NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[WSU MUP Student]

I was a frequent patron of Chick-Fil-A when I lived in NC but anybody who is honestly surprised by the owner's views must never have actually set foot in one of their establishments. Not only are they not open on Sundays, but they have Bible verses on the walls and stories about the founder's faith printed on the paper place mats. He was never really hiding his views before any of this anyway.

I have never heard of a substantiated claim of discrimination regarding Chick-Fil-A so I really don't care that the owner gives his money to organizations I might not agree with. If politicians in Chicago and Boston are really that steadfast in their opposition to Chick-Fil-A because of their views towards the LGBT community, are these cities also going to stop the Catholic church from opening up new parishes in the city?

 

[hilldweller]

However, it is worth noting that in countries with stricter gun laws, violent crime rates are lower.

There's some evidence suggesting the same correlation applies to U.S. states with stricter gun laws:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/gun-violence.html

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

I'm not sure what "safe storage requirements" means- does this factor in "Stand Your Ground" laws and other laws allowing guns in public places?

Edit: I didn't realize this was Richard Florida's analysis so I immediately question it (and you should too)..

 

[shell_waster]

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.

When a buyer purchases a firearm over the internet he/she still has to contact a FFL holder/dealer and pass the background check. Most FFL holders/dealers will charge a nominal fee ($25 is the average) for doing the background check and transferring the firearm to the purchaser. One cannot simply buy a firearm online and it be shipped directly to them, unless that person has a FFL.

Ammunition is a different story. You can buy ammunition online, by catalog, or over the phone however you have to first provide the place of purchase with your photo id by email, fax, or postal mail. This is to prove you are over the age of 18 or 21 if you're buying pistol cartridges (i.e. .40, .45, .9mm). Shipping ammunition is not cheap as it typically has to travel via ground transportation and if in bulk it is heavy. The USPS refuses to ship ammunition. The fear in many circles is that the current and future administrations will make ammunition scarce by taxing it much higher than the current rate. I will also state that due to the high demand of metals overseas ammunition prices have increase by 20% over the last 18 months.

All armor piercing bullets are illegal for the general public to own. The only caliber that I'm aware of that the U.S. military uses and that is someones plated to be armor piercing is the .50 caliber. Years ago the Olin Corporation, they make Winchester ammunition, made a bullet call the Black Talon. The lead core, copper jacketed bullet (99% of bullets are constructed in this manner) had a proprietary coating which turned the copper black and this coating is what made this bullet retain 100% of its energy and a high percentage of its shape upon impact, thus allowing it to penetrate protective surfaces such as kevlar vests. The Black Talon ammunition was only available to the public for a short time before being outlawed in 1994 if memory serves me correctly. Now this is not to say no current day ammunition cannot penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest. If a typical rifled used to hunt deer with is shot with a 75 grain or larger bullet at close distances (less than 50 yards) it will penetrate the vest simply because of the velocity in which the projectile is traveling and the mass it carries (velocity x mass = kinetic energy). Often times the bullet is traveling 1700 fps and greater.

While I may not agree with someone's opinion I will respect that of them and in return I will not try to persuade someone to agree with my views. I am a gun enthusiast and have taken several firearms safety training courses and find shooting to be very cathartic as well. I do have a Georgia Firearms License which basically allows me to carry concealed but I choose not to. I don't go in places where I feel that I need to carry a firearm nor am I one to think I can be a hero. I personally do not see the need for a 30 round magazine in any pistol I own nor do I foresee that I should ever want something with such capacity. For one it would be too heavy to be practical. I do know quite a few people who shoot competition and hunt with the AR platform rifle that I mentioned in an earlier post. I do not own one nor do I have the hankering to own one.

While I was in college a course I had to take was research methods. I had to write a report so I do so on a book by John Lott titled, "More Guns, Less Crime." His theory was (you'll never guess ) the more guns that are in the hands of law abiding citizens means less crime. It's been at least 10 years since I read the book but his numbers supported his theory. I don't put a lot of weight into studies such as Lott's nor the one referenced by Hilldweller as with politics the numbers can be easily skewed to support ones views.

 

[jswanek]

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.

.

