Page 62 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112162 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #611
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    They probably didn't vote for it because it allowed the interstate sale of firearms, which effectively eliminates all state regulations on the sale of firearms. It was a poison pill masquerading as a solution.
    So, ask for it to be removed, and go from there. Compromise. Do something instead of nothing, and go around blaming the GOP again. Or maybe make a counter bill that does all of that, minus the poison pill.

    There was a time our congress did that. Both sides.

    This is just petty shit, and we should be pissed at our entire congress, not just the one party. Our congress is SHIT.

    the NRA and GOP are both 100% contributing to the problem.

    abso-fucking-lutly.
    At some point, the stupid fuck who did the shooting? HE IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE. Who dropped the ball? The local FBI. The GOP is not a boogeyman. Same with not passing the previous laws like the one I mentioned above. Guess what, it isn't just the GOP boogeyman every time dude. Like I said, the DNC could have done something also, when Obama was president and when they had Congress. Why is it ONLY the GOP that failed here? The DNC failed also. The GOP are not the only answer when something goes wrong. That is a poor crutch, and intellectually insecure. The DNC hasn't stepped up at all either.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #612
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The GOP is not a boogeyman. Same with not passing the previous laws like the one I mentioned above.
    The party poison-pilling legislation is acting with explicitly nefarious intent.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #613
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Well, that would make the DNC the Do Nothing Committee, because they had every ample opportunity to do something, and didn't. You really can't blame one party for putting forth 90% of what you want, and 10% of some things you don't want, when the other party didn't, and hasn't, done shit.

    And personally, I think the items your guys consider 'poison-pilling' to be some fairly mild and reasonable laws. Most of the state's laws you are trying to uphold are running into issues with being unconstitutional.

    Here was the parts they didn't like:

     Includes pro-gun provisions.
    1) Allows interstate firearm sales.
    2) Allows military members to buy guns in state of residence or where stationed.
    3) Allows firearms dealers to access NICS to do background checks on employees
    (with notice and their consent).
    4) Allows interstate transportation of firearms if certain conditions are met (e.g., in
    vehicle, unloaded, locked or in trunk), and preempts state law to the contrary.
    1) I can see a bit of worry on this. But only if there is a problem buying in the original state, and that would be covered by the #3. And many of the other items in the bill.
    2) This is a no brainer.
    3) This seems like everybody would really want this one.
    4) Only one seems the least bit difficult. The transportation of firearms to another state, if they are properly stored. Again, per the constitution there are allowed to own them. "Shall not be infringed" are the actual words.

    What else is really poisonous? And if so, is it really worse than NOT having all the agreed upon benefits that would have stopped this? It is a LOT of crying over some small issues, and if somebody wants to play the blame game, then the people who filibustered this law that would have stopped the shooting would also have to take blame, yet the same people are fingering the other side. That is the real poison.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #614
    1. 3 does not take care of 1 and I shouldn't even have to explain to why.
    2. Read D.C. v. Heller.

    I'm done.

  5. #615
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    1. 3 does not take care of 1 and I shouldn't even have to explain to why.
    2. Read D.C. v. Heller.
    1) Obviously you do. I am willing to listen, but the 'why' I will admit I can not see. I grew up in a gun culture, not one fearful of it. I do have some blind spots to the rational others use in that matter.

    Maybe you don't understand the reasoning on this? This order is to allow people from one state to purchase from another state, something that is not always legal now. Sometimes people do this because the other state doesn't have notice that a person is not allowed to purchase firearms in their state. There is no nation wide system covering this information. No Conceal Carry database. No 'do not sell' database. Hence, why a nation wide NCIS database that was easy to use and could provide instant notification would solve this problem.

    To hear officials say it, Sutherland Springs shooter Devin Kelley should never have been able to buy a gun. He was court-martialed for assault on his wife and assault on their child while serving in the Air Force. He received a bad conduct discharge some time after. Now, the Air Force is acknowledging that the convictions were not properly transferred to the law enforcement database that would have allowed then to show up on an background check.

    Kelley bought four weapons in total -- two in Colorado and two in Texas, the ATF said. One each was purchased in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Two handguns were found in the shooter's vehicle. A Ruger AR-556 rifle was found in front of the church where Kelley dropped it when a local resident rushed him.
    A strong NCIS database with easy access would have stopped him from buying firearms easily. Like the FBI dropping the ball with Cruz, in both cases the problem was one that wasn't properly handled by the government with the way they process things now. HENCE the need to update or totally rehaul the database.

