NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Gedunker]

*soapbox on*

May I suggest the following: Walk a Mile in Someone's Shoes

I'm so tired of the blame-the-victim mentality in politics today. Empathy and compassion are associated with the much-maligned "bleeding heart liberal," as if there is something wrong with it. But I've known too many people in dire circumstances due to factors beyond their control, including major or chronic health problems. Try not to judge them so harshly.

*soapbox off*

Reminds this not terribly religious fellow of a gospel I find valuable: Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1).

 

[wahday]

Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.

You are right. There will always be a segment of the population that is unable to really integrate and be productive members of society. That is not something unique to us, but of all humanity. Some people are mentally ill, some have addictions, some are veterans or others suffering from PTSD, etc. And as much as we may try to serve this population, a certain number will never get it together and will die a sad death. This is the reality of life and society. It can be cruel and messy.

But a) I really don't think the indigent in our country are the ones dragging down the system and driving up healthcare costs. Creating a more streamlined system to provide services to these people when they do need it will save money (money that, again, we are already paying to cover these medical services), b) There may in fact be people among those populations that WILL be able to pull it together through this kind of support and c) What kind of society would that make us to turn our backs on these folks? Toss them to the curb because they don't have a job? In a recession? One of the main features of a recession is THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS FOR THOSE WHO NEED WORK. That's just a fact. Asserting that such people just need to go get a job makes no sense in my mind (and I am not asserting this is what you are saying, its just not an uncommon point of view)

Besides, I don't think anyone is asserting that the healthcare legislation is going to end homelessness.

Being homeless is not a pleasant life to lead. I have been fortunate through various experiences both here and in DC to work with homeless service and advocacy groups and I can tell you that the homeless are a very diverse group of folks. The current term of choice in this field is "people experiencing homelessness" because the fact is it is not a stagnant state of being for a lot of people. Many move in and out of work and housing situations, live in their cars while trying to put their lives back together, etc. They are families and men and women, vets, people displaced by natural disaster, and so many others who for a variety of reasons have found themselves in a very difficult situation. As someone with only one brother and a sister in law left in my immediate family, I can see how tenuous stability can be. I don't have very many people to lean on if things really went bad for me. Which is not to say I am inches away from homelessness, but that I can imagine, if one lacked a social safety net, how hard it would be to pull themselves out of this trap if things went badly.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

The majority of people without health insurance are in working families who earn too much for medicaid, work in jobs that don't provide health insurance, and are too young for medicare. The very poorest of the poor tend to be qualified for medicare.

The law worked very well and is extremely popular in Massachusetts. Our unemployment rate is 6%. The sun still rises and sets in our state.

 

[mgk920]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

Mike

 

[Blide]

I honestly don't think it will have any significant effect on the election. We're talking about something that passed 2 years ago and is essentially old news to most of the electorate. On top of that, Romney is probably the least credible person to argue against the law.

 

[ddomin4360]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

Mike

Personally, I wasn't going to vote for either of them before this happened, and that hasn't changed. Recently I have swung over to support the mandate, although I dislike lots of what they included, and am very upset at things they missed. I don't support "socialized medicine" or "universal government run healthcare" on the grounds that your healthcare is subject to political whim, budget cuts, etc depending on whose in charge. Imagine we got a sweet government run healthcare system, and then in November Ron Paul won, and the Republicans took over the Senate. They could ruin everything. I'm willing to put my health in their hands At least if a private organization screws you over you can take them to court and fight it out. I would however support a public option for those who are "uninsurable".

With that said, this whole "Biggest tax hike EVAR!!!' nonsense will hurt Obama not a lot, but a little bit. I just don't think (right now) Romney has what it takes (charisma/likeability) to win in November. Although, being honest I think Romney will govern the US exactly like he did in Mass. He's putting on a show to appease the hard line right wing and make sure he locks up their vote. Romney is a moderate Republican, and minus an itchier military trigger finger I can't see the next 4 years being meaningfully different no matter who is in charge.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

Mike

The people who were anti Romney/Republican Care lite weren't going to vote for him anyway. Btw, how are things going in Gary, Indiana?

 

[Hink]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

Mike

Obama is up roughly 3 points in the polls right now. We will see in a week. This shouldn't the main issue in the election, the economy should be. I think that if Republicans put together a plan that could replace ACA and people liked it, it could hurt Obama. I don't really see that happening though. I think most people know that Romney was the firestarter for the ACA and that he would be no "better" dealing with healthcare than Obama.

I do think Romney could sell himself better as a protector of the medical profession as a cost savings measure. That might get some traction. Otherwise most people see Romney and Obama on the same level when it comes to healthcare IMHO.

 

[btrage]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

Mike

In a one-on-one debate, Obama will slaughter Romney on this issue. Romney has no credibility regarding the health care debate. Now if he wants to talk about the economy he may have a chance.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election...

Mike

My prediction is that the ruling did very little to sway additional voters to Obama's side while convincing some of those who were on the fence and leaning towards Romney and already didn't like the ACA (and some of the ultra-Tea Partiers who found Romney not conservative enough) to side with Romney.