Again, that problem with adjectives. "High-powered" is meaningless. "Assault grade" is meaningless. When Congress was discussing the original assault weapons ban, they exempted the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, commonly used, yes, on ranches. They then banned the SAME rifle with a folding stock. Ruger also makes a .22 semi-automatic rifle. Is that an assault rifle or a plinker? Well, it becomes an assault rifle the second you cut crosses into the tops of the bullets, so they fragment on impact. Are you going to ban any rifle that is not bolt-action? That would leave a lot of dead bear and stag hunters, if that's your plan.

.

 

[michaelskis]

I just went to Cabela's and a friend bought an Rugar AR 15 SR556 assult rifle, in a state other than where we live and it took 30 minutes to buy it. He has a Michigan CPL and had no problems.

For him, it is a toy no different than a speed boat or a sports car.

 

[michaelskis]

We ate at a Chick-fil-A just outside of Chicago and it was packed. I thought that there would be more of a protest here, but I guess non-political people are not worried about it.

 

[imaplanner]

We ate at a Chick-fil-A just outside of Chicago and it was packed. I thought that there would be more of a protest here, but I guess non-political people are not worried about it.

My guess is that most people haven't heard about the scandal or whatever you want to call it. Also- most people, political or not, probably don't care too much about the owners political or moral views. The recent trend of boycotting or supporting a business solely because of politics seems to be somewhat against what America stands for. A business should succeed or fail on the merits of the business, not an owners political views.

 

[imaplanner]

I just went to Cabela's and a friend bought an Rugar AR 15 SR556 assult rifle, in a state other than where we live and it took 30 minutes to buy it. He has a Michigan CPL and had no problems.

For him, it is a toy no different than a speed boat or a sports car.

I like my freedom as much as the next person, but I am of the opinion that there should be at least a day or two wait. I don't like the idea of an angry person being able to buy an assault weapon and walk out the door with it before they calm down.

 

[Hink]

I just went to Cabela's and a friend bought an Rugar AR 15 SR556 assult rifle, in a state other than where we live and it took 30 minutes to buy it. He has a Michigan CPL and had no problems.

For him, it is a toy no different than a speed boat or a sports car.

Which is exactly what is wrong with the system. If you think that an Assault rifle is a toy, then you shouldn't have it. I don't think you should ban them, but they should be HIGHLY regulated. So much so that most people wouldn't want to go through the "hassle" of having themselves be poked and proded. If you like to hunt bear and stag, as it seems jswanek thinks such guns are necessary, then you are going to plan ahead and get all the necessary permits through the state and fed. You are going to have to explain where and when you are hunting, and you are going to be given a certain number of rounds for your trip. You want to have a "toy" that serves no purpose but to trophy hunt a couple times a year, then you better expect that you are going to have to prove that is what you are doing.

This argument that it is difficult to define a semi or automatic gun is ridiculous. Instead of worrying about the NRA crying about guns being taken out of the hands of citizens and the 2nd amendment blah blah, why don't we regulate based on use and put specific guns into categories. You want a handgun? Here's a list of acceptable models for the average citizen. You want to hunt? Here's a list of acceptable models for the hunter? You want to trophy hunt? Here's a list of acceptable guns for the trophy hunter. The regulation, training, permitting, and scrutiny goes up with each category.

I am not against guns in general. I am against a system that makes guns easy to get, and does not do enough to keep them out of the hands of the average citizen who doesn't know what they are doing.

 

[Mud Princess]

The recent trend of boycotting or supporting a business solely because of politics seems to be somewhat against what America stands for. A business should succeed or fail on the merits of the business, not an owners political views.

You may want to brush up on your American history... see, for example, the Civil Rights era. And I'm not sure what you mean by "because of politics." I don't think Chick-Fil-A is being boycotted because of the owner's political affiliation.

 

[ofos]

I'm amused by how the slightest offense brings out the special interest groups in a presidential election year. It's all about seizing the opportunity for press coverage and not necessarily related to either political party. Of course, if they get some politician to jump in without thinking it out, all the better.