    That is why #3 covers #1, as I see it. Right now it is complicated, and people fall through the cracks.

    2) Read it. Read a lot going into it, and commentary following it. And some of the remarks by the justices. You seem to have a specific point you would like to make, but the ruling supports my position.

    I did not see a single thing about service members who are employed by the US Government to hold guns between us and the bad guys should be banned from buying a firearm in a different state. What I did see that upholds your point might be lodged in "Held: Paragraph 2"

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    Really - I do not understand your points. Heller was paid to carry a gun in federal buildings, but was not allowed to carry one at home. He was employed by the US Gov to protect important people but was banned from protecting himself. Heller won.

    A serviceman shouldn't be barred purchasing a gun in a different state then he resides, in fact, nobody should. A soldier with a clear background? Why? Heller vs DC was pretty clear on that. That is a problem when you are stationed in a different state. Even if they are gun friendly, if you are not a state resident often there are limits on even bringing a firearm into that state, or purchasing while not being a state resident, or not having that state's concealed carry permit. Limiting a serviceman is like the stupid rules that tell you you can't do math in a different state.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/or...for-doing-math

    If he can die carrying a gun in a hostile foreign nation, he should be able to protect himself here at home, in his own house. Why is that a sticking point to hold up a large "Do Not Sell" list for people with abuse to a history of mental illness?

    The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
    When it was being argued I did a lot of research into the original comments by the founding fathers, and it was a decent eye opener.

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
    The precedent to legally own firearms for one's protection is rather clear and deliberate by our founding fathers. If the basis for your reply is that states should be able to ban them, well.... Heller vs DC pointed out that they are constitutionally incorrect.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #616
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...223-story.html

    now that the "good guy with a gun" myth is well an truly busted, can we start making public policy based on reality, and not hollywood fantasy?

    oh republicans and the NRA are involved? get fucked, the world of alternative facts and bullshit hero fantasy is alive its all we need!
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 02-24-2018 at 12:11 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #617
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/0....html?referer=

    "Trade skeptic" who just happened to be a former lawyer in the steel industry. I'm starting to realize the term "skeptic" no longer means someone who practices skepticism (as per the Academic or Pyrrhonian schools), and now means "intellectual hack with political or financial motivations".
    Last edited by PBSteve; 03-01-2018 at 05:10 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #618
    what a brilliant way to make your own infrastructure plan (which is a joke), even more expensive!
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #619
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...223-story.html

    now that the "good guy with a gun" myth is well an truly busted, can we start making public policy based on reality, and not hollywood fantasy?

    oh republicans and the NRA are involved? get fucked, the world of alternative facts and bullshit hero fantasy is alive its all we need!

    I'm curious. I've frequently heard your criticisms of existing policies and Republican / NRA ideas and comments. Just what would you propose to enact in regards to gun policies? And I'm not going to go with- "that wouldn't have prevented this problem" or such. I just want to know.

    I personally, have some mixed feelings about the proposed minimum age requirement. On one hand, it gives troubled teens more time to be intervened (legally or medically) before they can legally purchase a gun. On the other hand, there are thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that we'd be suddenly stripping rights from even though they often have demonstrated proficiency and safe handling of firearms, as well as having the responsibility of carrying them.

    I'm okay with more thorough and required background checks and I think that should entail requiring the medical community to share relevant information with law enforcement and, that law enforcement should have procedures in place to handle these interactions (so don't have some departments ignoring warning signs and such).

    On a related note, I'm shocked at just how much stuff the county and state failed to act on before this tragedy. It's like no single entity (agency, authority, etc) ever looked at his history...

  10. #620
    I'll bite. I'll agree with you the age limit is pretty useless. It won't really stop shootings. I think you need to following:

    1. Comprehensive background checks (criminal record search, talk to your neighbors/family members, examination of mental health/doctor records)
    2. You are required to undergo a written exam, a competency course, and maintain insurance.
    3. National gun registry
    4. Limitations of the transfer and sales of weapons. All sales, including private sales, must go through a federally licensed gun dealer who will submit the paperwork for the comprehensive background check. Same goes for transfers via estates. The family member needs to show they are capable of owning a gun before it can be transferred to them. You can also sell your firearms directly to a licensed dealer.
    5. Stricter penalties for straw purchases and more aggressive crack down
    6. Greater liability for individuals who fail to maintain appropriate safety protocols
    7. National standards for conceal carry permits

    If you have all that I'm fine with interstate gun sales, interstate conceal carry permits, owning assault rifles, etc, because in reality that happens already

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •