2016 Election Thread

[drjim]

 

See you all later.  The lies about celebrating a death are about to get me banned.  Liberals true colors always shine through.

 

Probably wise to take a break. But don't go.

 

And if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be the same, this isn't just a liberal problem. Sad reality of the political culture in our country.

[Hrbowski]

Just a thought, but do those of you who believe that we should limit the second amendment to save lives, do you also believe the same about the fourth amendment?

[Craig Arko]

Just a thought, but do those of you who believe that we should limit the second amendment to save lives, do you also believe the same about the fourth amendment?

I certainly don't believe the guy next door has the right to search and seize my stuff, any more than he has to shoot me.

[USAFChief]

Just a thought, but do those of you who believe that we should limit the second amendment to save lives, do you also believe the same about the fourth amendment?

I confess to not understanding the question...how are they linked? Who is proposing both?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Just a thought, but do those of you who believe that we should limit the second amendment to save lives, do you also believe the same about the fourth amendment?

 

Well, sadly, the same people that believe in the second amendment actually did limit it after 9-11.  I mean, the Patriot Act actually does this and it was Republicans largely behind it.

 

Do you believe speech is unlimited?  That you can say whatever you want, whenever you want?

 

Do you believe people can assemble in the middle of the road and block traffic?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think holding a document that is 250 years old as an end all be all for guidance is a terrible idea..... So yes I would love to take a match to parts of the constitution and start anew personally.

 

Considering said document is the governing laws of our land, I have to disagree.  That was it's purpose. 

 

You know what else?  The founders intentionally created a means of adding to this document and removing from it, and considering that this supposedly is the governing law of the land, if we are to respect it, perhaps we should use that process to change it where appropriate. 

 

There's a completely legal way to change it to fit the needs of today.  It was designed precisely to be difficult to change so as to prevent many of the problems that we presently face today.  Throwing it out because it's inconvenient is precisely why we have the mess that we have today, as both parties toss it out with this same attitude whenever it's convenient to them. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I haven't been on this forum in a bit, and I'm not sure I want to read through the 6+ pages we have around whether guns should or shouldn't be legal.  I'll circle back here and make some points that always get lost in this conversation.

1)  The second amendment was put in place largely as a check and balance against tyranny of the government.  Guns for self defense were pretty common place and that didn't need to be specified back in the late 1700s as there were very real self defense issues that every citizen had to deal with at that time.  If you read the writings of many of the founding fathers, the purpose of guns/militias was precisely that, and let's not pretend that we've evolved beyond that in the last 200 years, because we haven't. Corruption is real.  Eminent domain is real.  Since it's formation, our government has constantly sought to repress the rights of individuals (and let's not pretend this is on one side of the aisle here, it's not) as those rights often times conveniently get in the way of it's plans, whether they be noble or not.

2)  There is always a cost to freedom.  This debate, along with a few others we've had in this forum, really ignores this fact.  The whole point in living in a free country is that people are free to do what they want so long as they aren't infringing on the freedoms of the people.  We like to say we have freedom, while with the same breath attempt to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, and they often don't appreciate it.  I don't care if it's homosexuals, polygamists, drug users, prostitutes, or gun owners to name a few, but in each case, these people are free to do what ever it is that they want so long as they aren't forcing something on someone else.  The same works for the opposites in these groups.  I have no right to tell a homosexual couple that they cannot marry, just as I have no right to tell my sister how many guns she can own (she has quite a few more than me).  There's no difference.

2b) There is a place for reasonable regulation.  The key word is reasonable.  It's not unreasonable to ask a prostitute to ply his/her trade in specific locations so as to provide a certain level of discretion.  It's not unreasonable to ask pornographers to use a .xxx domain (or something like it) so as to allow those of us who don't want to be exposed to it an easier means to filter it out of our searches as well as keeping it away from our children.  It is not unreasonable to restrict gun ownership from those who have been convicted of violent crimes, as part of punishment for crimes is usually the forfeiting of some or possibly all rights as it is.  The key word is reasonable, of which most of today's gun laws are rapidly moving this country in far from reasonable directions, and the debate is generally being framed in far from reasonable standpoints.  The process to obtain a firearm in some states is rather onerous, and instead of focusing on those who have abused the privilege (which is completely doable), the laws focus on all people so as to provide a means of discouraging them to get them.  The second amendment is pretty clear on the idea that the right to have guns is not to be infringed, so if this is something we need to change, then perhaps its time to change the second amendment.  The fact that so many people would stand up against something like that ought to be a clue right there that this is infringing on a lot of people's freedoms.