I think the bigger outcome, in terms of the presidential election, is that this ruling will be used as a huge rallying point for fundraising. It's already been reported that Romney was able to raise a big chunk of money immediately following the ruling and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the same for him for a few weeks. I would expect that this will be a boost for Obama's fundraising as well, except that his will come in much smaller doses from many more people.

The ruling might have bigger implications for congressional and senatorial elections though as I can imagine a renewed push by the Tea Party folks, who seem to be relatively quiet over the past year or so, to get rid of Democrats in November.

especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

I keep hearing people say that it's overwhelmingly unpopular with the public but I've never seen a poll that actually shows that. The vast majority of reliable polls I've seen, ever since the ACA was officially passed more than 2 years ago show the public to be pretty evenly split, and quite a few of those polls show those in favor of the act to be the majority. The last Gallup poll on the topic, back in February, found 45% thought that the passage was a good thing and 44% thought it was a bad thing. The most recent Kaiser poll found 44% found the passage unfavorable while 37% found it favorable. Yes, that's more "unfavorable" than "favorable" but I still wouldn't call something less than a majority "strong" or overwhelming.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

You are, I am missing the point. I guess I can not see past the idea of a small business owner having to lay people off because they need to pay fees because it is cheaper than paying the insurance. You are correct, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. But I doubt that they are the ones without insurance right now.

Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.

First, it appears that employers that employee less than 50 people are exempt. Second, it could help those who are working to get the care they need. Which in turn makes them more productive. Plus, if they have kids, they will be healthier so the parents will be able to stay at work and not have to worry about them. Third, it will make American businesses more competitive with companies located where there is nationalized health care.

So do you unto the least of these, so do you unto me.

Many of you have entertained angels unaware

 

[imaplanner]

I honestly don't think it will have any significant effect on the election. We're talking about something that passed 2 years ago and is essentially old news to most of the electorate. On top of that, Romney is probably the least credible person to argue against the law.

All that. But also expanding on the idea that this is old news for most of the electorate, I do think that the majority of the electorate do not look favorably upon platforms that are rooted in the past. If Romney makes repealing a two year old law his main platform I think its a losing argument for the general populace. People like to move forward. morning in America, our best days are ahead, etc.

 

[Blide]

It's already been reported that Romney was able to raise a big chunk of money immediately following the ruling and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the same for him for a few weeks. I would expect that this will be a boost for Obama's fundraising as well, except that his will come in much smaller doses from many more people.

Obama's campaign has already claimed they raised more money after the ruling than Romney. They're declining to say how much they raised though.

 

[Planit]

Lets go after it again - remix

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has introduced a bill that will repeal the Affordable Care Act. Of course, there's no way it could possibly pass, as its passage would require the Democrat-controlled Senate to vote on the thing, which it won't, and the President, who bet his entire political career on the thing, to sign it, which he won't. It's a good thing America doesn't have any real problems right now!

According to NPR, this will be the 31st time that the Republican-controlled House has attempted to repeal Obamacare in since January of 2011, when right wingers & tea partiers took control of Congress. That seems like a lot of time and taxpayer money to waste on symbolic votes. And these people say they're fiscal conservatives - bullsh!+. It almost seems like we're paying these guys to run 2-year-long reelection campaigns consisting of meaningless grandstanding on CSPAN.

I just can't beleive they're at it again just after the Sumpreme Court said okie dokie to it. Anyway, I'm sure they'll solve the whole jobs and economy and crumbling empire thing as soon as they're done with this minor issue. Ms. Palin - where are the 'Death Squads"?????

 

[stroskey]

Ignoring the politics, and I am by no means an economist, but it seems like a one-payer system would have a lot less overhead due to less administration costs / profit motive. I think the Mayo Clinic system of paying an annual salary instead of based on the number of patients might decrease unnecessary procedures and increase time with patients.

 

[Hink]

Ignoring the politics, and I am by no means an economist, but it seems like a one-payer system would have a lot less overhead due to less administration costs / profit motive. I think the Mayo Clinic system of paying an annual salary instead of based on the number of patients might decrease unnecessary procedures and increase time with patients.

You will lose qualified doctors by the thousands if they have to work for a set salary (especially if they are required to be paid a certain amount deemed "acceptable" by the government). We already have too few doctors, mainly because reimbursement is so bad for provided services. We are also now allowing less qualified people like PAs, or nurse practitioners to make decisions that really only a qualified medical doctor should make so we can save money on the decision. Really the system is broken. Single payer would most likely not fix it.

I will again state the four problems:

1. The expectations people have for healthcare and those who provide it without understanding the costs;
2. The time / effort/ expense it takes to be a doctor and the lack of reimbursement / lack of qualified professionals;
3. The way we deal with medical liability / The cost of doing preventative medicine / Tort reform;
4. Caring for those who cannot afford it / Requiring everyone to pay something / Using the system correctly (Primary Care Physicians for general care, emergency rooms for emergency care, etc.).

 

[Hink]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/politics/btn-ohio/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

Aww this makes me feel good.....

That's because in addition to making great contributions to America -- such as Katie Holmes, who calls Toledo home; Halle Berry, who hails from Cleveland; and LeBron James, who comes from Akron -- Ohio is also one of the biggest battleground states in presidential politics.