 

[michaelskis]

Which is exactly what is wrong with the system. If you think that an Assault rifle is a toy, then you shouldn't have it. I don't think you should ban them, but they should be HIGHLY regulated. So much so that most people wouldn't want to go through the "hassle" of having themselves be poked and proded. If you like to hunt bear and stag, as it seems jswanek thinks such guns are necessary, then you are going to plan ahead and get all the necessary permits through the state and fed. You are going to have to explain where and when you are hunting, and you are going to be given a certain number of rounds for your trip. You want to have a "toy" that serves no purpose but to trophy hunt a couple times a year, then you better expect that you are going to have to prove that is what you are doing.

This argument that it is difficult to define a semi or automatic gun is ridiculous. Instead of worrying about the NRA crying about guns being taken out of the hands of citizens and the 2nd amendment blah blah, why don't we regulate based on use and put specific guns into categories. You want a handgun? Here's a list of acceptable models for the average citizen. You want to hunt? Here's a list of acceptable models for the hunter? You want to trophy hunt? Here's a list of acceptable guns for the trophy hunter. The regulation, training, permitting, and scrutiny goes up with each category.

I am not against guns in general. I am against a system that makes guns easy to get, and does not do enough to keep them out of the hands of the average citizen who doesn't know what they are doing.

I doubt he will ever shoot anything living with it. On our way back from a conference this weekend, I just asked him what he is going to do with it and he responded that it will be for target shooting. He already owns several other guns, has 40 acres of forest in the middle of the state, and goes target shooting several times a month as a hobby.

I personally have no interest in buying an assault rifle but I think that if he wants one and has gone through CPL process, then good for him.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I'm amused by how obcessed some people are with Chick-Fil-A. I am not a Chick-Fil-A fan and the few times I've eaten there, I feel ripped off. Everything on the menu seems to cost about $1.00 more than it should (especially the nuggets) for what you actually get. I'm also not a fan of listening to crappy contemporary Christian music while I'm eating. One thing I do like is a good gimmick--they did a promo a while back that if you dressed like a cow, you got a free meal. I was all over that.

I've been clear in the past that I don't like businesses dabbling on politics, particularly when that dabbling leads to financial support of a particular view (left or right). When I see that go on, I always think that those funds could have been going to support local food banks, other charities & the like. To the extent practicable, I give a business's political activity consideration when making decisions about where to shop. I also view local issues differently versus national/state politics.

 

[michaelskis]

I've been clear in the past that I don't like businesses dabbling on politics, particularly when that dabbling leads to financial support of a particular view (left or right). When I see that go on, I always think that those funds could have been going to support local food banks, other charities & the like. To the extent practicable, I give a business's political activity consideration when making decisions about where to shop. I also view local issues differently versus national/state politics.

I might be missing part of the Chick Fil A issue, but how is it dabbing in politics if it was responding to a protest saying that the follow the biblical definition of Marriage? If anything, the Mayor's of Chicago and Boston were making statements (implying false power on their part) regarding the personal religious beliefs of one person and how he chooses to run his business.

I do however agree completely with your statement, which is applied to both the Republicans and the Democrats.

 

[Blide]

The issue largely stems from the fact Chick-Fil-A gives money to organizations that actively oppose gay marriage. They're certainly free to do it but the CEO's comments really shed light on a practice that some people obviously don't appreciate.

 

[ofos]

The trouble with free speech is that everyone gets to do it. We've got to do something about that.

 

[ursus]

The trouble with free speech is that everyone gets to do it. We've got to do something about that.

You're absolutely right, and that's why as the Mayor of my office I have declared that free speech has no place here....not on the zoning trail, as it were. I do, however, plan to perform marriages for gay couples here at my desk until somebody stops me. I guess straight couples would be welcome too, as long as nobody talks.

In all seriousness, people are entitled to their views, but it seems the prudent and smart thing for a business owner or anyone high up in any company to do is to keep their lips tight about politics. Hell, I do that and I'm a nobody by anybody's standards.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I might be missing part of the Chick Fil A issue, but how is it dabbing in politics if it was responding to a protest saying that the follow the biblical definition of Marriage? If anything, the Mayor's of Chicago and Boston were making statements (implying false power on their part) regarding the personal religious beliefs of one person and how he chooses to run his business.

I do however agree completely with your statement, which is applied to both the Republicans and the Democrats.

