Then at least be honest about what you are purposing. To enact what you've suggested would require the assent of 38 US State Legislatures. That would seem to make it a non-starter.
That we repeal the 2nd Amendment? Sure. But that's an entirely different argument, with other viable alternatives. Why don't we amend the 2nd amendment to allow local and city governments to make individual decisions on the legality of certain kinds of firearms? it keeps the right in tact in other contexts to own your favorite murder device of choice, just don't do it in my town.
I don't accept your conclusion that you are placed in harms way merely by my possession of a firearm.
Yes, I am. Because if you're capable of purchasing a firearm so are other people. You are not a unique snow flake. You are not special. You will use your gun responsibly. But others will not. Many will not. many incidents where guns will be used against others will be more often than not be used for crimes. Not the prevention thereof.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard for you people to understand? Your solution is literally to shred the Constitution and take away a right that we've enjoyed since the dawn of the republic.
The mark of the end of a now crashed logic train. I'm not arguing if it's constitutional or not, I'm arguing whether or not gun availability is even a good idea in the first place.
People with a criminal past are already barred from firearm ownership.
Cho Seung Hui was a completely innocent man until he murdered those he murdered. Or any number of other thugs who may not have an arrest record but could be pretty damn dangerous. Besides, until they're caught, people who funnel guns from legal sources to illegal sources are still eligible to purchase weapons from legal sources.
Nobody is forcing them to take that kind of responsbility. Just don't take away my ability to defend myself because you don't want to do the same.
Don't put me in harm's way because you've got a hard on for devices designed for MURDER.
So your solution to this is to take away my legally owned weapons? I bet we could bring car thefts down a lot too if we outlawed cars.
No, stopping the sale of legal guns now doesn't take away your current fire arms, unless you consider potential future weapons you may own yours anyway.
I would argue that the availability of guns to the population deters crime.
But it simply wouldn't.
For one, having a heavily armed population in densely packed areas is basically asking for a shoot out, not likely but it's also the least of my concerns. It's a thought that if it weren't tragic it'd be pretty damn funny.
Two, that just makes guns available to anyone who wants one. Like say, criminals who are out to commit murder or robbery. I don't want to be the hero to stop them. I don't have that kind of training. That's above my pay grade. Way above it. I don't, and I suspect many of my fellow citizens don't want, that kind of responsibility. What if I miss and kill an innocent bystander? I couldn't live with that. What if I kill the criminal? Another thing I couldn't live with. The reason why many people don't carry guns around now is this precise reason. Also, even if guns are highly available, criminals will still know that most people won't be armed AND guns will be easier to get. If not direct from a dealer, through an intermediary source.
So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. I accept your apology
high availability of guns + high population density + ineffective(overworked, underpaid, etc etc) police force = more gun related crimes. The point here, is that more guns, equals more gun violence. period. Illegal street guns get their start off somewhere else in the world as legal weapons.
The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?
No doubt that's a factor to the overall crime rate, but the availability of guns make the gun problem worse.
Because there are other factors at play such as population density. You seriously can not try to compare the same factors at play in a town like Burlington, with less than 40 thousand residents as those with say, Baltimore, which has a population of about 600k. New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.
Weapon control in general public is one argument I'm not really sure I'm on the right side of, but I'm fairly certain whether your'e talking a knife, blunt object, mace, taser, pistol, whatever, in a confined space like a plane is going to end pretty poorly. Even if it's only the pilot who's armed.
Because my local cable co and the satellite cos are even more inept than the Government. Therefore, we know that the Government probably isn't the least inefficient engine for brokering services.
That's because Gee Dub lives in an era post-Tonkin, and post-Vietnam. After the Civil Rights Act, the political landscape changed dramatically. Most of the anti-war protesters from the 70's are now mostly either democrats or libertarians, possibly some as moderate republicans. So let's look at the historical context here. You're right though, if Bush did start a war in Vietnam now he'd ahve been strung up by his goddamn toes.
Kennedy didn't escalate Vietnam, that was LBJ, LBJ had the decency to step down after realizing his mistakes in office.
"Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." In context, he was speaking about said war. Democrats aren't pure as driven snow, but they're not complete and utter gutter trash either. In the 21st century, it's still seen as a shame in the national arena, for Republicans to be gay or otherwise considered "immoral." Save guys like PJ O'Rourke or Ron Paul, guys I overwhelmingly disagree with yet still respect.
Yeah but quite frankly, I'd rather have hardcopy. When my computer dies, or when I'm not around electronic devices to entertain me, having a couple of back issues of say, EGM(RIP), or MAD was a great way to kill time.