I think Ohio is going to be a pretty interesting State this year. You have the anti-Kasich crowd (which includes Rs and Ds alike), you have the pro-union (auto industry) folks, and you have the anti-Obama in everything he does crowds. After 2010 I would have put the State cleaning in the Obama camp. With how horrible Kasich has been for local economies (all the while balancing the State budget - yea..) I would have guessed people would vote against him... but it doesn't exactly seem like that is the case.

Many people feel that Obama didn't do enough to get the economy moving faster. I think if Obama pushes the $250k tax hike, he will be hurting himself here. If he pushed $1 million it wouldn't be viewed as poorly. I think Obama really can do a couple things to keep Ohio on his plate. Romney will get the farm and rich white man vote. It really will come down to middle class, independents, and women. It should be fun.

 

[btrage]

Many people feel that Obama didn't do enough to get the economy moving faster. I think if Obama pushes the $250k tax hike, he will be hurting himself here. If he pushed $1 million it wouldn't be viewed as poorly. I think Obama really can do a couple things to keep Ohio on his plate. Romney will get the farm and rich white man vote. It really will come down to middle class, independents, and women. It should be fun.

I think Obama is setting the House up. I believe he will relent on the $250K and indeed push it to the $1M. He will be compromising, and what will the GOP do?

 

[Hink]

McCain refutes accusations by fellow Republicans about Hillary Clinton aide
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...ellow-republicans-about-hillary-clinton-aide/

So McCain was a good, honest guy, then he turned and became a "maverick" and picked Palin and screwed up America for a while. At least he isn't as batshit crazy as Bachmann.

Seriously, Bachmann was a leading contender for the Republican nomination last year... Are you kidding me?

If these 5 people are reelected there is something really wrong with our country.
Bachmann
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
Trent Franks (R-AZ),
Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).

We can't get a vote on job creation from either the Rs or Ds, but we can go on wild goose chases.... yea that is worth our tax payer money.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

McCain refutes accusations by fellow Republicans about Hillary Clinton aide
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...ellow-republicans-about-hillary-clinton-aide/

So McCain was a good, honest guy, then he turned and became a "maverick" and picked Palin and screwed up America for a while. At least he isn't as batshit crazy as Bachmann.

Seriously, Bachmann was a leading contender for the Republican nomination last year... Are you kidding me?

If these 5 people are reelected there is something really wrong with our country.
Bachmann
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
Trent Franks (R-AZ),
Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).

We can't get a vote on job creation from either the Rs or Ds, but we can go on wild goose chases.... yea that is worth our tax payer money.

Gohmert's district covers a particularly backward part of Texas with a strong history (and present) of active racism. I used to have to go out there on a somewhat regular basis with a previous job, and would do everything I could to avoid an overnight stay out that way. Really pretty forests & state parks, but the people out there... good lord... I think they're still fighting the civil war.

 

[michaelskis]

Gun Laws

In response to last week’s shooting there has once again been an outcry for increased gun control laws. From what I understand of their argument, they think that if less people have guns, less people are going to commit gun related crimes. But few are willing to quote statistical evidence to back up their claim. On the other side, there are some people who think that people should be required to own a gun,(which I also think is wrong since it is a requirement and a person should have the right two choose.

This article has some interesting and I believe insightful thoughts including statistics regarding gun crime and gun regulations in places like Chicago IL where it is very difficult to get a permit to even have a handgun in your house, or Kennesaw GA, where the head of a household is required to own a gun.

I am a pro-gun rights person and firm believer in the 2nd amendment. However, I also believe that people NEED to understand how safely handle and operate a gun. When I was little, I would help my grandfather dissemble and clean guns way before I was permitted to shoot them. Then I worked my way up from a BB gun, to a shot gun, to a riffle, to a hand gun.

What are your thoughts on Gun control laws? Do you think that they should be increased to prevent crimes, or decreased to allow more people to own hand guns.

 

[luckless pedestrian]

I do think gun safety training with anger management class should be required every few years if you own a gun
- if you own a gun you should be trained to be safe and sound

My husband hunts so I am not against guns per se but I struggle with the assault weapons and such

I think Michael Moore raises good issues in this article but his solution is weak though I don't have a better one:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-guns-we-all-know-its-not-really-guns

 

[Hink]

We we have too many gun deaths. That is clear in the data. We have 10.27 gun related deaths per 100k (per the CDC). Let's see that puts only behind 11 second world countries. Let me look on the list where the next world power is at... France with 6.35. If you argue they aren't a power then we go to Canada at 4.78....Australia is 2.94.

From lots of articles:

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is at 19.5 percent, almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest nations combined.

Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

Personally, I think only those who need guns should have them. I don't disagree with having guns.... I disagree that anyone in the U.S. needs a semi-automatic gun. I disagree that it should be easy to get a gun or that we shouldn't force 30 or 60 day wait periods before you get those guns. I think background checks and a national database of who has bought what is reasonable.

If you want a handgun because you like to shoot, that is fine by me. You can go through the process, get approved and be on the radar as a gun owner. If you happen to buy 4 guns in two months, you get flagged as a suspicious person or are denied your 3rd and 4th guns.

Limiting gun ownership isn't going to stop all acts of violence, but it has been proven to lower the rate of them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is true, but only in the context that books don't make people smart, people make people smart. You can't get book smart without a book. You can't kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun.

