98):
It may give you that right though if necessary for the security of the nation, but not your personal security.

The Bill of Rights doesn't give anybody anything. The entire thing is a waste of paper that does more harm than good.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
Now we have two less kids in the world because NRA does not like background checks.

It also had something to do with the guy walking up and pulling the trigger too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
The entire thing is a waste of paper that does more harm than good.

Thank you kind sir for saving me a life of worry over the constitution. Whew!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 132):
Thank you kind sir for saving me a life of worry over the constitution. Whew!

Not the constitution, just the Bill of Rights. It opens the door to more than one dangerous fallacy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20540 posts, RR: 62
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 133):
Not the constitution, just the Bill of Rights.

*facepalm* How stupid of me! BMI727 to the rescue again. Thank you, thank you, thank you!  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
The Bill of Rights doesn't give anybody anything. The entire thing is a waste of paper that does more harm than good.

No matter how a person interprets the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution, that is just about the most unpatriotic and horrific thing anyone could ever say. They may not be perfect, but they have served our Republic well for over 225 years.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 135):
No matter how a person interprets the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution, that is just about the most unpatriotic and horrific thing anyone could ever say.

No it's not, the entire thing is a screw up and Alexander Hamilton was right.

There are two major problems that can arise from the Bill of Rights.

First, the list is included in the document that lays out the framework of the government. The issue is that including it in such a way implies that the rights are given by the government and, by extension, could be take away by the government. Obviously, neither is true, but it's in the Constitution and the Constitution can be changed. People could just decide that we could do with a few less guaranteed rights.

Secondly, including a list of guaranteed rights implies that the listed rights are the only rights to which people are entitled. Again this is not the case, but it can cause a ton of problems. It's all to easy to look at potential legislation, check to see if it violates anything in the Bill of Rights, and then assume that there's nothing wrong with the law as long as it doesn't run contrary to the Bill of Rights. The notion that as long as long as a law doesn't violate the Bill of Rights it is okay is a very dangerous one.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 123):
Are you for real?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly remember someone telling me that, Quote: "one line replies are generally of no use, and are therefore not allowed.............or something like that.........

but to answer your question.........yes, I'm VERY "real", and everyone, (including the Social Security Administration, the VA, and the IRS ) know the exact date, and the exact location of my birth; which is considerably MORE than YOU know about people you vote for.



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
The Bill of Rights doesn't give anybody anything. The entire thing is a waste of paper that does more harm than good.

I wouldn't have thought you as the sort of person to say that a limitation on the powers of government (which is what the Bill of Rights is) would be a bad thing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 136):
It's all to easy to look at potential legislation, check to see if it violates anything in the Bill of Rights, and then assume that there's nothing wrong with the law as long as it doesn't run contrary to the Bill of Rights. The notion that as long as long as a law doesn't violate the Bill of Rights it is okay is a very dangerous one.

You're confusing the question of whether a law is constitutional or not with the question of whether or not it's a good idea. Both are important questions, but they're separate ones.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 138):
I wouldn't have thought you as the sort of person to say that a limitation on the powers of government (which is what the Bill of Rights is) would be a bad thing.

The problem isn't that it places limits on the government. The problem is that the Bill of Rights, unintentionally, places limits on the limits.

Quoting Mir (Reply 138):
You're confusing the question of whether a law is constitutional or not with the question of whether or not it's a good idea.

No, I'm just pointing out that the Bill of Rights is bad in that it is too simplistic a test for constitutionality. The unfortunate fallacy is that if a proposed law does not infringe on a protected right it should be allowed, which should not be the case.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

I don't really have a dog in this fight (although I do love going to the shooting range to relieve some stress from time to time) but my observation is this:

If you have a 'bad' background, you don't have the right to defend yourself (as the 2nd amendment was intended to solve by bearing arms)....

But if you have a 'good' background, you're ok?



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
The problem is that the Bill of Rights, unintentionally, places limits on the limits.

Except for the 10th Amendment.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
The unfortunate fallacy is that if a proposed law does not infringe on a protected right it should be allowed, which should not be the case.

What other consistent standard is there?

