• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Sometimes I bleed through my eyes and other places.....don't you? I mean that is a normal phrase to say...

Holy geez... Trump is beyond my understanding. 27,000 people signed a petition to stop Megyn Kelly from being part of the next debate because she was too hard on Trump. What is wrong with this world?

How anyone can accept his language towards women is appalling to me. Making excuses for it is even more embarrassing. Maybe he is a Clinton plant. That is really the only way that any of this makes sense...
 
Hink said:
27,000 people signed a petition to stop Megyn Kelly from being part of the next debate because she was too hard on Trump. What is wrong with this world?
Click to expand...

Considering that sum represents roughly 0.000085% of the U.S. population, I'd say nothing...

[Don't get me wrong - I think Trump's current act is a good indication that he's a miserable excuse for a human being - I just can't muster any outrage over this here petition.]
 
Trumps bashing of Kelly is telling that he is shaken up by her.

Did she go after him with her questions, sure. But that was what the people wanted her to do.

I am more interested in seeing if Carly is in the top candidates debate for the next round. I don't know much about her, but it seems that she crushed it at the kids table debate.
 
Hink said:
Sometimes I bleed through my eyes and other places.....don't you? I mean that is a normal phrase to say...

Holy geez... Trump is beyond my understanding. 27,000 people signed a petition to stop Megyn Kelly from being part of the next debate because she was too hard on Trump. What is wrong with this world?

How anyone can accept his language towards women is appalling to me. Making excuses for it is even more embarrassing. Maybe he is a Clinton plant. That is really the only way that any of this makes sense...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but we'll have to petition against that other country because your negotiating tactics are to hard on President Trump :victory:. The man said some crap about women and a strong independent woman called him out on it (not a Kelly supporter, but good for her).
 
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but Trump is clearly not qualified to be an elected leader of any kind. That question from Megyn Kelly was not difficult or even close to being a "hot box" question and he reacts like he has? His skin is far too thin.

I don't like Megyn Kelly and think she is very much a substandard journalist, but I would think that if she were male. I'm simply beside myself that in 20-f'in-15 that someone can get away with the level of misogyny exhibited by Trump without being cast into the pits of hell. Erick Erickson is a renowned misogynist and even he thought it was too much. I'm even more amazed that all of the morning shows are giving him a megaphone and people are still supporting him at the levels they are.

This is creating one hell of an opening for someone to take some leadership. I like how Fiorina has responded thus far. She'll definitely be in the top tier in future debates.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but Trump is clearly not qualified to be an elected leader of any kind. That question from Megyn Kelly was not difficult or even close to being a "hot box" question and he reacts like he has? His skin is far too thin.

I don't like Megyn Kelly and think she is very much a substandard journalist, but I would think that if she were male. I'm simply beside myself that in 20-f'in-15 that someone can get away with the level of misogyny exhibited by Trump without being cast into the pits of hell. Erick Erickson is a renowned misogynist and even he thought it was too much. I'm even more amazed that all of the morning shows are giving him a megaphone and people are still supporting him at the levels they are.

This is creating one hell of an opening for someone to take some leadership. I like how Fiorina has responded thus far. She'll definitely be in the top tier in future debates.
Click to expand...

Kind of off the Trump topic because he just needs to be blasted for his misogyny. You're thinking of Megyn as a journalist. There are very few true journalists left, male or female. She just happens to be a hot rack with a journalism degree that Fox uses to catch viewers. She's an entertainer and her looks are just part of the entertainment package. Granted she won't be dumped at 25 like a normal actress, but I'd bet Fox dumps her if things start to sag. Anyway, good for her to get everything she can out of Fox while she can. I'm sure she'll move on and show she's actually intelligent sometime. Maybe the debate was just an initial display of actual journalism.
 
Hink said:
Mark Cuban for President 2016?

http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/2015...ush-them-in-every-presidential-election.html/

Wow is he right.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% and I think it highlights a major problem of our system. We have parties other than Republicans and Democrats that run, but these two parties are established political machines when it comes to campaign finance. We (as a society in general) no longer vote for the best candidate but the lesser of these two evils. There are others that are on the ticket for the libertarian, green, tax payers, or other parties, but they stand zero chance of getting elected unless they have crazy amounts of money to run outside of the very narrow brackets of R or D.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree 100% and I think it highlights a major problem of our system. We have parties other than Republicans and Democrats that run, but these two parties are established political machines when it comes to campaign finance. We (as a society in general) no longer vote for the best candidate but the lesser of these two evils. There are others that are on the ticket for the libertarian, green, tax payers, or other parties, but they stand zero chance of getting elected unless they have crazy amounts of money to run outside of the very narrow brackets of R or D.
Click to expand...