I see no reason why semi-automatic or large caliper guns are sold to the average citizen. I think if you want to own one, you should be cleared in every way, and be on a national database that is reviewable by the average citizen.


Check out this study from 1998.... http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf


ps. I agree with Jon Stewert.... if now isn't the time to talk about gun control... when is?

 

[dw914er]

I think that the Colorado event is a poor examples for either side. One, the shooter strategically planned his attack, and used weapons that the majority of people, including gun owners, do not have. Sure, gun laws will make it harder for someone to do something stupid (i.e. pulling a gun in a emotional fit of rage), but those who are beyond determined will find a way around the law. And second, while I agree that you should have the right to protect yourself, the reality is that it wouldn't have matter in this situation. The shooter had the element of surprise, darkness, smoke bombs, and body armor. Any sort of amateur vigilante justice would have resulted in more casualties. The most anyone should have done is hit the floor, and help those around them. And they did. If anything, this should be an example why it is important to help those with some sort of mental illness before they do something extreme.

My thoughts on gun laws are mixed. I like guns, and enjoy shooting them for sport, and I was an NRA member. That said, I had a chance to like in the UK, which has very strong gun laws, and I generally felt much safer there than I did here. Society's own perception of the people around you seemed to make a bigger difference; why do I need a gun if they don't have one. Then again, England is on an island, so smuggling illegal guns is a bit harder.

Both sides of the argument ploy very outrageous scenarios to elicit an emotional response. I do think that we're a rather violent country, which doesn't make a great case for gun rights; we're kind of screwing ourselves over in that regard.

 

[Dan]

Downstate, folks. Downstate. Politics, MySpace style.

I'M SENATOR AND I KNOW IT

Can't wait until Howard Stern gets her into his studio.

 

[wahday]

I am also not against gun ownership, though I think REQUIRING a head of household to own a gun is going too far. People also have the right NOT to own a gun.

As a kid, I went through the whole NRA riflery and marksmanship training to Bar 10. We learned a ton about gun safety, handling, and responsible use. I feel I am an informed and responsible gun owner. Who is not stockpiling weapons, FTR.

But I am very much against the ease with which people can acquire weapons of tremendous destructive potential with virtually no requirements or tracking. We need a license to drive a car afterall, why not a weapon? (some will say gun ownership is a right and driving a privelage, but there have been numerous court cases that conclude driving IS a right as well) Why not require owners to be trained in proper handling? Why not put in place measures that can help ID and track people who exhibit behavior that raises red flags? The Colorado shooter tried to join a gun club and after leaving a disturbing message on the director’s phone was told he could not join. But they didn’t have to report him to any authorities. If I take my kid to the emergency room and anything looks suspicious, they are OBLIGATED to inform the authorities for suspicion of child abuse. I really don’t see why we can’t do this with guns (and still be able to protect people’s privacy as is done with health information)

We even have measures to raise flags on people who try to buy large quantities of fertilizer, so why not guns? Although not ideologically driven, what is to prevent the next attack from being a terrorist attack?

 

[imaplanner]

ps. I agree with Jon Stewert.... if now isn't the time to talk about gun control... when is?

We have a waiting period requirement on talking about gun regulations?

In any case, I support gun rights, but I'm not sure we need to allow people to own assault weapons. And if we allow people to own assault weapons, it's incredible that we don't have more registration and liscensing requirements for them. The NRA is very good at propaganda, but they exist solely to protect profits from gun manufacturers.

I mean, the NRA's position seems to be that people, including mentally ill people, should be ablt purchase as many assault weapons and ammunition as they want without even registering and tracking the weapons? And anyone otehr than the gun-makers really thinks that is a good idea?

 

[michaelskis]

Downstate, folks. Downstate. Politics, MySpace style.

I'M SENATOR AND I KNOW IT

Can't wait until Howard Stern gets her into his studio.

Please tell me that is a joke. If not, she needs a professional PR person.

 

[michaelskis]

We have a waiting period requirement on talking about gun regulations?

In any case, I support gun rights, but I'm not sure we need to allow people to own assault weapons. And if we allow people to own assault weapons, it's incredible that we don't have more registration and liscensing requirements for them. The NRA is very good at propaganda, but they exist solely to protect profits from gun manufacturers.

I mean, the NRA's position seems to be that people, including mentally ill people, should be ablt purchase as many assault weapons and ammunition as they want without even registering and tracking the weapons? And anyone otehr than the gun-makers really thinks that is a good idea?

The assault rifle debate is an interesting one but I agree that there should be some type of background check, licensing requirement, and training program before you can buy one.

However, I keep coming back the the realization that for the most part, those who buy the guns legally are not committing the crimes and would rather see more trained people being able to carry handguns. I think that a person with an advanced level CPL should be permitted to carry on school property, in stadiums, or similar large crowd type venues. Additionally, I think that a person should be able to carry in a restaurant or bar if they are not consuming alcohol if they have an advanced level CPL. But this would be limited to concealed weapons only and the advance training would focus on more marksmanship public safety type stuff.