So get out of my country. I'm paying for it, you have no interest in doing so. Get the hell out and don't come back. Idiots who wasted our time telling us Government was the problem made the Government a problem. Saying it's inefficient is one thing, but where's the solution? where's the answer? Liberals atleast tell me that the answer lies in transparency, and opening up the Government and having systems of regulations of influence and power. Conservatives tell me that the answer lies in reducing power of the Government. Which leaves a power vacuum filled by the greedy, crazy and selfish. While politicians aren't clean by any means, atleast we can know that at the end of the day, the same politicians who may have wheeled and dealed some favors for their local constituents still have to win elections and be held accountable for their deeds. In the private sector, you can screw the pooch so bad other sectors of industry feel it, and still have big enough brass balls to spend a cool million redecorating your office.
You're not understanding the full impact of what happened.
let's say you own a company, and you get supplied short term credit to make things like payroll or materials for unexpected large orders. Your bank then decides you're not good enough to extend a hand for short term credit thanks to the credit crunch. You are now screwed.
I'm always tickled pink when people cite Government ineptitude, when the last six months have shown us that the private sector clearly competes with the Government in incompetence.
Yes, but it doesn't establish how the court is supposed to effect legislative law and whether or not said laws are even allowable via the constitution. Constitutionality of law is a byproduct of Marbury versus Madison, which established judicial review.
The concept of judicial powers IS *beyond* vague. WAY beyond vague. Strict constitutionalism will run into a huge constitutional crisis the second that the supreme court does something way beyond crazy like strike down entire articles of the constitution because they feel that it's within "Judicial powers." Powers that aren't really outlined or enumerated within the constitution itself, but do have weight within the system.
Yes, what does the common "Defence" and "general Welfare" mean exactly? Does it mean that the Federal Government can tax whatever the hell it feels like to provide services to the states and to the people to enhance their daily quality of life?
That's the question I'm asking. What the hell does it *exactly* mean in this age of constitutional scholarship? In light of 2 centuries of judicial interpretation?
But that's the general gist of the constitution. It's about the current interpretation of the constitution. There's no other way around it. It's a document that's about compromise, not dogma.
Slashdot Mirror
Then at least be honest about what you are purposing. To enact what you've suggested would require the assent of 38 US State Legislatures. That would seem to make it a non-starter.
That we repeal the 2nd Amendment? Sure. But that's an entirely different argument, with other viable alternatives. Why don't we amend the 2nd amendment to allow local and city governments to make individual decisions on the legality of certain kinds of firearms? it keeps the right in tact in other contexts to own your favorite murder device of choice, just don't do it in my town.
I don't accept your conclusion that you are placed in harms way merely by my possession of a firearm.
Yes, I am. Because if you're capable of purchasing a firearm so are other people. You are not a unique snow flake. You are not special. You will use your gun responsibly. But others will not. Many will not. many incidents where guns will be used against others will be more often than not be used for crimes. Not the prevention thereof.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard for you people to understand? Your solution is literally to shred the Constitution and take away a right that we've enjoyed since the dawn of the republic.
The mark of the end of a now crashed logic train. I'm not arguing if it's constitutional or not, I'm arguing whether or not gun availability is even a good idea in the first place.
People with a criminal past are already barred from firearm ownership.
Cho Seung Hui was a completely innocent man until he murdered those he murdered. Or any number of other thugs who may not have an arrest record but could be pretty damn dangerous. Besides, until they're caught, people who funnel guns from legal sources to illegal sources are still eligible to purchase weapons from legal sources.
Nobody is forcing them to take that kind of responsbility. Just don't take away my ability to defend myself because you don't want to do the same.
Don't put me in harm's way because you've got a hard on for devices designed for MURDER.
So your solution to this is to take away my legally owned weapons? I bet we could bring car thefts down a lot too if we outlawed cars.
No, stopping the sale of legal guns now doesn't take away your current fire arms, unless you consider potential future weapons you may own yours anyway.
I would argue that the availability of guns to the population deters crime.
But it simply wouldn't.
For one, having a heavily armed population in densely packed areas is basically asking for a shoot out, not likely but it's also the least of my concerns. It's a thought that if it weren't tragic it'd be pretty damn funny.
Two, that just makes guns available to anyone who wants one. Like say, criminals who are out to commit murder or robbery. I don't want to be the hero to stop them. I don't have that kind of training. That's above my pay grade. Way above it. I don't, and I suspect many of my fellow citizens don't want, that kind of responsibility. What if I miss and kill an innocent bystander? I couldn't live with that. What if I kill the criminal? Another thing I couldn't live with. The reason why many people don't carry guns around now is this precise reason. Also, even if guns are highly available, criminals will still know that most people won't be armed AND guns will be easier to get. If not direct from a dealer, through an intermediary source.