Which is so frustrating! I also find that there are people that won't even listen to a candidate if they fall outside of their chosen party. They scoff and make fun of them, like they are complete morons, instead of listening.
 
Let's change gears here...


So a judge in Michigan ruled that if you have a concealed carry permit, you may open carry a handgun in school in Michigan. (LINK)

It is all because of a loophole that is in the state law that was going to be closed as part of a larger package which would have established a level 2 concealed pistol licence with stricter requirements and training, but it would allow you to conceal carry in many of the places that are currently gun free zones, like schools. The bill went to the governor a day or two before the Sandy Hook shooting and the governor did not sign it in response to the political and social damage that would occur.

Personally, I don't think that a person should open carry in a school unless they are a police officer. However I do think that a person should be able to get an upper level concealed carry licence that would require mental screening, marksmanship training, extensive background checks, and deeper level of classroom training, that would allow them to conceal carry in state level pistol free zones (like schools, churches, hospitals, arenas, and yes, even bars. I do however agree with the zero alcohol level when a person is carrying in any way.

What are your thoughts?
 
michaelskis said:
Let's change gears here...


Personally, I don't think that a person should open carry in a school unless they are a police officer. However I do think that a person should be able to get an upper level concealed carry licence that would require mental screening, marksmanship training, extensive background checks, and deeper level of classroom training, that would allow them to conceal carry in state level pistol free zones (like schools, churches, hospitals, arenas, and yes, even bars. I do however agree with the zero alcohol level when a person is carrying in any way.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think I've said this on the topic before... I'm a concealed handgun license permit holder in Texas.I do not carry my gun though--it just makes it a bit easier legally when I'm going to the range with a couple of LEO friends of mine because I don't like leaving it in the car if we stop somewhere to grab lunch or something. Also, oddly enough, having the permit allows me to bypass security lines at the capitol when I go testify on legislation, which is super handy when the legislature is in session. You won't find a single picture of me with that gun because I'm not a gun fetishist. Going to the range once in a while is just a fun way to blow off steam and I like the challenge of improving accuracy. I think the mental focus required to improve accuracy helps me to focus better on other things in my life at work or home.

I can only speak to the situation in Texas, but it was WAY too easy for me to get my CHL permit. There were people in that class with me that had no business getting a CHL permit due to either accuracy issues or mental state. And I sure as hell don't trust them in an active shooter situation in a crowded setting where it may be difficult to identify friend from foe (which is the reason being used to justify expanded carry ability).
 
Without going down the rabbit hole that is gun laws I'll just say I prefer good regulation that makes it difficult to get firearms. If you are a law abiding citizen like all pro gun people say, then a thorough background check shouldn't be a problem. It might actually weed out the crazies that make you look bad.

For this whole movement to allow open carry or concealed carry everywhere, knock it off. There is no need to have a gun on a school campus. I don't need a rouge teacher trying to "help" find the shooter. All that does is get them shot by the police who show up.

For Kansas, 1st came the legislation to allow open carry in public buildings unless it's posted and you can only post if you have an alternate security plan that secures all your entry points. Of course the legislature was excluded from this bill.

Now the legislature is open so I've got crack pots who demand to carry at our court rooms. Um, no.

Kansas also removed the requirement for concealed carry permits so now you can carry however you want. They'll keep doing the permits for other states though. All the politicians keep saying it's okay because you have "training" with the permit. That's a load of crap, because the class is basically nothing more than an over glorified drivers ed class. It's fine for what SR is doing, but don't go around touting it as a "safety" measure. If you want to feel safer, stop giving crazy people guns (granted I'm not sure how to do that).
 
Perhaps the biggest tragedy of our age is the way climate change has become partisan issue. It saddens me to no end to watch so many among GOP ranks giving credence to further 'debate' on whether it's occurring or arguing the science at this point is 'inconclusive.'
 
Maister said:
Perhaps the biggest tragedy of our age is the way climate change has become partisan issue. It saddens me to no end to watch so many among GOP ranks giving credence to further 'debate' on whether it's occurring or arguing the science at this point is 'inconclusive.'
Click to expand...

The reasons for their non-belief is what bothers me. Like it is some government conspiracy. What really is causing it though is money. No one wants to take the bullet and accept that a portion of our employment base is going to lose their jobs, that certain goods are going to cost more, and that some states are going to be hit hard by these regulations.

Instead of saying things with a reasonable head, it is easier to just say it isn't happening. I think many in the R club are ostriches. It is much easier than being a problem solver, or truth teller. Ostriches get elected.
 
