class warfare?

[WestTexasS2K]

Maybe there should be a test to register to vote?

 

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=5ECS8LEeI5M&feature=youtu.be&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5ECS8LEeI5M%26feature%3Dyoutu.be

[rikker]

alright, glad we agree on some things. putting more guns out there is definitely not a solution - i'm not advocating that. gun safety and general education about responsible ownership and use are needed. I'm just not a fan of government mandating it. especially federal government. These decisions can be made at the local level, where people have greater control and say over their laws.

 

I think we've beat this thing to death by now.

 

I guess so !

Here is one thing I am not clear on (well one of many to be honest), but I was always under the impression that Federal Law trumped State Law, but with recent new Gun Laws in CT and CO they appear to have beaten the government to it. Pretty big changes in CO too with the new pot laws,can these laws be overturned by Washington, or would they try and hurt that state financially for not playing ball?

[slngsht]

I guess so !

Here is one thing I am not clear on (well one of many to be honest), but I was always under the impression that Federal Law trumped State Law, but with recent new Gun Laws in CT and CO they appear to have beaten the government to it. Pretty big changes in CO too with the new pot laws,can these laws be overturned by Washington, or would they try and hurt that state financially for not playing ball?

in the past feds have played hardball with states regarding drug laws.

 

feds can always exert some control under the commerce clause. I think one of the midwest states passed a pro gun law that had some provisions for guns manufactured entirely within the state.

 

I'm personally more in favor of state control on many social issues - the more control and funds go to the federal government, the dirtier the politics, the more divided the country IMO.

[ayseven]

Do you really want a country run 100% by WalMart, General Motors, Exxon et al? Because that's where "small government" leads. Don't forget, taxes pay for roads, sewers, and in most countries but not yours, health care. Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

I think when you look in the dictionary under "wind up", you'll find this thread.

[slngsht]

Taxes pay for stuff just fine at the local level. Interstate highway system, air traffic control and highway standards belong with the Feds due to commerce clause. A lot of the rest can be done just fine at the state level. When you pay too much to the fed system and count on them to redistribute by funding projects, you end up with pork projects.

Funny how capitalism is so under attack but when anyone needs help they keep looking to us. Seems to me this country has accomplished a lot but its uniqueness is getting diluted everyday

[yellowss7]

You just have to look at the disfunction of FEMA and National Flood insurance in NJ after hurricane Sandy. Fema is worthless, National Flood insurance a joke. The Army Corp of Engineers is tied up in Paperwork by the EPA.

 

If I would have waited for Federal help, my place would still be uninhabitable. There was no Federal response IMO to the hurricane other than Obozo's photo op with Gov. Fatso .

 

Rebuiding the dunes and Beaches looks like it may take 2 to 3 years Maybe longer due to political bullcrap at the Federal Level.

 

The local city is trucking in sand to rebuild the beaches and dunes and we as local taxpayers will foot the bill. The local homeowners are responsible for rebuildiing their own properties. AS IT Should be. Money to the fed for almost anything other than National defense is just pissing it away to pork issues. IMHO :smash:

[ayseven]

You need to generate revenue somehow in order to have a tax base, so the individual earners/corporations can't be taken for granted. My thinking is that someone, somehow, somewhere, has to pay for all these things we like. Nobody wants to be told they don't matter.

[DeanD3W]

Maybe this issue was beat to death, but I would like to take exception to rikker's description of a gun as a "weapon of death". Rikker, you are free to think of guns any way you like, but if you identify them with that description in your posts then I will likely counter with a statement about what I think of guns.

 

I think of guns are tools that have been a very significant part of winning our freedom and in maintaining law and order. Look up what has happened to violent crime rates after concealed carry laws have been enacted. I think you will find the rates were lower in every state after they enacted these laws. Guns are tools that the weak can use to defend themselves against stronger criminals. The older I get, the more likely I will be to keep a gun more accessible, since I will not be able to rely on my apparent physical strength/size/capabilities tending to deter those who would hurt me or my family as they take what they want.

 

It would be great if there were zero guns in our world, but that's not what I would call realistic. Wishing for utopia seems to bend political opinions to the point that people set aside common sense... Taking guns from law abiding people and making them rely upon the government for protection is not the environment and level of independence and freedom our Founding Fathers envisioned, thankfully.

