Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 7:18:17 GMT -5
Nevada voters had voted on stricter gun laws as concerned buying guns at gun shows and the internet. Attorney General Adam Laxalt (double degree graduate from Georgetown) refused to carry out the voters' wishes. He is also the spawn of the late Pete Domenici and Michelle Laxalt, Paul Laxalt's daughter when Pete knocked her up when she was a young Congressional staffer. “One night’s mistake led to pregnancy more than 30 years ago,” she said in her statement. Domenici, who was 50 at the time of the affair and has eight children with his wife Nancy, had little involvement with Adam’s upbringing, his mother said in announcing the senator’s paternity: “My interaction with my child’s father consisted of telling him my decision, asking that he avail himself for health-related purposes and asking that he agree that this remain private between the two of us.” (Domenici had apparently kept his word for three decades: “My family has been aware of these events for several months,” he said last year when the news came out.) www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/who-is-adam-laxalt-107095Now is DEFINITELY not the time to talk about the decades worth of hypocrisy of the "Party of Family Values".
|
|
aristides
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by aristides on Oct 3, 2017 7:22:33 GMT -5
Powerful monologue from Jimmy Kimmel last night. I pasted a paragraph below. Full speech in the link: "Because of that, because there weren’t any of the usual signs, I’ve been reading comments from people who say, “This is terrible, but there’s nothing we can do about it.” But I disagree with that intensely. Because of course there’s something we can do about it, there’s a lot of things we can do about it. But we don’t, which is interesting. Because when someone with a beard attacks us, we tap phones, we invoke travel bans, we build walls, we take every possible precaution to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But when an American buys a gun and kills other Americans, then there’s nothing we can about that. The Second Amendment, I guess, our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume." www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/read-jimmy-kimmels-emotional-scathing-monologue-about-gun-control-after-the-vegas-massacre/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_kimmel-1240am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e34049cca257
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 8:23:53 GMT -5
Not just an AK-47. An AK-47 with bump fire technology that uses physics to turn a firearm into a fully auto machine gun basically...
This is why he was able to shoot close to 600 people in a few minutes...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 3, 2017 8:59:46 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 9:17:01 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. The framers also intended for some human beings to be counted as three-fifths of a person. So they weren't always right.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 3, 2017 9:48:06 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. The framers also intended for some human beings to be counted as three-fifths of a person. So they weren't always right. Exactly. Those same guys (and only guys) did not permit women to vote. Imagine the irony of Edith Wilson running the White House for her ailing husband for whom she never voted and never could. There is no reason--repeat no reason---for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Oct 3, 2017 10:38:05 GMT -5
The framers also intended for some human beings to be counted as three-fifths of a person. So they weren't always right. Exactly. Those same guys (and only guys) did not permit women to vote. Imagine the irony of Edith Wilson running the White House for her ailing husband for whom she never voted and never could. There is no reason--repeat no reason---for a private citizen to own an assault weapon. I think one of the biggest problems is that neither side of the gun control argument trusts the other side on this issue. A big portion of those on the gun control side think anyone who owns a gun is a gun nut, and a big portion of those on the pro-gun side think those on the gun control side want to ban all guns. Just look at the comments on this board, and the New Republic today ("Ban guns. All of them.") I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that would ban private ownership of assault weapons (assuming there's an adequate way to define that), while at the same time clearly guaranteeing an individual's right to own a non-assault weapon. I know very little about guns, so I can't comment on what those words mean, but we should be able to figure that out. All that said, we're deluding ourselves if we actually think banning all guns would stop a nut like the LV shooter from doing what he did. As I posted yesterday, "banning guns" will work about as well as banning drugs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 11:31:16 GMT -5
I think you're cherry picking some of the more extreme opinions to make it seem like this is an unworkable issue. I think most people are okay with citizens owning pistols, but an AK 47 or AR 15 with bump fire modifications designed to circumvent Federal law? It's a bit much imo. I have no idea why a modification like that is allowed, and it only costs 100-200 bucks.