Someone should do an immigration sweep on one of the Donald's classy hotels. I'm sure there has to be one or two undocumented workers. Although I would feel bad for the workers, I think it would be hilarious to watch the Don talk his way out of that mess.
 
I may be missing information, but the US (and the UN) have agreed to a nuclear deal with Iran to let them have nuclear material for energy production... or so they say.

Now Iran buying rockets from Russia? And both Russia and Iran hate America.
 
Nope.....

dvdneal said:
Someone should do an immigration sweep on one of the Donald's classy hotels. I'm sure there has to be one or two undocumented workers. Although I would feel bad for the workers, I think it would be hilarious to watch the Don talk his way out of that mess.
Click to expand...

It would be yet another example of BIG BAD Gubment picking on the Billionaire class for political purposes.....:r:

Plus, he would just blame someone else....when has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING other than being "great" and making a lot of money?
 
The One said:
It would be yet another example of BIG BAD Gubment picking on the Billionaire class for political purposes.....:r:

Plus, he would just blame someone else....when has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING other than being "great" and making a lot of money?
Click to expand...

That's the American way! It's not my fault, I'm perfect! It most be one of those other people.
 
So The Donald thinks the 14th Amendment and especially birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. I suspect he came upon this decision because he is a noted constitutional law scholar and he used this formula: I don't like it = unconstitutional.

OK, using his formula and based on my qualifications as a constitutional law scholar, I declare the following things are also unconstitutional:

1) His hair (which I suspect is equal parts human hair and endangered species pelt);
2) His mouth (which looks like a cat's bumhole much of the time and what comes out of it is just about the same); and
3) His attitude toward women (WTF was that shot about Heidi Klum not being a 10 about? Mean-spirited and not true. I thought her comeback was great and The Donald let her comeback slide, which is uncharacteristic of the man.).

I have serious doubts about the USA and the republican party, when this bombastic, misogynistic, xenophobic asshat clown is leading the polls. I don't think Scott Walker, Perry, Huckabee, Santorum or Cruz are much to be proud of either. If this is the cream of the Republican Party, it is time for the Party of Lincoln to roll up the tent and disband. If your house is so infested by termites that the foundation and the walls are about to cave in, then you are better off just torching the sucker and rebuilding with sturdy and stable materials.
 
It is sad, but the biggest hypocrites are always the ones who are fighting the hardest against something.... and lately it is been the religious people.

http://www.businessinsider.com/first-divorce-case-from-the-ashley-madison-leak-2015-8

Josh Duggar admitted he had affairs, etc. Sad, but really obvious. Which is why I think this story is so interesting. The anger is on multiple sides of this - privacy advocates, marriage advocates, and lawyers are all screaming different things.

What it says to me is that everyone has some skeletons. If you don't want those skeleton's reviewed by the world, don't do them. Think twice before you act. And for God's sake, don't advocate against the very thing you are doing. Particularly if you are going to use God as your reasoning. :-@
 
Hink said:
It is sad, but the biggest hypocrites are always the ones who are fighting the hardest against something.... and lately it is been the religious people.

http://www.businessinsider.com/first-divorce-case-from-the-ashley-madison-leak-2015-8

Josh Duggar admitted he had affairs, etc. Sad, but really obvious. Which is why I think this story is so interesting. The anger is on multiple sides of this - privacy advocates, marriage advocates, and lawyers are all screaming different things.

What it says to me is that everyone has some skeletons. If you don't want those skeleton's reviewed by the world, don't do them. Think twice before you act. And for God's sake, don't advocate against the very thing you are doing. Particularly if you are going to use God as your reasoning. :-@
Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree with you. If one touts themselves as being perfect and never doing what they are advocating against, then absolutely. But if one is willing to express their faults and advocate against it, then I think that is a wonderful thing as long has they have either stopped that activity, or progressing towards not participating in that activity.

For example, I have a family member who is a recovering alcoholic. She spent a month in rehab and has been sober for almost 5 years now. As part of a volunteer thing, she works with the AA in her area speaking about alcoholism to public groups and other AA meetings. I think that what she is doing is terrific and support her 100%.

If you look at the lives of the saints, they were riddled with various types of sin. But it is their willingness to overcome those sins and work to sin no more that allows us to respect them.
 
michaelskis said:
I both agree and disagree with you. If one touts themselves as being perfect and never doing what they are advocating against, then absolutely. But if one is willing to express their faults and advocate against it, then I think that is a wonderful thing as long has they have either stopped that activity, or progressing towards not participating in that activity.

For example, I have a family member who is a recovering alcoholic. She spent a month in rehab and has been sober for almost 5 years now. As part of a volunteer thing, she works with the AA in her area speaking about alcoholism to public groups and other AA meetings. I think that what she is doing is terrific and support her 100%.

