The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

In what way is the "spirit of the law" used in either case?

In the Gay marriage, the letter of the law would have been that gays do not enjoy it, since marriage is NOT a covered protection under any amendment, but the spirit of the law is that since straights enjoy it, so too should gays.

As for the Obama care, since they worded it that it was not a tax (On the penalty if you don't get insurance) the Scotus said it was ok for it to go through, even though it IS effectively a tax.

So on the one hand they follow the written law (obama care) even though the Intent is clear, vice on the other they followed the intent/spirit vice the written laws.

[Falcon Horus]

OMG that logic....... They will never fall for that.

But it is good logic.

[Coco Pops]

But it is good logic.

I know...

Honestly any society I would run. Everyone can get married. Marry whoever the hell you want. Be miserable like everyone else. Why deny people?

[Falcon Horus]

And two more people who might regret getting that gun:

Father shoots son, thinking he's an intruder

The only thing I have to say is that maybe he should have made his presence known to his "intruder" and mentioned the "I'm armed"-bit.

[Annoyed]

But that appears to be another example of improper use or maybe no training on how to use a weapon. One of the first aspects of that training would be to know your target.

This doesn't justify gun control any more than some idiot doing something stupid with their car and killing someone would justify banning cars.

[Falcon Horus]

But that appears to be another example of improper use or maybe no training on how to use a weapon. One of the first aspects of that training would be to know your target.

Unbelievable...

The excuses just keep coming.

[Gatefan1976]

But that appears to be another example of improper use or maybe no training on how to use a weapon. One of the first aspects of that training would be to know your target.

The point is, you -need- a licence, and training to use a car, not just an 8 hour course, with no follow up -ever- and it's primary purpose is to move you around, not kill people.
You accept regulation on that, but not a -weapon-???

This doesn't justify gun control any more than some idiot doing something stupid with their car and killing someone would justify banning cars.

You -do- realise that control and ban are two separate words, yeah?
Cars get controlled ALLTHE DAMN TIME. Are you licenced, are you registered, are you sober, did you do something dangerous? Are you tires up to scratch, your brakes, Airbags if you have them?
And these are -some- restrictions based on what the constitution saw as no more than a horse and buggy to -get somewhere-.
But Guns, oh no, they need no restriction. A device -purely made- to kill people more effectively, with minimal effort, lets have them open slather. BODY ARMOUR (you know that stuff that is actually designed to protect you) is more regulated than guns!
"home of the brave" my Arse.

[Annoyed]

Unbelievable...

The excuses just keep coming.

And they will never stop. As far as I'm concerned, the right to own guns is enshrined in the constitution, and is a fundamental part of this country, and must never be interfered with.

Yes, proper training is a very good, common sense idea, and I would not object to such a requirement IF and only if such requirements are not simply used to impede the ownership of firearms, as such requirements are typically used today.

[aretood2]

But that appears to be another example of improper use or maybe no training on how to use a weapon. One of the first aspects of that training would be to know your target.

This doesn't justify gun control any more than some idiot doing something stupid with their car and killing someone would justify banning cars.

The difference is that to drive a car you have to prove that you know how to do it, carry identification and update it regularly, and consistently meet a list of requirements. You can also loose said identification by violating any certain number of laws.

The problem is any attempt to replicate that level of regulation with guns (training, identification, requirements) is rebuffed by the NRA and people like you. So no, it's not the same thing at all.

And they will never stop. As far as I'm concerned, the right to own guns is enshrined in the constitution, and is a fundamental part of this country, and must never be interfered with.

Yes, proper training is a very good, common sense idea, and I would not object to such a requirement IF and only if such requirements are not simply used to impede the ownership of firearms, as such requirements are typically used today.

That's the problem. You say "yes you should be trained" and then turn around and recant that statement by saying "the requirements shouldn't impede ownership of firearms. So what if someone fails training? Doesn't that impede their ownership of a gun? Shouldn't training be "failable?"

[Annoyed]

I wasn't referring to pass/fail on the test. I was referring to the ridiculous hoops some states require potential gun owners to jump through; many/most of them have the real intent of placing roadblocks in the path of a person who wants to buy a gun.

Do a little looking around on some of the crappier states such as NY. There is a lot of BS there.
Yes, I would support training. But only if the goal is truly to train the owner, not to make the process such a P.I.T.A. that it discourages people from trying to buy a gun. Or makes it difficult to impossible on a practical level, which is the goal of most of these stupid laws.

For one example, NY Gov. Cuomo's SAFE Act makes it illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than seven bullets turning thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons by limiting legal use to a magazine that doesn't exist.

[aretood2]

I wasn't referring to pass/fail on the test. I was referring to the ridiculous hoops some states require potential gun owners to jump through; many/most of them have the real intent of placing roadblocks in the path of a person who wants to buy a gun.

Do a little looking around on some of the crappier states such as NY. There is a lot of BS there.
Yes, I would support training. But only if the goal is truly to train the owner, not to make the process such a P.I.T.A. that it discourages people from trying to buy a gun. Or makes it difficult to impossible on a practical level, which is the goal of most of these stupid laws.

For one example, NY Gov. Cuomo's SAFE Act makes it illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than seven bullets turning thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons by limiting legal use to a magazine that doesn't exist.