3)  Someone said this earlier, and I don't remember who, but people are so incapable in this country of solving conflict that they run to guns.  The comparison also pointed out to the current gridlock that we face in DC as a perfect example of that.  That hit the nail on the head.  The problem though is not taking the guns away from everyone (or even restricting what you can and cannot own).  You can make all the gun laws in the world and still not prevent Sandy Hook or Columbine because these are problems of the heart.  That, unfortunately, is a fact. It might make you feel better about things at the end of the day, but this is the moral equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a severed artery because someone who wants to do something this gruesome will do it, and nothign will stop them.  Criminals break the law, and no law will stop them, and it's not an accident you see these events in places where gun control laws are more strict or where carrying guns are restricted.  My sister (a police officer by the way) has a term for this.  It's called a target rich environment.  But getting back on this point, it really gets to the heart of the other problems above.  It's easier to simply demonize your foes and then justify whatever actions necessary to beat them than it is to actually resolve conflict, understand their concerns, and find a solution that attempts to address people's fears.  It's the same reason why it is we have complete gridlock in DC right now, and it's the same reason why it is that Republicans and Democrats still fill both sides of the aisle despite their complete inability to govern fairly or competently.  It's the reason why people are quite content to allow the courts to overstep their constitutional boundaries.  There's a cost to freedom. We say we like or democracy and freedom, yet in so many ways we go straight out to principles that are completely contrary to democracy and freedom because it's easier to act in a totalitarian manner than it is to work through the difficulties of true compromise. And again, both sides do this, and they do it in just about all facets of governing.  That problem is a heart issue. It's apparent in DC.  It's apparent in these forums. It's apparent pretty much everywhere.  Solve this problem, and you'll eliminate many of the contributing factors to some of these atrocities we are talking about, but unless people actually identify the real problems and come up with real solutions to them that attempt to placate real fears, all that will be done is add more problems that create more fears and create more anger. It's a cycle, and a nasty one, and unfortunately, it's plenty apparent here.

[drjim]

I haven't been on this forum in a bit, and I'm not sure I want to read through the 6+ pages we have around whether guns should or shouldn't be legal. I'll circle back here and make some points that always get lost in this conversation.

1) The second amendment was put in place largely as a check and balance against tyranny of the government. Guns for self defense were pretty common place and that didn't need to be specified back in the late 1700s as there were very real self defense issues that every citizen had to deal with at that time. If you read the writings of many of the founding fathers, the purpose of guns/militias was precisely that, and let's not pretend that we've evolved beyond that in the last 200 years, because we haven't. Corruption is real. Eminent domain is real. Since it's formation, our government has constantly sought to repress the rights of individuals (and let's not pretend this is on one side of the aisle here, it's not) as those rights often times conveniently get in the way of it's plans, whether they be noble or not.

I know this point gets brought up from time to time but is it actually a serious argument anymore?

 

The US government has an amazing military. Guns in the hands of citizens have no chance. They would be liquidated by precision bombs from drones before they knew what hit them.

 

I understand much of the reasoning but this pure fantasy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I know this point gets brought up from time to time but is it actually a serious argument anymore?

The US government has an amazing military. Guns in the hands of citizens have no chance. They would be liquidated by precision bombs from drones before they knew what hit them.

I understand much of the reasoning but this pure fantasy.

 

ISIS and Al-queda are more well armed than our populace ever could be, do we expect them to win?  

 

Those guys in Oregon aren't standing up the government because they are an equal match, it's because our government doesn't want them dead.  If they did...they'd be dead.

 

So, yeah, it's a fantasy that a militia or an anti-government weapon is necessary.  We left those days behind a long time ago and technology only makes that claim more comical by the day.

[Craig Arko]

This is also pure fantasy, yet I like it. I would not mind it being taught in military and law enforcement academies.

 

“Do not hurt where holding is enough;

Do not wound where hurting is enough;

Do not maim where wounding is enough;

and kill not where maiming is enough;

The greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill."

[USAFChief]

I read the second amendment as defending the need to defend the nation, and the government, rather than FROM the government. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

 

A new nation had to have the means to protect itself, and depended on its citizens to do so.