 

Please note that mental health problems that may include psychotropic drug induced actions (I wish we could get a good study of shooters and their past prescription drug use) have created maniacal killers who still have their wits about themselves sufficiently to go to gun-free zones to do their killing. I don't believe any of the schools we're hearing about who are allowing their teachers the option of becoming eligible to carry a concealed weapon will be near as likely to be the target of the "media attention seeking" dislocated criminal maniacs.

 

This may sound like I think more guns is the answer... Some questions for you... 1) If you lived in a high crime neighborhood would you be willing to put a sign on your door stating "This is a gun free home"? 2) Now if you were traveling and your wife and kids were home alone for a few nights does that change your thoughts about posting that sign? 3) Wouldn't you rather have those criminals walking by the door to your family's home think there might be people inside with the will and the means to defend themselves?

 

Guns are not evil instruments, they are instruments of freedom and safety and independence (& food gathering :^) ).

 

Dean

[DeanD3W]

BTW - I just noticed that my location still says "Camas, WA". Should I mention that I just moved my family to Austin, TX? :-)

[slomove]

........Guns are not evil instruments, they are instruments of freedom and safety and independence (& food gathering :^)

 

I can relate to the food gathering. Not sure about the freedom and safety though.

 

Since I am about 8 to 10 times more likely to get killed with a gun here in the US than in most other developed countries I can not say that guns make me feel that safe. And, if I had a gun at hand when needed I am not that sure I would like to take the chance of a shootout. I might have to practice a little.

 

I agree there are circumstances a gun will help and it may make you feel better as an individual but as a society I find it stupid. Similarly for your family members. Since gun homicides are predominantly committed by somebody known to a victim I guess they are statistically more likely to be killed by you or another law abiding relative/friend than a stranger/criminal. You may want all of them to carry a gun all the time just in case you lose your marbles and they need to defend themselves.

Edited July 31, 2013 by slomove

[DeanD3W]

Slomove,

Yes, it would be ridiculous to try to defend yourself or others without training and practice. That would be like participating in a high level road race without driver training and practice. I expect those with training and practice may feel comfortable attempting to defend themselves and those who don't feel comfortable would very likely, to understate, not attempt to.

 

Has anyone ever discredited the studies and data of John Lott?

 

I think the focus on reducing access to guns is absurd when guns don't cause the problems. The issues that need to be addressed are mental health, the breakdown of our families, and our propensity to allow dangerous convicts back out on the street.

 

What percentage of our gun crimes are due to gangs? What makes gangs so prevalent in our society?

 

When people use the word "stupid" in this discussion I have to wonder how open they are to considering another point of view.

 

Dean

[Kitcat]

This is an eternal and unwinnable debate because each side has a point. Not sure why anyone feels the need to debate it or keep the pot stirred on a se7ens site???

 

The Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, mostly settled it in favor of open and ready access to weapons. And its opinion trumps legislation.

 

But since it is here, I wld add that if one were to Google ''Debunk John Lott" there would be lots of info discrediting him. And if one were to google those results, there would be studies discrediting them, and on and on.

 

I had a friend who was shot to death when he walked onto his porch and surprised a robber who panicked and shot him point blank and without warning when simply asked why he was there.

 

My adult son was held up at gun point last month when he was suprised by 3 guys with guns who came around the corner. Even if my friend and son had been packing, the bad guys had the drop on them, any "self protection" was useless. And if my son had a gun and reached for it, he likely would have been shot and killed.

 

I am bothered by the fact that 2/3's of all suicides are by gun (whose going to protect you from yourself?) and that folks living in a house with a gun are 3x more likely to die by a gun than those in a house with no guns.

 

Still, I have best friends who own guns and family members who own guns. They arent stupid, we just see things differently.

[slomove]

I agree this is an un-winnable debate and that is why I wrote my comment a bit tongue-in-cheek. The likelihood of getting shot is still low enough where I live to feel reasonably safe. I don't feel passionate about it one or the other way and we have a few rifles at home, although they are not mine.

And, while I used the word "stupid" I did not direct it at anybody with a different opinion. Maybe I should better have said "but as a society I find it a counterproductive policy".....

 

Kitcat is right there is no real point stirring this. I would actually appreciate a good discussion about it but given the emotional environment and cemented opinions that is all but impossible.