If you look at the lives of the saints, they were riddled with various types of sin. But it is their willingness to overcome those sins and work to sin no more that allows us to respect them.
Click to expand...

Alcoholism is different to me. That is a disease. Being gay isn't. Being married isn't. Advocating for marriage being between a man and a women (because that is what God intended) when you are having an affair (which clearly God did not intend) is hypocritical.

No one is perfect. It is the people who advocate for a lifestyle that they themselves aren't living. Kinda like televangelists or most insanely rich overtly religious people. Piety is something that the rich can ignore, because it does not suit them. Gay people though.... bible says no. :r: That is hypocritical.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks. That is my point. I can name lots of politicians who have advocated one way or another and then are caught doing that exact thing.
 
Hink said:
Alcoholism is different to me. That is a disease. Being gay isn't. Being married isn't. Advocating for marriage being between a man and a women (because that is what God intended) when you are having an affair (which clearly God did not intend) is hypocritical.

No one is perfect. It is the people who advocate for a lifestyle that they themselves aren't living. Kinda like televangelists or most insanely rich overtly religious people. Piety is something that the rich can ignore, because it does not suit them. Gay people though.... bible says no. :r: That is hypocritical.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks. That is my point. I can name lots of politicians who have advocated one way or another and then are caught doing that exact thing.
Click to expand...

How many politicians do you know that are not hypocrites?

I also think that one's wealth has little if anything to do with them being a hypocrite. I know several people who are opposed to gay marriage who are broke and horrible with money, some on their second or 3rd spouse because they can't keep it in their pants. They pick and choose their beliefs and preach some while participate in others.
 
A person from FB is calling for elimination of all handguns for civilian use and non-police use in response to the VA shootings. The guy did buy the gun legally, because the background check showed that other than a traffic issue, which was later dismissed, they had no actual reason not to sell the gun.

It brings up an interesting question though. In terms of background checks, how should something like this be determined. He had a history of being angry at work, but there was never charges filed, there wasn't a professional opinion by a therapist or similar qualified person that he was a threat to safety. I am not opposed to some type of regulation to prevent people with documented mental issues from purchasing hand guns unless they have a waiver or something from a clinical therapist or similar person. However in the situation in VA, there were no official legally documented mental issues.

I am a fan of concealed pistol licences or similar CCW type as in most cases it includes both a detailed background check, class room instruction, and range time instruction. There are some states that have little if any regulation, but I can tell you that I need to go through a new set of classes here in NC because my MI permit does not transfer, even though they are both NRA certified classes. I think that is not only reasonable, I think it is great.

I am all for personal safety and public safety, but these blanket gun confiscation ideas are both unconstitutional and unrealistic.

What are your thoughts? What do you think should occur? Do you believe that someone should have a CPL level permit before they can buy a gun? Do you think that someone should pass a mental exam before they can buy a gun?
 
A friend shared this one with me:




Where does the word POLITICS come from? Let's break it down...

Poli(y) = many
Tic(k)s = blood sucking creature

There is your lesson for today.
 
I'm not for banning all guns everywhere, but something needs to be done. I have more red tape with my car than owning a gun and the car isn't designed to be a killing machine. Licensing would be a start and before everyone cry's about the 2nd amendment, a licensing requirement isn't going to take away your rights. It just tracks ownership and allows a better background check if you do it right. The hard part is what to check. It's not like shrinks are going to register a person as "dangerous" very often. so there needs to be some kind of reporting method to say that someone just shouldn't own a gun. Most likely it will lead to the gun nuts not going to a shrink, but it's not like they were lining up at the door to diagnose their crazy in the first place.
 
Miami columnist Carl Hiaasen described The Donald's hair as "...hair plugs taken from an orangutan's armpit." I got a laugh out of that.
 
dvdneal said:
I'm not for banning all guns everywhere, but something needs to be done. I have more red tape with my car than owning a gun and the car isn't designed to be a killing machine. Licensing would be a start and before everyone cry's about the 2nd amendment, a licensing requirement isn't going to take away your rights. It just tracks ownership and allows a better background check if you do it right. The hard part is what to check. It's not like shrinks are going to register a person as "dangerous" very often. so there needs to be some kind of reporting method to say that someone just shouldn't own a gun. Most likely it will lead to the gun nuts not going to a shrink, but it's not like they were lining up at the door to diagnose their crazy in the first place.
Click to expand...