[TheLeviathan]

 

2)  There is always a cost to freedom.  This debate, along with a few others we've had in this forum, really ignores this fact.  The whole point in living in a free country is that people are free to do what they want so long as they aren't infringing on the freedoms of the people.  We like to say we have freedom, while with the same breath attempt to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, and they often don't appreciate it.  

 

2b) The process to obtain a firearm in some states is rather onerous, and instead of focusing on those who have abused the privilege (which is completely doable), the laws focus on all people so as to provide a means of discouraging them to get them.  

 

3)  Someone said this earlier, and I don't remember who, but people are so incapable in this country of solving conflict that they run to guns.  

 

2) Freedoms are not unlimited.  If it makes me happy to have a tiger as a pet, I don't get that.  I don't get to drive 120 mph in a school zone.  I don't get to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on an airplane.  I don't get to go around punching people for fun.  

 

If your idea of "infringing" is what you state here, essentially: if I don't get what I want then you're infringing on me.  Well, then I'd suggest what's broken is your definition of freedom.  Guns present a real danger to others merely by being everywhere and accessible to most anyone.  Most of the atrocities committed in this country were done by someone basically borrowing someone else's arsenal to slaughter people.  So you are literally endangering the rest of society by making your home into a Punisher safe house.  The threat that poses infringes on our most fundamental right - to live.

 

2b) The background checks are so onerous you don't go get one?  Does a background check and a license stop you from fishing?  Or hunting?  Or driving a freaking car?  I hate this argument because it's so silly.  The idea that subjecting yourself to a check to make sure you are a safe and competent person to purchase a gun makes it so unbearable to purchase one sounds like something my toddler would say if I ask him to put away his toys.  I have to imagine you have the same pouty lip and sprawl out on the floor in faux frustration over it.

 

It's a freaking background check.  Most people go through them to get a job, you can do that to get a killing device and if you whine that you can't - you've left the "reasonable" camp.

 

3)  We solve everything with guns because they are EVERYWHERE and they are highly effective at solving problems.  At least that's what we've learned culturally from pretty much the dawn of America.  Perhaps we wouldn't run to go solve our problems with guns if we didn't have a storage locker full of them.

[Craig Arko]

I hope we don't become myopic on the topic of guns; there are other areas that require action as well.

 

http://thebulletin.org/it-still-three-minutes-midnight9107

[DaveW]

Once again, since nobody answered it the first three times, I ask the people who say "gun control or measures can't work/won't fix anything etc" I ask you to look at how NYC has handled gun control, I think most people would agree that a 40%+ drop in murders and other violet crimes (almost overnight) is a least a little successful, no?

[twinsnorth49]

The slippery slope argument is so lame, surest way for nothing to ever change

[Badsmerf]

Are we still talking about guns? Wow. With millions of gun owners in the US, these outburst are coming from such a minority.... That said, the GOP/NRA has to compromise and give away some freedoms they have been exploiting. To do nothing.... to deny there is a problem.... simply perpetuates it. I despise the NRA. I was apart of them once, and do not believe their existence is based more on making money than defending rights. Enough of this. There has to be progress. Guns are not going away, but we need tangible progress to move forward.  

[DaveW]

 

Once again, since nobody answered it the first three times, I ask the people who say "gun control or measures can't work/won't fix anything etc" I ask you to look at how NYC has handled gun control, I think most people would agree that a 40%+ drop in murders and other violet crimes (almost overnight) is a least a little successful, no?

BUMP

[Badsmerf]

Dave, ate we reading through the nyc laws (briefly), they are tough, but not outlandish. They do infringe on the right to bare arms, but nyc should have more strict laws than rural Iowa. I would not mind if all big cities adopted some form of those laws. Like I've said, we have to do something. I don't think the nation is ready to go that far with restrictions, but that is the direction we need to go.

[Mike Sixel]

Apparently in their obsession with the 2nd amendment, no Republican presidential candidate read the first amendment......Kasich wants to establish a government agency to export US Judeo-Christian values? This is why the middle east hates us, btw.......because they don't really believe that our leaders love the first amendment all that much....

[DaveW]

 

Dave, ate we reading through the nyc laws (briefly), they are tough, but not outlandish. They do infringe on the right to bare arms, but nyc should have more strict laws than rural Iowa. I would not mind if all big cities adopted some form of those laws. Like I've said, we have to do something. I don't think the nation is ready to go that far with restrictions, but that is the direction we need to go.