If that modification was banned it quite possibly would have saved lives Sunday night. That seems like something we can and should do at minimum...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 3, 2017 12:22:43 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. I know the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence disagrees, but a whole lot of people out there believe that the Amendment refers only to arms needed for militia purposes and not for individual use. The Supreme Court presently interprets that amendment fairly broadly, but even under their present interpretation, all that is outlawed are complete bans of weapons for self-defense and perhaps bans of commonly-used weaponry. Could you limit every person to one firearm under present law? Maybe. Could you force people to pass fairly onerous background checks before buying or receiving firearms? Maybe. In short, there are all sorts of things one could do to regulate semi-automatic weapons or the buying of certain types of ammunition or multiple weapons. And none of that would prevent an individual from bearing arms in the form of a shotgun for hunting or a handgun in the home for protection. No, nothing we do will fully avoid all gun-related deaths or even all mass shootings. Someone with enough smarts, resources, time, and energy can find their way around virtually any set of regulations. That's true of any law, particularly if you don't care whether you get caught (as these folks obviously don't). But the experience of other countries is such that doing something to limit access very likely would result in large reductions in gun-related violence. And it's unconscionable that people are opposed to that. Regardless, I've heard plenty of people suggest an Amendment, Ed, and I'd be all for it, if that's what is required to achieve a public health necessity. [Non-sequitor: Can we stop with harassing anyone who brings this issue up after a mass shooting by arguing that they're "politicizing" a tragedy? That's idiotic. If a foreign country bombs us, yes we mourn the dead, but we also expect our political branches to "politicize" the situation by taking action. We don't wait two weeks before declaring war. To take a current example, if a hurricane strikes, yes, we mourn the dead, but we also expect the political branches to immediately consider the appropriate political response. "Politicizing" issues of public importance as soon as possible is precisely what we should be doing.]
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Oct 3, 2017 12:25:13 GMT -5
I think you're cherry picking some of the more extreme opinions to make it seem like this is an unworkable issue. I think most people are okay with citizens owning pistols, but an AK 47 or AR 15 with bump fire modifications designed to circumvent Federal law? It's a bit much imo. I have no idea why a modification like that is allowed, and it only costs 100-200 bucks. If that modification was banned it quite possibly would have saved lives Sunday night. That seems like something we can and should do at minimum... I don't disagree with you. But my point is that you're not going to get a lot of gun owners onboard with a partial ban unless there is some assurance that it's not the first step in a much bigger effort to ban all guns - which is exactly what many liberal democrats would use it as. Governing is about compromise; hence my suggestion of a compromise amendment.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 3, 2017 12:29:16 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. The framers also intended for some human beings to be counted as three-fifths of a person. So they weren't always right. And this, I believe, was changed by the 14th Amendment.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Oct 3, 2017 12:31:03 GMT -5
The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". That's what the Second Amendment says, but it doesn't clearly state anything. It can be read lots of ways. So let's have a discussion and agree on what a majority of Americans want it mean and adopt an amendment that does clearly state that meaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:03:07 GMT -5
I think you're cherry picking some of the more extreme opinions to make it seem like this is an unworkable issue. I think most people are okay with citizens owning pistols, but an AK 47 or AR 15 with bump fire modifications designed to circumvent Federal law? It's a bit much imo. I have no idea why a modification like that is allowed, and it only costs 100-200 bucks. If that modification was banned it quite possibly would have saved lives Sunday night. That seems like something we can and should do at minimum... I don't disagree with you. But my point is that you're not going to get a lot of gun owners onboard with a partial ban unless there is some assurance that it's not the first step in a much bigger effort to ban all guns - which is exactly what many liberal democrats would use it as. Governing is about compromise; hence my suggestion of a compromise amendment. If a compromise amendment works than that's fine with me but are we talking about gun owners or the NRA? Because that sounds like an NRA talking point meant to scare gun owners. It doesn't really seem to be based in fact though. No state is more liberal than California, yet there's no ban on all guns there. We banned fully auto's in the 30's and we have more guns now than ever. It's estimated that only 22% of the population are gun owners. And out of that 22% the top 3% own half of the guns in the US. Liberal Dems aren't a monolithic group same as Conservative R's. There are Liberal Dems in that 22% and there are Conservative R's that are not. fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Oct 3, 2017 14:07:42 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you. But my point is that you're not going to get a lot of gun owners onboard with a partial ban unless there is some assurance that it's not the first step in a much bigger effort to ban all guns - which is exactly what many liberal democrats would use it