Edited July 31, 2013 by slomove

[Mondo]

I can't imagine going to a bar that allows people with guns to get drunk in their establishment (can't remember which state made that legal).

Recently, the NRA got Republicans to shoot down an amendment that made people on the "no-fly list" ineligible for guns. They can't get on a plane due to their terrorist affiliations but can still buy a gun. How stupid is that?

[slngsht]

I can't imagine going to a bar that allows people with guns to get drunk in their establishment (can't remember which state made that legal).

Recently, the NRA got Republicans to shoot down an amendment that made people on the "no-fly list" ineligible for guns. They can't get on a plane due to their terrorist affiliations but can still buy a gun. How stupid is that?

 

It is not stupid at all.

 

Do you know what the procedure is for getting OFF a no fly list?

 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/16/government-lawyer-concedes-theres-no-way

 

Bill of rights is such a simple concept. Look at how much of it is violated these days.

 

2nd amendment and 4th amendment are simply walked over these days.

[Mondo]

Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Your comparing apples to oranges. That's an issue of improper selection... what about those (the vast majority) that are properly selected. Your telling me you'd get on a plane with a guy on the no fly list because he might wrongfully be on the list. Not many of us would take that chance.

 

Seriously, out of the millions that can purchase a gun, you're willing to let those relatively infinitesimal amount of people identified by the FBI as having possible terrorist connections purchase guns because one of them might be incorrectly on the list? Really? It's so important that this person be allowed "his right" to purchase a gun that it's worth jeopardizing innocent people's lives?

 

I agree there should be a way to challenge being on the list but to ignore the list because of that is burying your head in the sand.

 

 

.

[slngsht]

What qualifies a person to be on the no-fly list?

What is the due process?

if you agree there should be a way to challenge being on the list, how come the government does not value citizen rights enough to have such a process? it's been 12 years since 9/11! Is that sufficient time for the government to come up with such a process? Seriously, rationalize this.

 

Yes, a citizen's right IS that important. There are SO many countries where it ISN'T.

 

People are so quick to just toss away rights. Now it's OK for government to just watch over you. Think I'm making up stuff and over-reacting? How does this happen without probable cause?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

[MoPho]

First off, what does any of this have to do with guns or Class warfare?

 

Think I'm making up stuff and over-reacting? How does this happen without probable cause?

 

 

So what exactly happened? It appears the authorities came by after getting a tip from someone at the husbands office and asked some questions. Did they force their way in to the house? No... Did they detain the people? No... So how did their rights get trampled?

 

And quite frankly, in light of what happened in Boston, I sure hope that someone searching backpacks, bombs and pressure cookers gets red flagged.

 

 

You're a fool if you think that in this day and age you have any kind of real privacy on the internet. You're on Facebook ( I know you are) and you expect privacy? :rofl:

 

When the govt starts arresting people for looking at pictures of cats on the internet, then I'll worry. In the mean time I am more concerned about some douchebag in his mothers basement stealing my identity and buying Playstations for himself 400 of his "closest" friends than the government intruding on my privacy.

 

 

 

.

Edited August 2, 2013 by MoPho

[slngsht]

First off, what does any of this have to do with guns or Class warfare?

 

 

 

So what exactly happened? It appears the authorities came by after getting a tip from someone at the husbands office and asked some questions. Did they force their way in to the house? No... Did they detain the people? No... So how did their rights get trampled?

 

And quite frankly, in light of what happened in Boston, I sure hope that someone searching backpacks, bombs and pressure cookers gets red flagged.

 

 

You're a fool if you think that in this day and age you have any kind of real privacy on the internet. You're on Facebook ( I know you are) and you expect privacy? :rofl:

 

When the govt starts arresting people for looking at pictures of cats on the internet, then I'll worry. In the mean time I am more concerned about some douchebag in his mothers basement stealing my identity and buying Playstations for himself 400 of his "closest" friends than the government intruding on my privacy.

 

 

 

.

 

You wanna have a discussion on class warfare after the zimmerman trial and race baiter in chief's comments? :lol:

 

We just have a different view of role of government Morgan. I have no expectation of privacy only because I know the government no longer honors the constitution.

[slngsht]

... and still waiting for the answer to my question:

 

how come the government does not value citizen rights enough to have such a process? it's been 12 years since 9/11! Is that sufficient time for the government to come up with such a process? Seriously, rationalize this.