I am tremendously uncomfortable with the stances taken by the Boston & Chicago mayors and feel they were inappropriate. I might agree with their sentiment, but a city does not get to call the shots on this kind of thing (as long as they are not actually discriminating against patrons or in their employment practices if orientation happens to be a protected class in the particular state). Chick-Fil-A is allowed to make statements--it is when they start taking actions contrary to applicable local, state & Federal laws that folks like these mayors get to chime in. While I disagree with Chick-Fil-A, they have not violated the law.

 

[imaplanner]

You may want to brush up on your American history... see, for example, the Civil Rights era. And I'm not sure what you mean by "because of politics." I don't think Chick-Fil-A is being boycotted because of the owner's political affiliation.

If chick fil a was refusing to serve or hire homosexuals, then your comparison to the civil rights era would make sense. AFAIK the only issue is that the owner said he personally was against gay marriage. If people are boycotting chick fil a, it is because of the owners stance on what has become a political issue (unfortunately equal rights has become a political affiliation issue). People boycotted whole Foods because the owner was personally against universal health care. People boycotted JC Penny's and Target because their owners support gay marriage.

 

[Mud Princess]

If chick fil a was refusing to serve or hire homosexuals, then your comparison to the civil rights era would make sense. AFAIK the only issue is that the owner said he personally was against gay marriage. If people are boycotting chick fil a, it is because of the owners stance on what has become a political issue (unfortunately equal rights has become a political affiliation issue). People boycotted whole Foods because the owner was personally against universal health care. People boycotted JC Penny's and Target because their owners support gay marriage.

You specifically stated said that the "recent trend" of boycotting or supporting a business because of politics is "against what America stands for." My point is that boycotts have occurred throughout American history, and for many different reasons. It is a free speech issue... how is that unAmerican? And while the owner is "personally" against gay marriage, the company also contributes to organizations that actively oppose same-sex marriage... so I will spend my money elsewhere. Not that I would eat at a Chick-Fil-A to begin with...

 

[jswanek]

Which is exactly what is wrong with the system. If you think that an Assault rifle is a toy, then you shouldn't have it. I don't think you should ban them, but they should be HIGHLY regulated. So much so that most people wouldn't want to go through the "hassle" of having themselves be poked and proded. If you like to hunt bear and stag, as it seems jswanek thinks such guns are necessary, then you are going to plan ahead and get all the necessary permits through the state and fed. You are going to have to explain where and when you are hunting, and you are going to be given a certain number of rounds for your trip. You want to have a "toy" that serves no purpose but to trophy hunt a couple times a year, then you better expect that you are going to have to prove that is what you are doing.

This argument that it is difficult to define a semi or automatic gun is ridiculous. Instead of worrying about the NRA crying about guns being taken out of the hands of citizens and the 2nd amendment blah blah, why don't we regulate based on use and put specific guns into categories. You want a handgun? Here's a list of acceptable models for the average citizen. You want to hunt? Here's a list of acceptable models for the hunter? You want to trophy hunt? Here's a list of acceptable guns for the trophy hunter. The regulation, training, permitting, and scrutiny goes up with each category.

I am not against guns in general. I am against a system that makes guns easy to get, and does not do enough to keep them out of the hands of the average citizen who doesn't know what they are doing.

Common sense would be allowing whatever the average citizen who WANTED a gun thought was necessary to defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones. Little consideration should be given to what those who DON'T want a gun think the rest should have. It would be silly to tell the average citizen they can from now on only defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones with single action revolvers, bolt-action rifles and spears. The average citizen deserves more than that, and the framers of our Constitution knew that on principle.

 

[wahday]

I think some of you are forgetting one of the central reasons for a boycott – to deny a company your business as a sign of protest. And it certainly can, and often is, for political reasons.

A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons. It can be a form of consumer activism.

The premise for the Chic-fil-A boycott is that a percentage of people’s money spent at the establishment goes to support a cause (opposition of gay marriage) that some may object to. So, not spending your money there means you are not supporting those causes. Its really that simple. And mostly symbolic. Its not necessarily about trying to put a company out of business or saying they can’t run their affairs how they want. Its about individual people saying they don’t want to personally contribute. If that equates (because enough people support that position) to a change in the company’s behavior, so be it. That would be, in my mind, another example of the Free Market at work! The Marketplace being not just straight up commerce, but also the marketplace of ideas, cultural values, and politics.