as. Governing is about compromise; hence my suggestion of a compromise amendment. Are we talking about gun owners or the NRA? Because that sounds like an NRA talking point meant to scare gun owners. It doesn't really seem to be based in fact though. No state is more liberal than California, yet there's no ban on all guns there. If I'm looking at this with a clear mind why should I believe this is a first step? It's estimated that only 22% of the population are gun owners. And out of that 22% the top 3% own half of the guns in the US. Liberal Dems aren't a monolithic group same as Conservative R's. There are Liberal Dems in that 22% and there are Conservative R's that are not. fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/ I'm taking a significant portion of gun control advocates at their word, like The New Republic today and many others (including hoya9797). If they really don't want to ban all guns, then what's the objection to my proposal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:27:10 GMT -5
Are we talking about gun owners or the NRA? Because that sounds like an NRA talking point meant to scare gun owners. It doesn't really seem to be based in fact though. No state is more liberal than California, yet there's no ban on all guns there. If I'm looking at this with a clear mind why should I believe this is a first step? It's estimated that only 22% of the population are gun owners. And out of that 22% the top 3% own half of the guns in the US. Liberal Dems aren't a monolithic group same as Conservative R's. There are Liberal Dems in that 22% and there are Conservative R's that are not. fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/ I'm taking a significant portion of gun control advocates at their word, like The New Republic today and many others (including hoya9797). If they really don't want to ban all guns, then what's the objection to my proposal? I don't have an objection to your proposal. My objection is you taking a few examples and using them to say this is the position of Liberal Democrats as a whole.... My second point of contention is how you're defining both sides here. I think your describing the loudest voices on the extreme ends of this issue more than what most people who define themselves in those terms believe. Either way not a big deal...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 3, 2017 21:55:28 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. Hey everybody, the people who want to cast millions off of health care through reconciliation in the middle of the night with a hidden bill on a 50-vote majority with the Vice President breaking the tie, no CBO score, and 0 markup, 0 amendments, and 0 debate have something to say about procedure! We all better listen!
|
|
aristides
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by aristides on Oct 4, 2017 7:33:25 GMT -5
Exactly. Those same guys (and only guys) did not permit women to vote. Imagine the irony of Edith Wilson running the White House for her ailing husband for whom she never voted and never could. There is no reason--repeat no reason---for a private citizen to own an assault weapon. I think one of the biggest problems is that neither side of the gun control argument trusts the other side on this issue. A big portion of those on the gun control side think anyone who owns a gun is a gun nut, and a big portion of those on the pro-gun side think those on the gun control side want to ban all guns. Just look at the comments on this board, and the New Republic today ("Ban guns. All of them.") I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that would ban private ownership of assault weapons (assuming there's an adequate way to define that), while at the same time clearly guaranteeing an individual's right to own a non-assault weapon. I know very little about guns, so I can't comment on what those words mean, but we should be able to figure that out. All that said, we're deluding ourselves if we actually think banning all guns would stop a nut like the LV shooter from doing what he did. As I posted yesterday, "banning guns" will work about as well as banning drugs. The argument that banning guns is analogous to banning drugs or alcohol doesn't have much validity as evidenced by an international comparison of gun related killings as a % of all homicides. In the U.S. it's 64%; while in Australia it's 13% and England 4.5%. I'll see if I can get this chart to post: ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/A125/production/_98135214_gun_comparison_640_v1-nc.pngSource: www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 7:57:47 GMT -5
12 slide stocks....12
How is this position not considered extreme? "Do nothing ever" should be considered an extreme position.
This appears to be a argument for no laws period. You can't legislate speeding. Even if you set the speed limit at 65, some people are going to go 75.
You can't legislate the evil away but you can make it more difficult for evil to turn a semi automatic weapon into a fully automatic machine gun that drops 100 bullets in ten seconds or less....
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 4, 2017 9:46:20 GMT -5
Of all who have espoused gun control, none have voiced the opinion it must be done via amendment to the Constitution. Any other way would be a rough equivalent of nullification (chime in SSHOYA about the fine points of the law). The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Would the amendment route be difficult? Yes, but that is how the framers intended it to be. Hey everybody, the people who want to cast millions off of health care through reconciliation in the middle of the night with a hidden bill on a 50-vote majority with the Vice President breaking the tie, no CBO score, and 0 markup, 0 amendments, and 0 debate have something to say about procedure! We all better listen! Surely you see the difference between Congressional procedures and Amendments to the Constitution.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,401
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 4, 2017 16:49:27 GMT -5
|
|