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 140):
but my observation is this:

If you have a 'bad' background, you don't have the right to defend yourself (as the 2nd amendment was intended to solve by bearing arms)....

But if you have a 'good' background, you're ok?

It's more a question of "if you couldn't buy a gun at a dealer, why should you be able to buy a gun from a private seller?"

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 142, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 137):

but to answer your question.........yes, I'm VERY "real", and everyone, (including the Social Security Administration, the VA, and the IRS ) know the exact date, and the exact location of my birth; which is considerably MORE than YOU know about people you vote for.

Who cares the exact date and location of your birth? What does it even matter anymore?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):

If you'll bother to notice, about 80% of the time you see Obama being referenced to in the media, be it on TV, radio, in a magazine article, or just in a conversation among ordinary people, he is almost always referred to as "Obama".......by his last name ONLY

Uh, that's what happens when you become President. What is your point? Is the name "Obama" less 'exotic' than "Barack" or something? Is this supposed to be another liberal media conspiracy that Presidents typically are referred to as "President *last name*" Was Bush called "George" or Reagan "Ronald" very frequently during their tenures. If that's supposed to be a legitimate argument from you about something, it's one of the worst efforts i've seen.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):
if he's lucky; there are many people who still refer to him by his "other last name, "Sotero"; I don't know how many presidents you can remember, but I remember F.D.R. quite well, and every President since; Not a single one of them ever had two last names, and every single one of them (prior to obama)

I have no doubt he was probably known colloquially as Soetero during much of his youth, as his Mother and sister the had the last name Soetero, from their husband/father- his step father. Why on earth would you take issue with this concept? He then had a choice later on if he would take this name, or retain the name of his father. He wanted the name of his father, and has kept that. How in the world is this supposed to be some sort of mark of shame? It is absolutely disgusting the depths you people stoop to try to put a disgrace to someone, some nonexistent scarlet letter on their chest from no fault of their own. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself, Charley. There are few basic decencies you wouldn't violate if they could be used for some sort of ill-advised political ammunition.

Here's a question. My name is different today from that on my original birth certificate. First AND Last. Should that fact be used against me or keep be from being President?

A good friend of mine's father walked out of his life as a baby, and he grew up with the last name of his step father. When he came of age, he changed his name to include a hyphenation with his mother's maiden name. Should this preclude him from seeking the office of President, in your mind?

Shameless. Despicable. Watch what basic decencies and respect you violate as you try to shame those of us who maybe didn't have as straight-forward or simple of a family structure as yours, all in some zeal against the President. Shouldn't you have enough other things to bitch about already before droning on with this crap again?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):
had no problem what-so-ever proving what his last name was, or where he was born. The guy you're so concerned about doesn't have that going for him.

Seems to me President Obama has never had a problem with that, either. So many fellow politicians, on the left and the right, had so much to gain by finding him ineligible for office. Never even remotely came close to proving that. Get over it.

[Edited 2013-04-20 06:27:44]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 143, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 119):
Less freedom in Australia?

Well, in Australia there is more Freedom from hunger than in the US and more Freedom from poverty than in the US. And Australia can teach the US a lot about the Freedom of Access to Health Care. There is also more Freedom from the violent crime that guns bring to the streets.

As someone who has lived in both Australia and the US I really don't see any loss of freedoms in Australia.

Let's look at a "Basic, Core Freedom" - the Freedom to vote. It's mandatory in Australia and you better have a good reason for not voting or you're fined. There is no barrier to voting, except not being an Australian CItizen. COmpare that to the efforts around the US by GOP politicians to obstruct voting by those citizens of color, or low economic standing, or living in a Blue District. Having people wait 5 to 7 hours to vote in America is enough to make people gag - t least those who believe in the Freedom of Democracy in America,


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 144, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
We can stockpile for when the government suspends the Constitution!

The Constitution has already been de facto suspended.

Two prominent Senators have publicly said that a US citizen in the US has no 4th or 5th Amendment protections when their suspected crime "does not profit like ordinary an criminal enterprise".

How about the roadblocks that the Border Patrol and TSA set up far outside the borders? Warrantless wiretaps?

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 42):

Despite what the liars at the NRA says, being against assault riffles is not the same as being anti gun.