So you are okay with treating guns like cars? Guns would require certain storage regulations just as cars require safety regulations. Licenses would be issued upon passing a test that covers the use and maintenance of a Gun as well as basic rules about how to use it in self defense and the defense of others. That's something I think makes the most sense, otherwise a lot more fathers will end up shooting sons who are getting a midnight snack from the fridge.

Another question that I have is this. Trained and experience cops make mistakes with their guns. How do you expect average normal citizens to respond properly in a shooting with their gun? I mean, even soldiers shoot their own by accident. How much more would that happen if civilians would do it?

Let's say you give teachers guns. I have a gun now...big mean kid is reaching in his pocket, he just walked into the classroom. I have two choices. One, he is reaching for his cellphone because it buzzed as he walked in to ask if I found an item that belongs to him, or two he is about to shoot the place. What do you think a simple civilian such as myself would do? Or you're in a theater and someone shoots a gun, now fifteen people are up with guns drawn...who do I shoot in that split second of fear? What if I shoot the wrong person? And another does the same mistake? All of a sudden everyone is shooting at each other. A number of scenarios like these can happen when you place the burden of safety and defense on the hands of civilians instead of trained police officers and soldiers.

For me, I am not a bulky guy. I would own a gun to use in my home or when I am on the road. Places where I may be most vulnerable to attack. Not inside of a Chili's. That's how I see guns, used as an equalizer. Or maybe if I am to be mugged, or a woman that is being chased by a rapist. But if I am expected to do a police officer's job, that's a problem. Mistakes will be made and a lot of innocent blood will be spilled. A whole lot more than currently is.

[garhkal]

Saw on todays fox news, that an Appeals court has overturned someone's conviction for wearing medals they didn't earn, saying that doing so is protected free speech??

[Annoyed]

So you are okay with treating guns like cars? Guns would require certain storage regulations just as cars require safety regulations. Licenses would be issued upon passing a test that covers the use and maintenance of a Gun as well as basic rules about how to use it in self defense and the defense of others. That's something I think makes the most sense, otherwise a lot more fathers will end up shooting sons who are getting a midnight snack from the fridge.

Another question that I have is this. Trained and experience cops make mistakes with their guns. How do you expect average normal citizens to respond properly in a shooting with their gun? I mean, even soldiers shoot their own by accident. How much more would that happen if civilians would do it?

Let's say you give teachers guns. I have a gun now...big mean kid is reaching in his pocket, he just walked into the classroom. I have two choices. One, he is reaching for his cellphone because it buzzed as he walked in to ask if I found an item that belongs to him, or two he is about to shoot the place. What do you think a simple civilian such as myself would do? Or you're in a theater and someone shoots a gun, now fifteen people are up with guns drawn...who do I shoot in that split second of fear? What if I shoot the wrong person? And another does the same mistake? All of a sudden everyone is shooting at each other. A number of scenarios like these can happen when you place the burden of safety and defense on the hands of civilians instead of trained police officers and soldiers.

For me, I am not a bulky guy. I would own a gun to use in my home or when I am on the road. Places where I may be most vulnerable to attack. Not inside of a Chili's. That's how I see guns, used as an equalizer. Or maybe if I am to be mugged, or a woman that is being chased by a rapist. But if I am expected to do a police officer's job, that's a problem. Mistakes will be made and a lot of innocent blood will be spilled. A whole lot more than currently is.

I don't like the idea of the government being able to allow or deny on an individual basis. Yes, a convicted felon would never be able to own a gun. Restricting a class of people such as felons is fine. But they should not be able to allow or deny a law abiding citizen. The training should be made available and people should be encouraged to take it, perhaps financial inducement such as a tax credit if needed. Hell, they got tax credits for everything else.

It sounds like you are thinking of a society where everyone carries a gun. That is never going to happen.
Most people do not want to carry a gun. But we should allow law abiding citizens that wish to to do so.

At the end of the day, nothing the government can do will stop criminals from having guns. They're criminals, after all. So the only thing gun control laws do is take guns away from people who abide by the law anyway.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't like the idea of the government being able to allow or deny on an individual basis. Yes, a convicted felon would never be able to own a gun. Restricting a class of people such as felons is fine. But they should not be able to allow or deny a law abiding citizen.

So, the 2nd amendment is situational then, and can be restricted to "the right class of people" eh?

The training should be made available and people should be encouraged to take it, perhaps financial inducement such as a tax credit if needed. Hell, they got tax credits for everything else.

No tax credit for your car, just bills, bills, and more bills.

It sounds like you are thinking of a society where everyone carries a gun. That is never going to happen.
Most people do not want to carry a gun.

TEXAS..... cough cough

But we should allow law abiding citizens that wish to to do so.

Cool, we can allow law abiding citizens from keeping them out of private locations.
Oh hey, remember that discussion about weather development of a mall was public or private? We can have security guards ask people for their licences (gun licences) and keep them out of these private places.
Hey, that is happening in Texas now too!!
http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/open...xas-chl-forum/

At the end of the day, nothing the government can do will stop criminals from having guns. They're criminals, after all. So the only thing gun control laws do is take guns away from people who abide by the law anyway.

No, you can't stop them, but you can make it harder for them.

[garhkal]

So, the 2nd amendment is situational then, and can be restricted to "the right class of people" eh?

The difference there gatefan, is that felons have had it denied to them cause they lost it via due process. If you don't do the crime, then you don't lose your right to own a gun. Same with voting.