Boycotting seems very much the domain of a free society that inspires civic discourse in the marketplace. Its messy, yes, but that’s democracy for you!

 

[ofos]

I think some of you are forgetting one of the central reasons for a boycott – to deny a company your business as a sign of protest. And it certainly can, and often is, for political reasons.



The premise for the Chic-fil-A boycott is that a percentage of people's money spent at the establishment goes to support a cause (opposition of gay marriage) that some may object to. So, not spending your money there means you are not supporting those causes. Its really that simple. And mostly symbolic. Its not necessarily about trying to put a company out of business or saying they can't run their affairs how they want. Its about individual people saying they don't want to personally contribute. If that equates (because enough people support that position) to a change in the company's behavior, so be it. That would be, in my mind, another example of the Free Market at work! The Marketplace being not just straight up commerce, but also the marketplace of ideas, cultural values, and politics.

Boycotting seems very much the domain of a free society that inspires civic discourse in the marketplace. Its messy, yes, but that's democracy for you!

Well said. I personally have no problems with boycotts of a business as long the freedom of others to access that business is not interfered with. In fact, I have not made a purchase at any Exxon stations since the Exxon Valdez disaster. I would also support those mayors IF they said that they would seek to ensure that their cities would not authorize purchase of any products or services from Chik-fil-a. Threatening to prevent the fair exercise of commerce is another matter. It's unfortunate that there is no true equivalent of boycott for government. Refusing to vote only takes power away from yourself and well, you know what the penalty for refusing to pay taxes is.

 

[imaplanner]

If the business itself was donating money and actively lobbying for something political that would be one thing. But because the owner might be a republican or a democrat and may have donated to support gun control or to oppose gay marriage? That just is petty IMO. Let's try to bankrupt an American business because the owner happened to be quoted on some political issue and I disagree with him? Well personally I think that is idiotic. I have no interest in ever eating at a chick fil a but I also have no interest in ever caring about what the owner thinks about anything ever.

I personally have no problems with boycotts of a business as long the freedom of others to access that business is not interfered with. In fact, I have not made a purchase at any Exxon stations since the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Totally different situation IMO. The company istelf was responsible for terrible stuff. If chick fil a was refusing to serve gay people or throwing chicken burgers at the atendees of gay marriage ceremonies then they should be boycotted. But boycotting them for the personal views of the owner?

 

[Hink]

Common sense would be allowing whatever the average citizen who WANTED a gun thought was necessary to defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones. Little consideration should be given to what those who DON'T want a gun think the rest should have. It would be silly to tell the average citizen they can from now on only defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones with single action revolvers, bolt-action rifles and spears. The average citizen deserves more than that, and the framers of our Constitution knew that on principle.

Yes, the framers of the constitution knew EXACTLY what the world would be like today, and knew that on principle we deserve Assault weapons. Man you got me....

Using the framers argument is really weak. Especially in gun control conversations. The framers were working with a slightly different world where there were slightly different weaponry and circumstances for necessity of protection. I really don't understand the need for a militia or citizens with weapons. We have an army. If you think the world is ending and you have a right to protect yourself against our government, then please enjoy your canned beans in your shelter and wait for the apocalypse, but most of us will continue on in our lives.

Common sense (and scientific proof) would say, if you want less gun deaths.... have less guns. If less guns isn't an option (since we are so enamored with this right), then the next best option would be HIGHLY regulated guns. Unless of course you don't want less gun deaths, or would rather protect your right to have automatic weaponry then try and lower gun deaths. Then we aren't even arguing in the same court room.

 

[ursus]

Am I wrong to find it funny that right now at the top of my page is a google ad for.....Chik-Fil-A? Free coupons anybody?

 

[imaplanner]

Common sense would be allowing whatever the average citizen who WANTED a gun thought was necessary to defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones. Little consideration should be given to what those who DON'T want a gun think the rest should have. It would be silly to tell the average citizen they can from now on only defend their persons, homes, and the persons of their loved ones with single action revolvers, bolt-action rifles and spears. The average citizen deserves more than that, and the framers of our Constitution knew that on principle.