So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. I accept your apology
high availability of guns + high population density + ineffective(overworked, underpaid, etc etc) police force = more gun related crimes. The point here, is that more guns, equals more gun violence. period. Illegal street guns get their start off somewhere else in the world as legal weapons.
The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?
No doubt that's a factor to the overall crime rate, but the availability of guns make the gun problem worse.
Because there are other factors at play such as population density. You seriously can not try to compare the same factors at play in a town like Burlington, with less than 40 thousand residents as those with say, Baltimore, which has a population of about 600k. New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.
Yeah. Expect gun violence rates to jump since the DC Handgun turnover.
Weapon control in general public is one argument I'm not really sure I'm on the right side of, but I'm fairly certain whether your'e talking a knife, blunt object, mace, taser, pistol, whatever, in a confined space like a plane is going to end pretty poorly. Even if it's only the pilot who's armed.
Yes. why the fuck am I paying them money for?
Because my local cable co and the satellite cos are even more inept than the Government. Therefore, we know that the Government probably isn't the least inefficient engine for brokering services.
That's because Gee Dub lives in an era post-Tonkin, and post-Vietnam. After the Civil Rights Act, the political landscape changed dramatically. Most of the anti-war protesters from the 70's are now mostly either democrats or libertarians, possibly some as moderate republicans. So let's look at the historical context here. You're right though, if Bush did start a war in Vietnam now he'd ahve been strung up by his goddamn toes.
Kennedy didn't escalate Vietnam, that was LBJ, LBJ had the decency to step down after realizing his mistakes in office.
"Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." In context, he was speaking about said war. Democrats aren't pure as driven snow, but they're not complete and utter gutter trash either. In the 21st century, it's still seen as a shame in the national arena, for Republicans to be gay or otherwise considered "immoral." Save guys like PJ O'Rourke or Ron Paul, guys I overwhelmingly disagree with yet still respect.
Bubble burst != crash.
Tech stocks took a dive, the economy wasn't up to par, but it's not suffering PTSD after being violently beaten up by greedy assholes.
The American dream seems to be to suffer as an exploited peon hoping to become the exploiter. what a fucking shame.
Yeah but quite frankly, I'd rather have hardcopy. When my computer dies, or when I'm not around electronic devices to entertain me, having a couple of back issues of say, EGM(RIP), or MAD was a great way to kill time.
So get out of my country. I'm paying for it, you have no interest in doing so. Get the hell out and don't come back. Idiots who wasted our time telling us Government was the problem made the Government a problem. Saying it's inefficient is one thing, but where's the solution? where's the answer? Liberals atleast tell me that the answer lies in transparency, and opening up the Government and having systems of regulations of influence and power. Conservatives tell me that the answer lies in reducing power of the Government. Which leaves a power vacuum filled by the greedy, crazy and selfish. While politicians aren't clean by any means, atleast we can know that at the end of the day, the same politicians who may have wheeled and dealed some favors for their local constituents still have to win elections and be held accountable for their deeds. In the private sector, you can screw the pooch so bad other sectors of industry feel it, and still have big enough brass balls to spend a cool million redecorating your office.
You're not understanding the full impact of what happened.
let's say you own a company, and you get supplied short term credit to make things like payroll or materials for unexpected large orders. Your bank then decides you're not good enough to extend a hand for short term credit thanks to the credit crunch. You are now screwed.
No car industry, universal health care and bad teeth.
Yep, we're on the road to being nearly UKish.
I'm always tickled pink when people cite Government ineptitude, when the last six months have shown us that the private sector clearly competes with the Government in incompetence.
Yes, but it doesn't establish how the court is supposed to effect legislative law and whether or not said laws are even allowable via the constitution. Constitutionality of law is a byproduct of Marbury versus Madison, which established judicial review.
The concept of judicial powers IS *beyond* vague. WAY beyond vague. Strict constitutionalism will run into a huge constitutional crisis the second that the supreme court does something way beyond crazy like strike down entire articles of the constitution because they feel that it's within "Judicial powers." Powers that aren't really outlined or enumerated within the constitution itself, but do have weight within the system.
errp
thanks for pointing that out. I was just reaching back for various compromises through out US history and that came to mind. Oops.
Yes, what does the common "Defence" and "general Welfare" mean exactly? Does it mean that the Federal Government can tax whatever the hell it feels like to provide services to the states and to the people to enhance their daily quality of life?
That's the question I'm asking. What the hell does it *exactly* mean in this age of constitutional scholarship? In light of 2 centuries of judicial interpretation?
define "defense and general welfare."
But that's the general gist of the constitution. It's about the current interpretation of the constitution. There's no other way around it. It's a document that's about compromise, not dogma.
Article 1, Section 8
General Welfare.