See, I think this is reasonable, but as part of that training, there needs to be some education on how to store your firearms. Almost all my guns have trigger locks and are in a gun safe. I have a handgun in a bio-metric nanovult that is bolted to the bed frame. If we can prevent the wrong people from stealing our guns and the wrong people from buying guns, then then anti-gun people would have nothing to whine about. With background checks and licencing, I don't think it will cause too much issue with those who own guns legally as long as it is properly structured with a predefined checklist of requirements, predefined timelines, and a fair appeal process.

On a side note, Trump wants to ban assault rifles. My guess is he does not even understand what a real assault rifles is (fully automatic, central feed magazine).
 
Yes...something has to change!

michaelskis said:
See, I think this is reasonable, but as part of that training, there needs to be some education on how to store your firearms. Almost all my guns have trigger locks and are in a gun safe. I have a handgun in a bio-metric nanovult that is bolted to the bed frame. If we can prevent the wrong people from stealing our guns and the wrong people from buying guns, then then anti-gun people would have nothing to whine about. With background checks and licencing, I don't think it will cause too much issue with those who own guns legally as long as it is properly structured with a predefined checklist of requirements, predefined timelines, and a fair appeal process.

On a side note, Trump wants to ban assault rifles. My guess is he does not even understand what a real assault rifles is (fully automatic, central feed magazine).
Click to expand...

DVDNEAL is right on the money with the car comment......

The State wouldn't give me my tags without a smog test. I told them my vehicle will fail because the check engine light is on (not because it will fail the smog check itself), so just give me the permit so I can get it fixed. The State required that I obtain the smog test, ($58) even though we all know it will fail because of the light being on (may not even be an emissions problem). The State required that I pay the FULL registration cost and charged me an additional $50 for a "PERMIT" that will allow me to continue driving for 60 days while I make the repairs. Had I not done this, a cop would impound my vehicle for any traffic violation. The repairs cost $950. Oh and I have to show proof of insurance.

The kicker? The State makes me drive around with a BIG red sign in my front window alerting law enforcement that my vehicle is using a permit until repaired. MY SCARLET LETTER.

So why can't a gun owner be held to a standard that requires liability coverage for gun ownership? Also, blind people can't drive cars, but they can buy guns.
 
The One said:
DVDNEAL is right on the money with the car comment......

The State wouldn't give me my tags without a smog test. I told them my vehicle will fail because the check engine light is on (not because it will fail the smog check itself), so just give me the permit so I can get it fixed. The State required that I obtain the smog test, ($58) even though we all know it will fail because of the light being on (may not even be an emissions problem). The State required that I pay the FULL registration cost and charged me an additional $50 for a "PERMIT" that will allow me to continue driving for 60 days while I make the repairs. Had I not done this, a cop would impound my vehicle for any traffic violation. The repairs cost $950. Oh and I have to show proof of insurance.

The kicker? The State makes me drive around with a BIG red sign in my front window alerting law enforcement that my vehicle is using a permit until repaired. MY SCARLET LETTER.

So why can't a gun owner be held to a standard that requires liability coverage for gun ownership? Also, blind people can't drive cars, but they can buy guns.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need to shut the damn light off before you take it in.
 
While I agree that there should be a license process for hand gun ownership, the catch is the second amendment. Namely driving a car according to every state that I have ever lived in is a privilege and not a right. Whereas the 2nd amendment has gun ownership as a right. Additionally, that right is broader than personal protection from each other, but protection from a tyrannical government.

Before you say "it won't happen" 10 years ago this week, guns were confiscated in New Orleans by people who were protecting themselves and their houses. The guns that could be found were taken regardless of the 2nd amendment.

The other side of this the realistic aspect of it. When Obama got elected, gu sails went through the roof. The number of concealed permitted did the same. The last hold out states became carry states, and more civilians acquired guns than during any other time in the last 150 years. The shooter in VA was a back, gay, Obama supporter who sent a manifesto to ABC news saying that it was retaliation for the church shootings. Is is no longer a republican v democrat issue. It is an American issue.
 
michaelskis said:
While I agree that there should be a license process for hand gun ownership, the catch is the second amendment. Namely driving a car according to every state that I have ever lived in is a privilege and not a right. Whereas the 2nd amendment has gun ownership as a right. Additionally, that right is broader than personal protection from each other, but protection from a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation. I think the second amendment made it clear that we have a right to protect ourselves within our homes (and own guns which stay there), but not to have them taken anywhere else. That becomes a state's right issue. The idea that you can just own a gun and take it anywhere you want is not anywhere in the 2nd amendment. Mainly it has been taken by pro-gun people to mean that we have a "right" to do anything with guns. Because the 2nd amendment. Which is just not true.