I support the right to have weapons, but I am undecided about assault weapons. I tend to think an automatic weapons with the ability to shoot 100 rounds in a minute or less is of no need to anyone outside the military.

In your opinion, where does this right to bear arms stop? Should I be able to buy a nuclear weapon? How about a missle launcher? Sarin gas? Over ther weekend Supreme Court Justice Scalia said he thinks people may have the right to own and operate rocket-launchers.

 

[jswanek]

Yes, the framers of the constitution knew EXACTLY what the world would be like today, and knew that on principle we deserve Assault weapons. Man you got me....

Using the framers argument is really weak. Especially in gun control conversations. The framers were working with a slightly different world where there were slightly different weaponry and circumstances for necessity of protection. I really don't understand the need for a militia or citizens with weapons. We have an army. If you think the world is ending and you have a right to protect yourself against our government, then please enjoy your canned beans in your shelter and wait for the apocalypse, but most of us will continue on in our lives.

Common sense (and scientific proof) would say, if you want less gun deaths.... have less guns. If less guns isn't an option (since we are so enamored with this right), then the next best option would be HIGHLY regulated guns. Unless of course you don't want less gun deaths, or would rather protect your right to have automatic weaponry then try and lower gun deaths. Then we aren't even arguing in the same court room.

Uh, the framers of the Constitution knew that American citizens would need to have weapons comparable to those of the British army. That's seems kinda obvious. They didn't limit themselves to blunderbusses. Man you got ME if you can't see that....

As for "circumstances for necessity of protection", you must be kidding if you feel the police (or the army?) will save your family from a home invader.

You have every right to NOT defend yourself with deadly force if necessary, just don't get in the way of someone who is trying to do exactly that. If you think everything is hunky-dory and you don't wish to ever have the right to protect yourself against your government, then please enjoy your canned fava beans in your place and wait for them to show up; the rest of us will continue on with our lives.

I support the right to have weapons, but I am undecided about assault weapons. I tend to think an automatic weapons with the ability to shoot 100 rounds in a minute or less is of no need to anyone outside the military.

In your opinion, where does this right to bear arms stop? Should I be able to buy a nuclear weapon? How about a missle launcher? Sarin gas? Over ther weekend Supreme Court Justice Scalia said he thinks people may have the right to own and operate rocket-launchers.

If you'd go out and shop, you'd probably find that a Ruger Ranch Rifle, which was NEVER considered an assault weapon, looked just about right.

 

[imaplanner]

Uh, the framers of the Constitution knew that American citizens would need to have weapons comparable to those of the British army. That's seems kinda obvious. .

Actually, that is why they specifically wrote about the right for a well regulated militia. At the time, there was no standing army. In fact, many of the framers talked about trying to write it into the constitution that America could never have a standing army.

If you'd go out and shop, you'd probably find that a Ruger Ranch Rifle, which was NEVER considered an assault weapon, looked just about right.

So anything more excessive than a Ruger Ranch Rifle you want to prohibit people from owning? You support more excessive gun control than I do.

 

[jswanek]

Actually, that is why they specifically wrote about the right for a well regulated militia. At the time, there was no standing army. In fact, many of the framers talked about trying to write it into the constitution that America could never have a standing army.

So anything more excessive than a Ruger Ranch Rifle you want to prohibit people from owning? You support more excessive gun control than I do.

I feel that so few are capable of effectively handling more than that it's almost suicide, so yes that's my limit...and forget about drums, they jam anyway. Stick to clips.

 

[ofos]

Totally different situation IMO. The company istelf was responsible for terrible stuff. If chick fil a was refusing to serve gay people or throwing chicken burgers at the atendees of gay marriage ceremonies then they should be boycotted. But boycotting them for the personal views of the owner?

Of course it was totally different, I was only trying to make the point that I believe that a boycott is a valid way to protest. I don't believe that boycotting Chik-fil-a for the founder's opinions serves much purpose in advancing the same sex marriage cause, but for those who do, do what you feel is appropriate.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Never mind-this is an asinine, tail chasing thread on a topic we've ground into mush before.