"Assault rifles" are already banned, and have been for a long time. Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it any more dangerous than one that doesn't look as scary.

Quoting rampart (Reply 45):
But you shouldn't have a right to it.
Quoting rampart (Reply 45):
opposition to a 90% majority of the general citizenry

Nice try. Nowhere has it been said that 90% of the general citizenry thinks that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 145, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
Except for the 10th Amendment.

Unfortunately, in practice it doesn't work.

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
What other consistent standard is there?

There isn't one, but the idea of a Bill of Rights should not even be applicable to America anyway. A list of things a government cannot do is useful when the government is a king and the citizens are effectively owned by the monarch. There's no need for that here, since the relationship between people and the government is fundamentally different.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 146, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 21):
Many of the people who have committed mass shootings and other such things in the US had no previous criminal history and no contacts to people who sell illegal guns, for those this kind of thing would make it significantly harder to get a gun.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 143):
Freedom from hunger
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 143):
Freedom from poverty

Freedom from Poverty and Hunger? Talk about spin! You might have such a condition in North Korea but in America, everyone is free from hunger and poverty, if he used his other freedoms, such as to work hard and to make correct decisions in his life.

What you are talking about is not Freedom from hunger or poverty, but RELIEF from hunger or poverty. Two very different things. Whereas a Freedom comes with responsibility, Relief does not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 145):
Unfortunately, in practice it doesn't work.

10th amendment works just fine if you obey it. But starting a century ago, Washington politicians decided it was an impediment to their power (as it was intended to be), and gradually chose Justices who would agree, and now the 10th amendment is like the handicapped kid hidden in the closet when guests arrive, as Washington does not like to admit to something that might block their power.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 145):
There isn't one, but the idea of a Bill of Rights should not even be applicable to America anyway. A list of things a government cannot do is useful when the government is a king and the citizens are effectively owned by the monarch. There's no need for that here, since the relationship between people and the government is fundamentally different.

Hell no. The Constitution is (or is supposed to be) our highest law - call them SuperLaws if you will, to which all other laws and government actions / regulations must be subservient to. Without a constitution, minorities become quickly victims of the majority, who can pass whatever laws they damn please rather easily. A Constitution, which can be changed but only with significantly wider support, is designed to be a brake to such abuse.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 147, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 146):
The Constitution is (or is supposed to be) our highest law - call them SuperLaws if you will, to which all other laws and government actions / regulations must be subservient to.

The Constitution is fine, but the Bill of Rights is more trouble than it's worth.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 148, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 146):
everyone is free from hunger and poverty,

Tell that to those getting one meal a day, or kids who depend on their school meals to be able to concentrate in class.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 146):
Whereas a Freedom comes with responsibility

I have no problems with that - which is why I support the Draft. We should have been using the Draft to balance personnel burdens as soon as W pulled that stupid stunt of invading Iraq for WMDs that never were.

BTW, I met my responsibility to serve, which is where I met my Bride on R&R in PER. Living there for 8 years does give one a more mature insight into the responsibilities of a civilized society. I'll keep my position that Australia (and other countries) do a better job than we do when it comes to some critical issues, like hunger, health. poverty and voting.


User currently offlineWSTAKL From New Zealand, joined Jun 2011, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

As an outsider (not from the USA) it amazes me how authorities can shut down an entire city in order to capture a couple of terrorists, but are unable to pass a bill that means it would take someone 5 minutes to do a background check on someone wanting to buy a firearm.

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 150, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 147):

The Constitution is fine, but the Bill of Rights is more trouble than it's worth.

How to put this...

I would gladly either give or take as many bullets as it necessary to ensure the rights contained in the first 10 Amendments are upheld for everyone.

Those who think that "it's more trouble than it's worth" either slept through history class, or have ulterior motives.

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 149):
As an outsider (not from the USA) it amazes me how authorities can shut down an entire city in order to capture a couple of terrorists, but are unable to pass a bill that means it would take someone 5 minutes to do a background check on someone wanting to buy a firearm.

I wasn't aware that the United States Senate was responsible for shutting down most of Boston, or that the police forces of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted any bills down.

