Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not believe the SCTUS has held up their end of the deal lately -
given the recent twisting of vulgar language to meet a political end goal...
With all due respect, this comment sure strikes me as some hard core stubbornness, or maybe I misunderstand...
We have all the debate as to whether a law is constitutional or not, sound off as we will as if we really know one way or another while those involved in the legislative process get all their lawyers on both sides to do the same thing, only from a bit better informed point of view. Then..., all the vetting goes on until finally there is legislation that seems to pass constitutional muster. Nevertheless, there will be the tests along the way by those who just don't seem to agree. Up and down our court system, until ultimately, every great once in a while, there seems to be a Constitutional challenge that the SCOTUS determines worthy to consider. Then our Supreme Court Justices decide.
Are we supposed to never mind all that, because we don't seem to agree with any particular final outcome after all that?
If so, then you are essentially arguing not to respect the rule of law and as such, I really don't know what to do with your point of view other than to dismiss it...
"Well, when "universal background checks" are proposed as a policy solution after some wing nut goes out and shoots up a school with the gun he bought AFTER PASSING A BACKGROUND CHECK, I think it's a fair assessment to say that passing universal background checks in an effort to thwart gun violence, as it relates to mass shootings, is futile."
Nothing but wasting time here, obviously, but I can't help but try and correct some of this "futility" mentality...
I am sure at least most people who read these threads can remember when it seemed like airplane hijackings was becoming common place, then it was air plane crashes. There for a good long while it seemed assassinations had this country hostage, going back to JFK and the too many that followed. In each case, there have been ongoing ever-improved efforts to curtail these sad events from happening again. Impossible to stop entirely, yes perhaps, but the efforts to "stem the tied" have well paid off.
We cannot know how many times the process of a thorough background check just might stop some nut ball from going through with his nut ball violence, and just because a preventive measure is not full-proof does not mean it is not good policy in general.
I would argue, again, that if I am a gun enthusiast, and I am allowed to do my gun thing without any significant imposition, why in the Hell should I object to the background check requirement? If that helps gun-control advocates to feel safer, regardless how long we can argue the effectiveness, why the Hell not?
There is no good or strong reason to object. None whatsoever...
"I can't prove that it would do a damn thing" is not a good reason for a new law. If there is a problem, address the problem. Adam Lanza was turned down for a gun. Did it stop him?
I want the obvious problem addressed. What is wrong with that?
But that's just it, nothing And D said in his last few posts was reasonable or articulate. He's basically made the argument that we shouldn't question the effectiveness of laws, we shouldn't question anything judges in the courts have to say, we should pass laws blindly, even those where it isn't clear how they will work, basically that we should just write a blank check, hope everything works out well, and just trust those in government will take care of us....
Normally I would agree with you about the childish name calling, but in this instance, I think the term "sheep" was apropos...
No wonder you think as you do. There is a serious reading comprehension problem here (to be polite)...
As I have asked countless times before, if you are going to quote me or anyone else for that matter, quote verbatim. These misrepresentations of my words and/or point of view are shameless!
We should question the effectiveness of laws, I never said we shouldn't. What I tried to explain is that we should not ASSUME they are not effective or not give them a chance just because we are not likely to be altogether that certain of their effectiveness. My point is that if the law offers what to gain and little to lose, we owe it to give the gun-control advocates their shot (pun intended) at whatever measures they think might help.
Also as I have explained too many times already, when the first part of an argument, especially these straw man arguments are so bad, I have no patience to consider the rest of the hogwash that follows...
The other two co-equal branches of government be damned.....
You know, even if you think that we need more gun control, we should all be concerned when a president sets the precedent that when he/she is upset that the other two branches of government won't do something, they just take it upon themselves to do it anyway....
this is a HUGE issue currently, from my perspective
"I can't prove that it would do a damn thing" is not a good reason for a new law. If there is a problem, address the problem. Adam Lanza was turned down for a gun. Did it stop him?
I want the obvious problem addressed. What is wrong with that?
What is wrong is that for the most part strong NRA types will stand in the way of gun control measures in every way possible, even when their ownership and use of guns is for the most part not affected, regardless the effectiveness, regardless the constitutional soundness. The objections are suspect, because there is the obvious agenda to make sure nothing gets done to impede gun sales whether to good guys or bad.
Again, why stand in the way of a gun control initiative, even if there is debate as to effectiveness, if gun enthusiasts can still do all they want in the way of owning and using guns while gun control advocates are made to feel safer?
Without getting too much more complicated, this seems like the only way to go that allows some headway toward reasonable compromise at no expense to gun enthusiasts.
Does not take too much common sense or reasonableness to see there is far more upside than downside when it comes to that compromise, except of course for gun manufacturers who want no part of any measure that might impede sales.
this is a HUGE issue currently, from my perspective
Here again, we might think we know better what our founding fathers crafted that would insure this tension of power between the branches of our government, for better or worse, but I just get a kick out of all the people who seem to think that just because THEY think Obama has overstepped his constitutional rights as POTUS, so it must be. Wrong.
Who doesn't know that these opinions are really nothing more than emotional whinings against political agendas not their own, but aside from all that..., is anyone under the impression these sorts of charges are anything new?
We only now have waken to the possibility a SCOTUS might test these boundaries.
Please... Please... ANYTIME you want to debate ConLaw with regard to the hypocrisy of the judicial system, the now 6-7 different circuit splits regarding right to carry that the SCOTUS refuses to take up, and the facts surrounding the gun debate that magically never appears on media outlets you just let me know. But don't you or anyone else dare say that people should talk and debate over the issues.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this? I am only aware of one split, out of the 7th circuit, and it isn't even a true split....
Are we supposed to never mind all that, because we don't seem to agree with any particular final outcome after all that?
If so, then you are essentially arguing not to respect the rule of law and as such, I really don't know what to do with your point of view other than to dismiss it...
no, we are not to fly flagrantly in the face of our jurisprudence, however, it is to be noted that the SCOTUS is not infalliable, and decisions that are incongruent with established tradition and social norms are more than possible.
the protection of our liberty should not rest on their shoulders alone. they also benefit from healthy discourse and discussion - even when they are not directly involved in the talks
We should question the effectiveness of laws, I never said we shouldn't. What I tried to explain is that we should not ASSUME they are not effective or not give them a chance just because we are not likely to be altogether that certain of their effectiveness. My point is that if the law offers what to gain and little to lose, we owe it to give the gun-control advocates their shot (pun intended) at whatever measures they think might help.
to me, the only way to 'test' this sort of thing out would be, paraphrasing Pelosi,
pass the law, then find out what it does...
to me, that is not the best way to govern.
we have laws on the books that predate automobiles, and are obsolete in our era -
what is the likelyhood that if the gun control laws passed - then deemed to be ineffective, that they would be repealed?
What is wrong is that for the most part strong NRA types will stand in the way of gun control measures in every way possible, even when their ownership and use of guns is for the most part not affected, regardless the effectiveness, regardless the constitutional soundness. The objections are suspect, because there is the obvious agenda to make sure nothing gets done to impede gun sales whether to good guys or bad.
When you resort to falsehoods you expose your true self. The NRA or "NRA types" is not against restrictions on the mentally ill.
Some want to know the specifics but has anyone complained that Lanza was turned down? Again, did it stop him?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have really GOT to be kidding!