 

[wahday]

However, I keep coming back the the realization that for the most part, those who buy the guns legally are not committing the crimes and would rather see more trained people being able to carry handguns. I think that a person with an advanced level CPL should be permitted to carry on school property, in stadiums, or similar large crowd type venues. Additionally, I think that a person should be able to carry in a restaurant or bar if they are not consuming alcohol if they have an advanced level CPL. But this would be limited to concealed weapons only and the advance training would focus on more marksmanship public safety type stuff.

My concerns would be: How would you ensure a person with a concealed weapon is not drinking? What if a kid at a school got a hold of a gun carried on to the property? Or at a sporting event where things got heated? These scenarios make me nervous, personally. Especially the alcohol issue. Both in terms of the carrier and someone else getting a hold of a concealed weapon. Not that easy to do, I realize, but many trained military or law enforcement people wold know how. And if they were drinking, well, poor judgement may be the (deadly) order of the day.

I'm of mixed opinion about the whole argument that a trained gun carrier in a public setting could thwart a crime in progress (and I don't know if this is the argument you are making). Because even the best shot, or even trained law enforcement, can easily make a mistake, have a poor line on the perpetrator, etc. resulting in innocent life lost. Law enforcement is generally trained to err on the side of caution using weapons in public but your typical resident, no matter their training, may not. And hw are they held accountable? Its a different ballgame on many fronts. Also, the way these things go down is not always so clear cut that someone could just take out the perpetrator without incident. It also confuses law enforcement arriving on the scene about who is actually the criminal. Its a good way to get yourself shot, IMO, and I have read about incidents opn private property where police showed up and actually shot the homeowner, thinking they were the perpetrator because they were holding the gun.

 

[btrage]

Great, let's just start a gun proliferation movement. While we're at it, scrap the whole nuclear dissarmament thing, and let's just start gearing up.

More guns in the hands of more people (lawabiding, or not) is not the answer for a decrease in gun violence. Sure, the good guy may shoot the bad guy, but does that equate to less violence? I don't think so.

 

[DetroitPlanner]

I see no reason why semi-automatic or large caliper guns are sold to the average citizen. I think if you want to own one, you should be cleared in every way, and be on a national database that is reviewable by the average citizen.

Sure there are reasons... the gun manufacturing lobby will tell them to you.

I find assault type guns are very silly to have on the market. I heard the joker out on CO had some 100 round clips. What the heck??? You going turkey hunting with an unlimited bag limit at the turkey farm?

 

[Planit]

I guess I fall in line with what several here have said. I don't have a problem with owning a gun, rifle, pistol, etc. Assualt weapons are not included and shouldn't be allowed on the open market (with out modification so they are not automatic weapons). A registry, waiting period, background check, and safety class should all be requirements before a gun can be purchased. The 2nd amendment gives you the right, but doesn't address how.


If a mass murderer, criminal, or similar minded individual wanted to obtain an 'illegal' weapon they still could (just like if you have a cocaine habit, you can still get it if you want it). That portion of the population will continue to be out there.

 

[Bubba]

I am also not against gun ownership, though I think REQUIRING a head of household to own a gun is going too far. People also have the right NOT to own a gun.

A couple of notes on the Kennesaw, GA mandatory gun ownership law - after a legal challenge by the ACLU, the law was amended to exclude conscientious objectors, criminals, mentally handicapped, and people who could not afford a gun. Also, it is not enforced (or, at least, no one has ever been charged with violating the law).

 

[michaelskis]

I find assault type guns are very silly to have on the market. I heard the joker out on CO had some 100 round clips. What the heck??? You going turkey hunting with an unlimited bag limit at the turkey farm?

I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."

 

[btrage]

I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."

No one is suggesting that the guns actually commit the crimes themselves. But they sure do make it a lot easier to kill people. Last time checked, murder was a crime. Getting fat is not.

 

[imaplanner]

I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.

The aurora shooting was most definitely a crime committed by someone using an assault rifle. Legally purchased in the US assault rifles are used in hundred of crimes across the border.

Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."

Guns are people my friends.

 

[Hink]

I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."

See this is the problem. Instead of looking at that as a great example of why assault type guns should be banned, you see it as why they shouldn't. Assault guns serve no positive purpose, and are much more likely to serve a negative one. A ladle, although serving a primarily negative purpose, does not make you fat, but it does make it easier. If we limited ladles in this country would everyone get skinny? Nope. But less people would get fat. I wish that I could get the best cheese in the world in the U.S. but they ban it for fear that it might make me sick. We have speed limits and don't allow certain cars to be imported to our borders because they go too fast. Assault weapons are much worse. They serve no purpose other than to say you have one. They are not recreational beyond saying to you shot it. They are not used to hunt...

Your argument is that crazy people are going to do whatever they do no matter what, it isn't guns that cause that to happen. My counter argument is that if guns were made more difficult to get, or if you had to justify your purchase, wait, and know that you were on a national database, there would be less likelihood that someone would use a gun in an act of anger or desperation. It isn't going to stop someone from doing what the guy did in Aurora. He planned it out over months. If he didn't have an assault weapon, or if he didn't have as much ammo, it might, just maybe, would have made it better. Or even better, a red flag for purchasing all the ammo and guns, might have stopped the incident altogether.