 

[btrage]

I support gay marriage, and I support Chik-Fil-A.

If I choose not to go to Chik-Fil-A, it will be because they are slightly overpriced.

 

[shell_waster]

why don't we regulate based on use and put specific guns into categories. You want a handgun? Here's a list of acceptable models for the average citizen. You want to hunt? Here's a list of acceptable models for the hunter? You want to trophy hunt? Here's a list of acceptable guns for the trophy hunter. The regulation, training, permitting, and scrutiny goes up with each category.

I am not against guns in general. I am against a system that makes guns easy to get, and does not do enough to keep them out of the hands of the average citizen who doesn't know what they are doing.

The same can be said about clothes, toilet paper, cars, and anything that we have multiple choices of buying. It's called freedom of personal choice. I am an avid shooter and I didn't know how to safely operate a firearm until I was taught but I was responsible enough to know I didn't know what to do so I attend training courses. I do think that anyone purchasing a firearm prove they have attended and passed a safety course. I had to pass a driver's test to obtain my driver's license and I had to attend and pass a hunter's safety course in order to purchase my hunting license. In my opinion the key is to have a national standard course and testing material for a reasonable cost (<$100?). Now I agree, many in the US are not properly taught nor are they responsible enough to own a firearm but they procreate and allowed to vote.

 

[Maister]

If one subscribes to the argument that 2nd Amendment rights are critical so that citizens have the ability to defend themselves from the government, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that 'cop killer' bullets (capable of penetrating kevlar vests) are more widely available to patriotic citizens so that they can more effectively kill law enforcement officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws?

 

[michaelskis]

If one subscribes to the argument that 2nd Amendment rights are critical so that citizens have the ability to defend themselves from the government, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that 'cop killer' bullets (capable of penetrating kevlar vests) are more widely available to patriotic citizens so that they can more effectively kill law enforcement officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws?

No. A person should not buy a gun with the intent to kill a person, unless it is a life or death situation.

 

[ofos]

If one subscribes to the argument that 2nd Amendment rights are critical so that citizens have the ability to defend themselves from the government, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that 'cop killer' bullets (capable of penetrating kevlar vests) are more widely available to patriotic citizens so that they can more effectively kill law enforcement officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws?

No. A person should not buy a gun with the intent to kill a person, unless it is a life or death situation.

Bazinga!

 

[Maister]

No. A person should not buy a gun with the intent to kill a person, unless it is a life or death situation.

So are you saying that if there's a midnight knock on the door in the year 2025 and the cops have come to round up your family (stating no explicit desire to kill them) you wouldn't use deadly force to resist?

[ot]okay okay enough base entertainment for one day! WYP is right, this is right up there with abortion and the existence of God in the tail chasing department[/ot]

 

[Brocktoon]

[ot]okay okay enough base entertainment for one day! WYP is right, this is right up there with abortion and the existence of God in the tail chasing department[/ot]

Some of us are enjoying watching the carnage from a far...like the spectators that showed up for battles during the Civic War.

 

[ColoGI]

If one subscribes to the argument that 2nd Amendment rights are critical so that citizens have the ability to defend themselves from the government, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that 'cop killer' bullets (capable of penetrating kevlar vests) are more widely available to patriotic citizens so that they can more effectively kill law enforcement officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws?

I fail to see how the average citizen stands any chance against the biggest military regime ever in the history of the world. Even an assault rifle with a 100-round drum and a macho, p&nis-enlarging thousand-round arsenal bought on the Internet as easily as a Beastie Boys song won't do jack against a drone. Or an armored humvee crashing through your front door. Or an F-16 swooshing overhead, dropping a laser-guided missile.

It is absurd to use such weak argumentation in this day and age.

This is not to say we should do nothing about every city's police force having a SWAT team and electronic surveillance and arresting people for filming their thuggery.

 

[jswanek]

I fail to see how the average citizen stands any chance against the biggest military regime ever in the history of the world. Even an assault rifle with a 100-round drum and a macho, p&nis-enlarging thousand-round arsenal bought on the Internet as easily as a Beastie Boys song won't do jack against a drone. Or an armored humvee crashing through your front door. Or an F-16 swooshing overhead, dropping a laser-guided missile.