The idea that you can't create laws that severely regulate the registration, ownership, type, number and transfers of guns is silly. We certainly can. I don't think anyone is really trying to impose these laws on people though. Much of that is just the crazy people being crazy. What is being requested is that much stronger requirements be placed on testing of whether or not you should be able to purchase a gun. (Again if you want to make it yourself and keep it in your house, good for you.) Otherwise, I think it is fair game to create reasonable regulations to assure that people don't horde guns, are of sound mind, have proper training (at least X number of hours a year, etc.), and legally hold permits to assure the guns are in proper order and tracked. This makes the people holding the gun permits people who are not under a mental health hold, are able to take training to assure they are able to use the weapon appropriately, and don't have felonies or other criminal activities against them.

If you have a gun without a permit, you lose the gun, pay a fine, and can't own a gun for X number of years. Just like a car and driving. Do it the right way, and you will never have a problem. Do it the wrong way, and you will never have the "right" to do anything.
 
My problem with the 2nd amendment, and I know I've been overruled by the court (but we all know I'm smarter than they are) is that we forget that first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and only focus on the part after the comma "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When I read this I thin two things:
1. The idea is so that we can form a militia against bad government. Today it's called the National Guard. Besides, it's not like you can out gun the military.
2. Some limits were probably implied in that statement

Go ahead and start arguing...
 
Hink said:
That is your interpretation. I think the second amendment made it clear that we have a right to protect ourselves within our homes (and own guns which stay there), but not to have them taken anywhere else. That becomes a state's right issue. The idea that you can just own a gun and take it anywhere you want is not anywhere in the 2nd amendment. Mainly it has been taken by pro-gun people to mean that we have a "right" to do anything with guns. Because the 2nd amendment. Which is just not true.
Click to expand...

It is my interpretation as well as 65% of the US. (LINK)

As for the text of the second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Tyrannical government does not allow for a free state, and the right "shall not be infringed". Furthermore, unlike Jefferson's wording in a draft version of the VA Constution which originally said:
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)" his cosigners did not want to limit that freedom at the boundaries of their own properties as the threat was not limited to their own lands or tenements but anywhere.

Furthermore, Federalist Paper 46 and Federalist Paper 29 both provide clarification of the 2nd amendment and support the idea that it is protection from a tyrannical government as well as personal protection.

This concept is not as far fetched as some anti-gun believers preach being that the founders had just experienced this first and in their quest for freedom from the rule of the British. Mores so their armies were far from well regulated in the context of they were farmers, shop keepers, and land owners. Furthermore the meaning of Militia in 1776 was different than what you or I know it as today. At that time is was a collection of armed persons who would be willing to take up the fight. Being that it was a collection, for it to be effective, they would have to leave their own lands to protect the rights of others as well.
 
since we're talking about guns

I went to an AT&T store yesterday to look at switching phones. It was a nice Sunday afternoon here in NC.

While waiting I saw a mid-20s couple talking with a service person. The guy wore hiker boots, baggy cargo shorts, a camo t-shirt with a confederate battle flag patch, a well-worn ballcap with a Skoal logo on the front, hadn't shaved in a week. On his hip was a holstered .44 pistol. When he was just standing listening to the service rep, his right hand laid on top of the grip.

Let's just say I was uncomfortable.
 
Planit said:
I went to an AT&T store yesterday to look at switching phones. It was a nice Sunday afternoon here in NC.

While waiting I saw a mid-20s couple talking with a service person. The guy wore hiker boots, baggy cargo shorts, a camo t-shirt with a confederate battle flag patch, a well-worn ballcap with a Skoal logo on the front, hadn't shaved in a week. On his hip was a holstered .44 pistol. When he was just standing listening to the service rep, his right hand laid on top of the grip.

Let's just say I was uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Verizon sales people make me feel uncomfortable too.


I do find it interesting that a person's appearance made you uncomfortable. It just goes to show that it is difficult to view people for who they are and not their appearance. If it was a black guy in a hoodie and flat brimmed ball cap with baggy pants, would you have been nervous?

I am also impressed that you were able to distinguish the caliber by looking at the grip.


(Having said that, this is the reason that I don't open carry. People do get nervous.)
 
michaelskis said:
I do find it interesting that a person's appearance made you uncomfortable. It just goes to show that it is difficult to view people for who they are and not their appearance. If it was a black guy in a hoodie and flat brimmed ball cap with baggy pants, would you have been nervous?

I am also impressed that you were able to distinguish the caliber by looking at the grip.


(Having said that, this is the reason that I don't open carry. People do get nervous.)
Click to expand...

I imagine much more of Plannit's discomfort stemmed from the guy resting his hand on the handgun's grip.