Chicago has to their credit tried to adopt those laws, but the problem is you can drive 20 minutes and get a gun with no background check, no waiting period etc in Indiana.

 

Also in NYC, I think you are still able to "own" a gun, it's just a huge process that involves proving that you actually need one in your domicile along with a few classes etc as well. The biggest thing that works is that if you get caught with an unlicensed weapon it's two years in jail minimum no questions asked. Now I typically HATE MMS, especially when it comes to drug offenses but for illegal gun offenses? I am fine with it. There is never a really good excuse on why you have an unlicensed gun at some point...

[DaveW]

 

 

Apparently in their obsession with the 2nd amendment, no Republican presidential candidate read the first amendment......Kasich wants to establish a government agency to export US Judeo-Christian values? This is why the middle east hates us, btw.......because they don't really believe that our leaders love the first amendment all that much....

Holy ****, just read this now. So much for "Kasich the one non crazy SOB the GOP has running this year"

not only is that idea insulting to pretty much every peaceful Muslim (you know, the 99.9999999% of them) it's also incredibly stupid and would be a complete waste of money. The US doesn't need to be a ****ing church!

[Squirrel]

 

Chicago has to their credit tried to adopt those laws, but the problem is you can drive 20 minutes and get a gun with no background check, no waiting period etc in Indiana.

 

Also in NYC, I think you are still able to "own" a gun, it's just a huge process that involves proving that you actually need one in your domicile along with a few classes etc as well. The biggest thing that works is that if you get caught with an unlicensed weapon it's two years in jail minimum no questions asked. Now I typically HATE MMS, especially when it comes to drug offenses but for illegal gun offenses? I am fine with it. There is never a really good excuse on why you have an unlicensed gun at some point...

Mandatory classes on use and safety should be a must, not just for owner but for anyone who will be licensed to use it. Not only should each and every gun be registered, but the owner, and anyone in the household, should have a use and safety license for the same. I'm not sure how one could go about proving the need to own one for protection as that seems rather subjective. But I think gun owners should/could provide proof of how their guns are being safely stored, and that perhaps a standard needs to be set for individual home accessibility. I also think there need to be very strict laws in place for illegally owning or selling, especially if that gun was used criminally. And if someone uses your guns, because of lax accessibility, I think owners need to be held accountable to the maximum. These are just ideas off the top of my head that do not prevent anyone from owning a gun, not one iota. But increase the liability on the owner and the seller for every act that gun commits, no matter whose hands are on it, might make people think a bit more. Oh, and insurance ... do gun owners need liability insurance, or insurance of any kind? Maybe that, too, should be in there somewhere.

 

If you equate that to owning a car, you need to be licensed to drive one; you need to be insured; and you are held accountable ... mostly ... I don't think in this country drunk drivers are held accountable strictly enough.

[TheLeviathan]

I hadn't heard that from Kasich.  That is impossibly stupid.

[Craig Arko]

Yet another epic fail from the Theocrats.

[Squirrel]

 

I hadn't heard that from Kasich.  That is impossibly stupid.

All politicians pander ... but this is what's the worst part about the Republican Party right now is the pandering to the religious right.

[Mike Sixel]

If my choice is imposing religion on people, and limiting their first amendment rights, or paying too much taxes, I choose freedom every time. 

[TheLeviathan]

Well, maybe we're thinking of this the wrong way.  Isn't the belief on the right that all government agencies are massive wastes of time and money that make things worse?

 

Maybe we're going all bout this Department of Jesus thing the wrong way....

[PseudoSABR]

What's especially Ironic about Kasich's proposed agency of Christian Values is that it flies in the face of both limited government and conservative notions of federalism/state-rights (where the conservative argument is that values and social welfare should be decided locally not federally).  

[Craig Arko]

Don't remember if twinsnorth has posted this before...

 

http://www.americabutbetter.com/

 

Did get a laugh out of this link:

 

http://www.thebeaverton.com/us/item/2366-nra-recommends-gun-owners-buy-second-gun-to-protect-selves-from-first-gun

[Mike Sixel]

 

What's especially Ironic about Kasich's proposed agency of Christian Values is that it flies in the face of both limited government and conservative notions of federalism/state-rights (where the conservative argument is that values and social welfare should be decided locally not federally).  

 

That's like pointing out that it is ironic that they pass laws getting between a physician and her patients......there is no irony here at all. They do NOT believe in freedom. They believe in the freedom to be the same as them. Which, of course, is not freedom at all.