It is absurd to use such weak argumentation in this day and age.

This is not to say we should do nothing about every city's police force having a SWAT team and electronic surveillance and arresting people for filming their thuggery.

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.

 

[btrage]

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Quoting Promethus Unbound? Really?

Do you have any other masteful pieces of literary art for us?

 

[ddomin4360]

I fail to see how the average citizen stands any chance against the biggest military regime ever in the history of the world. Even an assault rifle with a 100-round drum and a macho, p&nis-enlarging thousand-round arsenal bought on the Internet as easily as a Beastie Boys song won't do jack against a drone. Or an armored humvee crashing through your front door. Or an F-16 swooshing overhead, dropping a laser-guided missile.

It is absurd to use such weak argumentation in this day and age.

This is not to say we should do nothing about every city's police force having a SWAT team and electronic surveillance and arresting people for filming their thuggery.

Not throwing my support either way in this argument. BUT...

It seems like rag-tag groups armed with cheap crappy weapons and homemade explosives have been a serious pest for our military the past 10-11 years. So it isn't beyond reason that average citizens could put up an equal or greater struggle.

 

[btrage]

Not throwing my support either way in this argument. BUT...

It seems like rag-tag groups armed with cheap crappy weapons and homemade explosives have been a serious pest for our military the past 10-11 years. So it isn't beyond reason that average citizens could put up an equal or greater struggle.

But we've also never thrown the full weight of our miliatary against any of these groups. Only little surges here, and surges there. A drone strike year, a little boming there.

If it wanted to, our military could lay waste to most countries on this planet. And I'm not saying that proudly.

 

[jswanek]

But we've also never thrown the full weight of our miliatary against any of these groups. Only little surges here, and surges there. A drone strike year, a little boming there.

If it wanted to, our military could lay waste to most countries on this planet. And I'm not saying that proudly.

One of my in-laws has relevant experience, training Afghans to fight terrorism. Any Army that attacks women and children surrounding their fighting men ultimately loses that war. They find that their individual soldiers on leave are being killed by local girls, poisoned by bartenders, etc. So, they hunker down in bases, give up the outlying areas, and soon find that they no longer control the territory. The people begin laughing at them for not being willing to go one-on-one, or come out of their hidey-holes. They end up withdrawing.

 

[ColoGI]

Not throwing my support either way in this argument. BUT...

It seems like rag-tag groups armed with cheap crappy weapons and homemade explosives have been a serious pest for our military the past 10-11 years. So it isn't beyond reason that average citizens could put up an equal or greater struggle.

We didn't learn from history that no one who goes into Afghanistan wins.

 

[ColoGI]

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.

Is this Internet Performance Art? Or do you think you know what this work is supposed to mean from these lines (and did you copy it from the NRA website or some place similar because they told you it meant X?)

 

[ddomin4360]

We didn't learn from history that no one who goes into Afghanistan wins.

Well, its not like Iraq was a cake walk either. The Iraqi military was beaten super quick but the insurgents were a problem on a real level right up until we left.


Then we can look back at Vietnam where we were on a more aggressive offensive than in Iraq or Afghanistan and after dealing with their BS for ~10 years we left an unwinnable war. Guerilla warfare is hard to deal with for modern armies that follow rules of combat.

 

[jswanek]

Is this Internet Performance Art? Or do you think you know what this work is supposed to mean from these lines (and did you copy it from the NRA website or some place similar because they told you it meant X?)

Milton said it as well.

 

[ColoGI]

Well, its not like Iraq was a cake walk either. The Iraqi military was beaten super quick but the insurgents were a problem on a real level right up until we left.


Then we can look back at Vietnam where we were on a more aggressive offensive than in Iraq or Afghanistan and after dealing with their BS for ~10 years we left an unwinnable war. Guerilla warfare is hard to deal with for modern armies that follow rules of combat.

You are talking about the problems of occupation, which the Brits found in the 1700s here as well, as did the Romans, the Austro-Hungarian empire, etc. History explains to us why conquering armies have difficulty keeping the peace and it takes much more than the gun and sword.