Guns aren't bad. People are bad. Just as we shouldn't put people in a position to only be able to eat McDonald's all their lives, we should make it harder for someone to be able to pull off what the lunatic did in Colorado.

 

[ofos]

The interesting thing is that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Rarely mass suicides though. Or repeat offenders.

 

[shell_waster]

To make something clear. Anytime someone legally purchases a firearms from a firearms dealer (someone who holds a FFL, more on this later) the purchaser must pass a background check which is run through the FBI's National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). This check can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 30+ days, depending upon the purchaser's SSN, backlog at NCIC, crimes reported, etc. Once the purchaser has cleared the background check the serial number of the firearm he/she is purchasing shall be logged in a manifest book with the purchaser's signature. The firearms dealer (mom & pop shop, wal-mart, etc.) shall retain that manifest log in perpetual and ensure it is open to inspection by any law enforcement official, district attorney, etc.

I state this because in many previous posts state that those who buy firearms or certain types of firearms should be placed on, "the radar." Well in fact they/we are. The problem has been that law requires this information to be obtain and maintained yet no one agency has been given the command, personnel or budget to watch over this information on a large scale or even daily.

The firearms dealer has to pass a more rigorous background check in order to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The FFL is what legally allows a dealer to purchase firearms (either by bulk or individually), sell them and transfer ownership of the firearm to the buyer.The dealer is legally responsible for ensuring the buyer's NCIC background check is completed prior to transferring the ownership. The dealer is also responsible for watching for any signs of erratic behavior in the purchaser and can deny the transfer of ownership. The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFL holders and some of you in your job duties may have had contact with ATF field agents inquiring about an FFL applicant. I personally have completed half a dozen zoning verification forms for applicants of a FFL and have met with an ATF field agent regarding the use of selling firearms in specific zoning districts on four occasions. I've been a planner in Georgia since 2001.

You may recall the Brady Bill set out to close what is often called the "Gun Show Loophole." The idea was to stop someone from going to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check. If I'm not mistaken the original proposal was a 30 day waiting period from the time of purchase at a gun show to taking ownership. The Bill was watered down and it is what we have now, the dealer has to have an FFL and perform the required background check prior to transferring ownership of that firearm.

What is not regulated is the individual sell of a firearm. For example, I purchase a handgun from a dealer and decide I don't like it or that I need the money for something else. I sell it to my neighbor. The gun is registered to me in the NCIC database and will always be. My neighbor commits a crime with that gun and it is recovered. I'm questioned about the crime as the gun is traced back to my ownership of it. I then must produce documentation that I sold the gun. Courts have upheld that a receipt (with date of sell, amount, serial number, caliber, make and model, both parties signature and notarized on the receipt) are an acceptable form of transfer.

One other point I will make in this long winded post is the term "assault weapon" is misleading by the media, law makers and average citizens. I will agree that any weapon (gun, knife, rock) can be used in an assault and therefore be called an "assault weapon" but what is often associated with this term is a semi-automatic rifle that resembles that what the military use. The key word is semi, meaning that only one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger. Fully automatic rifles are the only true "assault weapon" and are not easily owned by the general public unless you pay an exorbitant tax and you pass a background check more thorough than one for the FFL. What has become popular by the tacti-cool crowd and what was used by the scumbag in Aurora is what is referred to as an AR15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle but for the company that designed and patented the gun, Armalite. Armalite sold the patent to Colt I believe in 1948 or 1958. The AR platform is often used in firearm competitions, police departments and military, it is a semi-automatic rifle mostly in carbine size (barrel being 18"-20"). Another firearm synonymous with an "assault weapon" is the AK47, which is also a semi-automatic rifle design in the former U.S.S.R. and often replicated to much lower quality standards. The original design (Kalashnikov) was a select fire rifle meaning the operator had the option of pulling the trigger and having a 3 or 5 rounds fired (can't remember exact count) or single fire. Because of the basic, and trouble free design of the AK47 many third world countries have replicated the Kalashnikov AK47 and done so cheaply. These are mostly the rifles (considered small arms) that you see rebels waving in the streets and recklessly firing into the air as a form of celebration.

Should the number of rounds a firearm can fire per minute/second be regulated (i.e. number of rounds per magazine)? That's not the purpose of my post. I think owning firearms is a right and privileged but I also believe it should not be mandatory. Unfortunately evil people will do evil things, no matter what measures are in place. The scenario I consider is why punish many for the actions of a few? This is a long post, hopefully you learn something by reading this, if not you just wasted a few minutes of your life.

 

[kjel]

As shell_waster noted licensed dealers have a process that they must adhere to when they sell firearms, the loophole of private party individual sales needs to be closed. Much like owning an automobile and when you sell it to some other person you sign the title over and the registration gets transferred. There should be a methodology in place for that type of transfer of firearms between individuals. All people who own a gun should have to go through some firearms safety course much like you have to pass a drivers license test.

Although I have no issue with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms (or not) there is no reason that anyone needs a high powered assault grade weapon unless you are on active military duty or employed as law enforcement. They are meant for hunting people. Period.