FWIW, if this was a Marine Corps base, the guy was in uniform and not an MP, happen to have a pistol for some reason, and was resting his hand on the grip while it was holstered, he'd be likely to get punched in the face.
 
michaelskis said:
It is my interpretation as well as 65% of the US. (LINK)

As for the text of the second amendment:


Tyrannical government does not allow for a free state, and the right "shall not be infringed". Furthermore, unlike Jefferson's wording in a draft version of the VA Constution which originally said:
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)" his cosigners did not want to limit that freedom at the boundaries of their own properties as the threat was not limited to their own lands or tenements but anywhere.

Furthermore, Federalist Paper 46 and Federalist Paper 29 both provide clarification of the 2nd amendment and support the idea that it is protection from a tyrannical government as well as personal protection.

This concept is not as far fetched as some anti-gun believers preach being that the founders had just experienced this first and in their quest for freedom from the rule of the British. Mores so their armies were far from well regulated in the context of they were farmers, shop keepers, and land owners. Furthermore the meaning of Militia in 1776 was different than what you or I know it as today. At that time is was a collection of armed persons who would be willing to take up the fight. Being that it was a collection, for it to be effective, they would have to leave their own lands to protect the rights of others as well.
Click to expand...

No one ever said that you need an AR-15 or 72 guns to protect yourself from tyranny. The idea that by having these guns regulated that people aren't free to protect themselves from the ultimate tyranny that is coming.... :r:, is silly at best, and a false premise at worst.

You do realize the study you referenced just says that people think the 2nd amendment protects them from tyranny. It says nothing about whether people support gun regulation. I support protecting myself from tyranny. The idea is beyond unreasonable and a complete waste of money / time to think about, since tyranny in the United State in 2015 is pretty unthinkable, but I guess if we go down that road in some alternative universe, we need to assure we have guns to stop it :r: I think it is pretty silly to think my gun would stop the tyranny that our government could put on people though. Guns will lose every time to drones. The government has drones. What does Jefferson say about protecting me from drones? Oh he never even contemplated drones you say? That's odd, because we MUST assume everything the framer's thought makes sense today.

They had no clue what gun control would be, why we need it today, and what owning a gun means in today's society compared to the turn of the 19th century. The idea that we need to protect what Jefferson meant is downright pointless. He knew a world that was maybe a bit different from today. Just maybe. Now let me get my drone and wiretap these new fandangled cell phones, which our constitution clearly allows. Just ask Jefferson.... :not:

Support for gun control isn’t dead, new poll shows. It just matters how you frame the question
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/

For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent.
Click to expand...

68% Think U.S. Needs Stricter Enforcement of Existing Gun Laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...eds_stricter_enforcement_of_existing_gun_laws
 
michaelskis said:
Verizon sales people make me feel uncomfortable too.


I do find it interesting that a person's appearance made you uncomfortable. It just goes to show that it is difficult to view people for who they are and not their appearance. If it was a black guy in a hoodie and flat brimmed ball cap with baggy pants, would you have been nervous?

I am also impressed that you were able to distinguish the caliber by looking at the grip.


(Having said that, this is the reason that I don't open carry. People do get nervous.)
Click to expand...

WSU MUP Student said:
I imagine much more of Plannit's discomfort stemmed from the guy resting his hand on the handgun's grip.

FWIW, if this was a Marine Corps base, the guy was in uniform and not an MP, happen to have a pistol for some reason, and was resting his hand on the grip while it was holstered, he'd be likely to get punched in the face.
Click to expand...



It wasn't the fact in the way he was dressed. I live in the south, I see that routinely (you do too now). It was more of the total package. I would have felt the same way had it been a black guy in a hoodie. Or even a 'preppie' or 'hipster'...I mentioned his appearance to give a description of the scene/encounter.

Really do you need to carry that around, out in the open, does it make you feel more like a man, safer?

Also the fact that a little girl was in there and pointed at it to her mom. Her mom whispered something in her ear and walked over to look at something else (distraction tactic).

I don't talk about it, but I've been around guns, rifles, pistols, whatever in my life. Plus working in the public sector for almost 30 years and interacting with police of all ranks has given me a decent firearm education. If it wasn't a .44 I'd been surprised.
 
Hink said:
No one ever said that you need an AR-15 or 72 guns to protect yourself from tyranny. The idea that by having these guns regulated that people aren't free to protect themselves from the ultimate tyranny that is coming.... :r:, is silly at best, and a false premise at worst.

You do realize the study you referenced just says that people think the 2nd amendment protects them from tyranny. It says nothing about whether people support gun regulation. I support protecting myself from tyranny. The idea is beyond unreasonable and a complete waste of money / time to think about, since tyranny in the United State in 2015 is pretty unthinkable, but I guess if we go down that road in some alternative universe, we need to assure we have guns to stop it :r: I think it is pretty silly to think my gun would stop the tyranny that our government could put on people though. Guns will lose every time to drones. The government has drones. What does Jefferson say about protecting me from drones? Oh he never even contemplated drones you say? That's odd, because we MUST assume everything the framer's thought makes sense today.