You're comparing two different sets of people with widely different goals and agendas.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 151, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 150):
I would gladly either give or take as many bullets as it necessary to ensure the rights contained in the first 10 Amendments are upheld for everyone.

The problem with the Bill of Rights isn't what's in it, but rather what isn't in it and therefore can sometimes be presumed to not exist.

Really the whole idea runs somewhat contrary to America. We were never going to be subjects of a monarch or live under a government that lays claim to the people and needs carve outs regarding what it can do. Rather than be subject to a government, Americans are to have a government subject to them where individual people are ultimately the highest power so there should be no need to specify what the government cannot do but rather what it can.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 152, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 151):
The problem with the Bill of Rights isn't what's in it, but rather what isn't in it and therefore can sometimes be presumed to not exist.

Only by Progressive/Liberal interpretations of the Constitution. The 9th Amendment was supposed to cover this issue. Just because a certain right is not specified in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist and that it is not protected. Example: The right to privacy, the right to travel, or the presumption of innocence, none of which are spelled out.

The Constitution was supposed to be a list of things the Federal government was allowed to do. Anything that was not listed, by default the government is not allowed to do it. It was NEVER intended to be a list of citizens' rights. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, created to address the concern of certain delegates that wanted at least some of the most basic rights written down in black and white, but strictly speaking it was not necessary.

But now that the Federal government routinely delves into matters not specified in the Constitution or any of its amendments, IMHO the Bill of Rights has gone from being redundant to being necessary.

[Edited 2013-04-20 20:37:13]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 153, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 152):
Only by Progressive/Liberal interpretations of the Constitution.

You cannot misinterpret what does not exist.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 152):
The Constitution was supposed to be a list of things the Federal government was allowed to do. Anything that was not listed, by default the government is not allowed to do it. It was NEVER intended to be a list of citizens' rights. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, created to address the concern of certain delegates that wanted at least some of the most basic rights written down in black and white, but strictly speaking it was not necessary.

And that's part of why it's a bad idea and does more harm than good.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 152):
IMHO the Bill of Rights has gone from being redundant to being necessary.

That's a poor stance to take since you risk, in essence, waiving rights not in the Bill of Rights.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 154, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 153):
And that's part of why it's a bad idea and does more harm than good.

It's why it was so brilliant. The people rule. That's the way it was supposed to work.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 153):
That's a poor stance to take since you risk, in essence, waiving rights not in the Bill of Rights.

Blame Progressives (of both parties) who have chipped away at the Constitution's authority for the past century.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 155, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 154):
It's why it was so brilliant. The people rule. That's the way it was supposed to work.

And then at the end the Bill of Rights was added which implies that the people may, in fact, not rule.

If I give you a list of places you aren't allowed to go, the implication is that any place not on the list is okay. If I give you a list of places you are allowed to go, the implication is that any place not on the list is off limits.

The Constitution should be, and largely is, a list of places the government is allowed to go. The Bill of Rights, however, is exactly the opposite and that's why it should have never been included.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 156, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 120):
Since when is governability a virtue?

Problem being that when urgent issues need to be addressed, political polarisation makes any action rather difficult. Then again, I guess that means its difficult for the legislature to take bad actions (as well as good).

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):

Gosh, calm down. All I did was ask a rhetorical question, post a video featuring the action of a world renowned politician on the same issue, correct a grossly misjudged statement about a country that I have visited many times, voiced some observations (relevant to this thread) of the time I spent in North and South Carolina, and put a checkmark next to some general sentiments I agreed with.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 122):
The very minute anyone with an American flag beside their name says ONE word about ANYTHING having to do with politics or "rights" in Australia or New Zealand, they get screamed at instantly; (usually be the same people)

   There is currently an active thread here in the non-av forums about one of the nations you mentioned. Several americans are participating, all of them are being treated with respect - both by myself and other members from the Asia-Pacific region. Your idea that Australasians are unable to take criticism is unfounded.



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 157, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 155):
If I give you a list of places you aren't allowed to go, the implication is that any place not on the list is okay. If I give you a list of places you are allowed to go, the implication is that any place not on the list is off limits.

That is the reason for t