 

[imaplanner]

To make something clear. Anytime someone legally purchases a firearms from a firearms dealer (someone who holds a FFL, more on this later) the purchaser must pass a background check which is run through the FBI's National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). This check can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 30+ days, depending upon the purchaser's SSN, backlog at NCIC, crimes reported, etc. Once the purchaser has cleared the background check the serial number of the firearm he/she is purchasing shall be logged in a manifest book with the purchaser's signature. The firearms dealer (mom & pop shop, wal-mart, etc.) shall retain that manifest log in perpetual and ensure it is open to inspection by any law enforcement official, district attorney, etc.

I state this because in many previous posts state that those who buy firearms or certain types of firearms should be placed on, "the radar." Well in fact they/we are. The problem has been that law requires this information to be obtain and maintained yet no one agency has been given the command, personnel or budget to watch over this information on a large scale or even daily.

The firearms dealer has to pass a more rigorous background check in order to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The FFL is what legally allows a dealer to purchase firearms (either by bulk or individually), sell them and transfer ownership of the firearm to the buyer.The dealer is legally responsible for ensuring the buyer's NCIC background check is completed prior to transferring the ownership. The dealer is also responsible for watching for any signs of erratic behavior in the purchaser and can deny the transfer of ownership. The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFL holders and some of you in your job duties may have had contact with ATF field agents inquiring about an FFL applicant. I personally have completed half a dozen zoning verification forms for applicants of a FFL and have met with an ATF field agent regarding the use of selling firearms in specific zoning districts on four occasions. I've been a planner in Georgia since 2001.

You may recall the Brady Bill set out to close what is often called the "Gun Show Loophole." The idea was to stop someone from going to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check. If I'm not mistaken the original proposal was a 30 day waiting period from the time of purchase at a gun show to taking ownership. The Bill was watered down and it is what we have now, the dealer has to have an FFL and perform the required background check prior to transferring ownership of that firearm.

What is not regulated is the individual sell of a firearm. For example, I purchase a handgun from a dealer and decide I don't like it or that I need the money for something else. I sell it to my neighbor. The gun is registered to me in the NCIC database and will always be. My neighbor commits a crime with that gun and it is recovered. I'm questioned about the crime as the gun is traced back to my ownership of it. I then must produce documentation that I sold the gun. Courts have upheld that a receipt (with date of sell, amount, serial number, caliber, make and model, both parties signature and notarized on the receipt) are an acceptable form of transfer.

One other point I will make in this long winded post is the term "assault weapon" is misleading by the media, law makers and average citizens. I will agree that any weapon (gun, knife, rock) can be used in an assault and therefore be called an "assault weapon" but what is often associated with this term is a semi-automatic rifle that resembles that what the military use. The key word is semi, meaning that only one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger. Fully automatic rifles are the only true "assault weapon" and are not easily owned by the general public unless you pay an exorbitant tax and you pass a background check more thorough than one for the FFL. What has become popular by the tacti-cool crowd and what was used by the scumbag in Aurora is what is referred to as an AR15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle but for the company that designed and patented the gun, Armalite. Armalite sold the patent to Colt I believe in 1948 or 1958. The AR platform is often used in firearm competitions, police departments and military, it is a semi-automatic rifle mostly in carbine size (barrel being 18"-20"). Another firearm synonymous with an "assault weapon" is the AK47, which is also a semi-automatic rifle design in the former U.S.S.R. and often replicated to much lower quality standards. The original design (Kalashnikov) was a select fire rifle meaning the operator had the option of pulling the trigger and having a 3 or 5 rounds fired (can't remember exact count) or single fire. Because of the basic, and trouble free design of the AK47 many third world countries have replicated the Kalashnikov AK47 and done so cheaply. These are mostly the rifles (considered small arms) that you see rebels waving in the streets and recklessly firing into the air as a form of celebration.

Should the number of rounds a firearm can fire per minute/second be regulated (i.e. number of rounds per magazine)? That's not the purpose of my post. I think owning firearms is a right and privileged but I also believe it should not be mandatory. Unfortunately evil people will do evil things, no matter what measures are in place. The scenario I consider is why punish many for the actions of a few? This is a long post, hopefully you learn something by reading this, if not you just wasted a few minutes of your life.

What about sales over the internet? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/12/illegal-gun-sales.html

Also, can't you buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo with no tracking? I kind of feel like if you buy thousands of rounds it should probably raise some sort of a red flag.

 

[Richmond Jake]

I predict a train wreck coming.

 

[michaelskis]

What about sales over the internet? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/12/illegal-gun-sales.html

Also, can't you buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo with no tracking? I kind of feel like if you buy thousands of rounds it should probably raise some sort of a red flag.

I had dinner with a friend of mine who is a gun collector and CPL instructor and he said that an online sale needs to go though a local fire arms dealer. (at least here in Michigan)

I also I fully agree with shell_wasters comments.

 

[Blide]

I'll admit I'm personally not a huge fan of concealed weapons or assault weapons for civilian use but it's not something I feel too strongly about. What I do have issue with are extended round clips. I just have a hard time seeing how something like a 30 round clip for a handgun is really necessary. Reloading at least gives people a chance to stop a shooter like in Tucson.

 

[Hink]

I feel like we talked about this somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Here is a timeline of events...

Chick-fil-a President Dan Cathy says some really bigoted stuff to the Baptist Press on Monday...