They had no clue what gun control would be, why we need it today, and what owning a gun means in today's society compared to the turn of the 19th century. The idea that we need to protect what Jefferson meant is downright pointless. He knew a world that was maybe a bit different from today. Just maybe. Now let me get my drone and wiretap these new fandangled cell phones, which our constitution clearly allows. Just ask Jefferson.... :not:

Support for gun control isn't dead, new poll shows. It just matters how you frame the question
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/



68% Think U.S. Needs Stricter Enforcement of Existing Gun Laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...eds_stricter_enforcement_of_existing_gun_laws
Click to expand...

Hey, as I posted before, I support the idea of a licensing requirement for the purchase of handguns. However I also think the media does not help the situation. Kim Kardisian posted on one of her social media sites "OMG, I just bought a gun on line with no background check. We need stricter regulations." However, what she didn't bother mentioning is that unless she has an FFL (which I don't think she does) the gun needs to be shipped to a FFL (licences gun dealer) and being they are in CA, they will do a back ground check before she can leave the store with the gun.

There are many people in the media that post things like things where they don't have enough information.

In regards to the 2nd Amendment, do you seriously think that the founding fathers would put a limit on gun ownership to protect themselves from a tyrannical government given that was what they just had to go through? I do think that you make a great point about the drone situation and I think that banning fully automatic guns, rockets, and remote control weapons (like drones) is reasonable. But an AR-15 is a semiautomatic weapon that operates quite the same as my 308 deer rifle. Biggest difference with the AR plastic and there is less recoil. You can even get an AR that shoots a 308 cartage.

The guns that were used by Continental Army ranged from simple hunting rifle to the latest bayonet mounted musket because that was the level of weapon available at that time. They didn't say you couldn't have a bayonet on your weapon when you know that wasn't for hunting.
 
I think the hard part for the argument, not that we'll change any minds here, is to define and stick to the topic. For me the problem is 253 mass shootings in 2015. Realizing that there are only 365 days makes you wonder how the tally is so high. Granted some of the shootings aren't schools or movie theaters getting 8 or 9 people shot, but that doesn't diminish the number. For me this all leads to a licensing problem since our laws allow gun ownership.

I happen to hold that the militia part was overlooked, but like I said, I was overruled by the court even though I know better. Arguing defense of government tyranny is a bad argument. We have a fairly stable government and the idea was primarily in case of outside forces, military coos, etc. Since these things aren't happening, drop the argument. Plus we have a well regulated militia in the terms of the founding fathers in both our standing army and our state run national guard.

The next argument that needs to go is the idea that there is unfettered access to weapon types like fully automatic and large caliber rounds. I don't think we need anything more than guns for self defense (pistols), hunting, and sport shooting. Fully automatic weapons are not used for defense, hunting, or sport. We can easily argue limiting the type of weapon since we already limit artillery which is nothing more than a larger caliber gun.

If we could get all the gun lovers and haters to focus on just one issue we might actually get somewhere, but if I could do that I'd have me a couple Nobel prizes to brag about.
 
dvdneal said:
I think the hard part for the argument, not that we'll change any minds here, is to define and stick to the topic. For me the problem is 253 mass shootings in 2015. Realizing that there are only 365 days makes you wonder how the tally is so high. Granted some of the shootings aren't schools or movie theaters getting 8 or 9 people shot, but that doesn't diminish the number. For me this all leads to a licensing problem since our laws allow gun ownership.

I happen to hold that the militia part was overlooked, but like I said, I was overruled by the court even though I know better. Arguing defense of government tyranny is a bad argument. We have a fairly stable government and the idea was primarily in case of outside forces, military coos, etc. Since these things aren't happening, drop the argument. Plus we have a well regulated militia in the terms of the founding fathers in both our standing army and our state run national guard.

The next argument that needs to go is the idea that there is unfettered access to weapon types like fully automatic and large caliber rounds. I don't think we need anything more than guns for self defense (pistols), hunting, and sport shooting. Fully automatic weapons are not used for defense, hunting, or sport. We can easily argue limiting the type of weapon since we already limit artillery which is nothing more than a larger caliber gun.

If we could get all the gun lovers and haters to focus on just one issue we might actually get somewhere, but if I could do that I'd have me a couple Nobel prizes to brag about.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all you say.

But..... "military coos"????

pigeon(1).jpg
 
Back
Top