“ “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rriage-debate/2012/07/19/gJQACrvzvW_blog.html

Then the Mayor of Boston issued a letter to Chick-fil-a asking it to not come to Boston...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/thomas-menino-boston-mayo_n_1703770.html

Then the Boston Globe and lots of other people have this view...

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-...1_gay-marriage-business-license-freedom-trail

But using the power of government to freeze the company out of a city sends a disturbing message to all businesses. If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.

I am not sure what I think about this. I am happy that the Mayor stood up to the bigoted views of the CEO of Chick-fil-a, but in the end they have said they don't discriminate, they hire and are happy to have gays at their stores. So should a bigoted views of one man mean a company can't be in a community? I'm not sure.

 

[wahday]

I am not sure what I think about this. I am happy that the Mayor stood up to the bigoted views of the CEO of Chick-fil-a, but in the end they have said they don't discriminate, they hire and are happy to have gays at their stores. So should a bigoted views of one man mean a company can't be in a community? I'm not sure.

I agree this is a complicated one. But forcing the hand of the one bigoted man, who happens to be the head of the company, is a lot of what actions like boycotts or sanctions are all about. It is based on the concept that you are “punishing” the group to create pressure on the leader to change the position. It’s the same as with Cuba, for example. Are the Cuban people the problem? No, it’s the leadership. The embargo is supposed to put pressure on the leader by depriving the people. Clearly, that strategy is working well....

Regardless of the company’s statements about not discriminating, I don’t believe they offer coverage for same-sex couples. And do they hire openly LGBT folks? I really don't know, but I would like to.

I would also say there is a difference between telling a company that has a stated agenda to deprive people of a right from coming to their town and telling a company that provides those rights (in the form of benefits for same sex couples, for example) to stay away. And this is my issue with proposals to “define marriage” as part of a constitutional amendment. It would be the first amendment that restricts a particular group’s freedoms rather than clarifies or extends them (with the exception of prohibition, which obviously was repealed). I think of it as similar to the cases where certain states or cities have said they won’t do business with Arizona because of the immigration policies there. That’s another case where these boycotts are geared toward reversing the denial of rights to a certain population.

In one way, you can view these actions by multiple parties, including municipalities, as “market correction” in action.

In the WaPo article you cited, it also says:

But when a business leader elects to take a public and vocal position on a hot-button political issue in an election year, he or she also risks losing the support of many of its customers. It is one thing to be an organization that “operate on biblical principles”—staying closed on Sundays, making donations to groups it supports, remaining debt-free. But it is quite another to imply that people who support same-sex marriage—many of whom are surely customers—have a “prideful, arrogant attitude.”

 

[imaplanner]

I predict a train wreck coming.

I oughta stand my ground on you for that comment. :-c

 

[michaelskis]

I don't think it is all that complicated. It is a fast food restaurant that may or may not have eat in, carry out, or drive through going into an area that has other fast food restaurants. What if it was a catholic book store in an area that had other book stores? If the regulations allow that activity to occur, then how can they prevent it. For example, what if it was a Hooters?

I think that if people don't like what the guy said, then they should should stop eating there and encourage others to do the same.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I don't know about others on here, but I actually have a CHL here in Texas (yeah, yeah... cliche). I don't routinely carry my gun, but have the license. I don't shoot living things--I just like going to the range with some friends on a routine basis and having a CHL helps avoid issues before/after. For what it is worth, I find range shooting cathartic and recommend it to release tension.

My take:

There really isn't a lot you can do about criminals/crazies. However, it is worth noting that in countries with stricter gun laws, violent crime rates are lower. I have no reason to believe that our ratio of crazies to normal people in the US is substantially different, so stronger gun laws have some positive effect.

Sudafed appears to be more regulated than gun purchases. It is far too easy to purchase a gun in this country, especially person-to-person sales. This needs to be corrected.

It was too easy for me to get my CHL. The accuracy test was too easy, and I feel there should be renewals with a refresher training & verification. I also think that anger management should be a part of the training. I think a license should be required to own ANY gun, not just for CHLs. I'm not a fan of Scalia, but it is worth noting that he clearly believes the government can regulate in order to preserve life & ensure safety. I like the idea of graduated licensing/training based on the type of gun involved or situations in which the gun may be carried (single-shot rifle v. something more substantial).

I do not feel that owning a gun makes someone more or less patriotic. Forcing gun ownership is not acceptable under any circumstance.

Likewise, I don't believe in banning everything. I do think there are categories of guns/gun accessories that should be banned. For example, large clips are inappropriate. Large caliper weapons should be considered for a ban, along with types of ammunition designed to penetrate metal/protective clothing. At least some types of semi-automatic weapons should be either banned or tightly regulated, but others aren't a problem (my gun of choice, a Glock 19, is classified as semi-automatic). I don't care if you are a gun collector. There should be limitations on ammo quantities purchased, or at least a mechanism that triggers some kind of check.

I don't think having a bunch of armed people is a good idea in a crowd situation, as it would almost assuredly lead to more casualties. I think there was even a study done on this, if I'm not mistaken.

The Feds need to get their ass in gear on assigning an agency to manage national databases, funding & staffing it appropriately.