|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42778 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 05:19 KwarK wrote:On December 04 2015 05:17 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 04 2015 05:12 KwarK wrote:
Trying to take guns from the sovereign citizen movement will make them go full Waco. A lot of domestic terroristsconspiracy nuts view the government trying to seize their weapons as the first salvo in the coming war. So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. Tell that to Bundy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bundy.27s_worldviewI agree with the government decision not to massacre all of the crazies who denied the existence of the Federal government and were willing to engage in an armed struggle against it, by the way. I think the paperwork and bullshit involved with the massacre and the subsequent reaction would probably have cost more than the grazing fees. But the precedent is set. Nvm, I just saw you read the wiki too. I had to look up how it was disposed of. Has he paid the fines or what?
No but he threatens to shoot any Federal officers who come on his land so there isn't much they can do short of sending in a SWAT team and they decided it wasn't worth it.
He, and a bunch of crazy armed militia dudes, fought the Federal government for their right to ignore any laws they decided were unconstitutional and won. It was pretty weird.
|
On December 04 2015 05:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 05:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 04 2015 05:19 KwarK wrote:On December 04 2015 05:17 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 04 2015 05:12 KwarK wrote:
Trying to take guns from the sovereign citizen movement will make them go full Waco. A lot of domestic terroristsconspiracy nuts view the government trying to seize their weapons as the first salvo in the coming war. So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. Tell that to Bundy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bundy.27s_worldviewI agree with the government decision not to massacre all of the crazies who denied the existence of the Federal government and were willing to engage in an armed struggle against it, by the way. I think the paperwork and bullshit involved with the massacre and the subsequent reaction would probably have cost more than the grazing fees. But the precedent is set. Nvm, I just saw you read the wiki too. I had to look up how it was disposed of. Has he paid the fines or what? No but he threatens to shoot any Federal officers who come on his land so there isn't much they can do short of sending in a SWAT team and they decided it wasn't worth it. He, and a bunch of crazy armed militia dudes, fought the Federal government for their right to ignore any laws they decided were unconstitutional while remaining in the middle of fucking nowhere and won. It was pretty weird.
I added an important caveat in your quote; the moment those dudes go anywhere or do anything involving the feds, that right is gonna go poof.
|
On December 04 2015 05:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 05:19 KwarK wrote:On December 04 2015 05:17 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 04 2015 05:12 KwarK wrote:
Trying to take guns from the sovereign citizen movement will make them go full Waco. A lot of domestic terroristsconspiracy nuts view the government trying to seize their weapons as the first salvo in the coming war. So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. Tell that to Bundy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bundy.27s_worldviewI agree with the government decision not to massacre all of the crazies who denied the existence of the Federal government and were willing to engage in an armed struggle against it, by the way. I think the paperwork and bullshit involved with the massacre and the subsequent reaction would probably have cost more than the grazing fees. But the precedent is set. Nvm, I just saw you read the wiki too. I had to look up how it was disposed of. Has he paid the fines or what?
I think the government just dropped it because its too much hassle. this isn't new to Bundy though. there's some guy who's had an outstanding warrant on himself for like 20 years and the cops haven't arrested him becuase he basically barricaded his property and threatened to shoot anyone who tried to enter.
|
The government dropped it because despite what the crazies say we don't actually live under an oppressive 1984esque regime. I wonder how long the crazies can go "they are coming for our guns because they want to rule us" before people start to wonder when that day will happen. Especially considering the people in power have nicely set up a system in a Brave New World like way where people in the US just are mostly content to complain on the internet then get back to messing with their devices. There is no need to go 1984 style when this is working for them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'll be chilling over here in my fema detention camp cell
|
On December 03 2015 11:10 Slaughter wrote:
One thing I wonder about is where do all the illegal guns come from? Are they like stolen from US manufacturers? Corrupt people in places where they can sell them in a black market? Imported from outside the US? I think it might be best to hit on some of the more root causes of this stuff. Hit it from the angle of mental health and other *why* reasons people do this, make legal gun ownership have a system where there are effective checks and no loopholes, and 3 curb the illegal guns that apparently are easy as pie to get by criminals.
If you drastically reduce illegal guns and make the process of getting a legal gun more lengthy, perhaps also more expensive, then you can overall reduce the number of guns while leaving the people who are dedicated enough (IE hunters and gun club people) to be able to obtain them. The US just needs to calm its tits about gun ownership and by attacking the problem from multiple angles will help with a cultural shift where people will be less and less "into" guns. Think like what they are doing with smoking, trying to slowly phase it out instead of fast and large scale changes.
I didn't see anyone respond to this by the next page, so I will.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
tldr: there's a strong black market everywhere that gets the guns from a variety of sources (corrupt gun dealers mostly, some also stolen, probably a few traded) black/grey market are common. borrowing guns from family/friends is also common. Nearly all were originally manufactured in the US.
|
There are 180,000 background checks for fire arms on Black Friday. As cited previously in the thread, the government is prohibited from even researching gun related violence. The CDC, who performs all research on health dangers, including domestic violence and drunk driving, cannot research guns violence because the gun lobby doesn’t want it.
http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/261802-gop-lawmaker-who-banned-gun-control-research-has-regrets
So the government will never know how many of the 180,000 back ground checks ended up being used a stawman purchase for illegal fire arms. And by extension, we will never know. But if that happens to be the case for some of those guns, the NRA believes the best solution is for you to buy a gun.
|
The defense secretary, Ash Carter, will order the US military to open all combat jobs to women, and is giving the armed services until 1 January to submit plans to make the historic change, the Associated Press has learned.
Carter’s announcement is expected later on Thursday.
It rebuffs arguments from the joint chiefs of staff chairman that the marine corps should be allowed to exclude women from certain frontline combat jobs, citing studies showing that mixed-gender units are not as capable as all-male units.
A senior defense official says all the services will have to begin putting plans in place by 1 April.
The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Source
|
On December 04 2015 03:38 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:03 Hier wrote:
Gun popularity in US has nothing to do with their perceived role in crime discouragement, or tyrannical government deterrent. So approaching the issue from that side really beats on a dead horse. The 2nd Amendment is for self defense against the common criminal AND for tyrannical government. Most Americans believe in the 2nd Amendment more than they like guns for the hell of it. The writings of the 2nd Amendment and the writings of the Founding Fathers made it clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
You do realize the founding fathers weren't infallible (in fact, Jefferson was downright wrong on a number of accounts, and is (and Cesare Beccaria) account here is probably another one of them). Furthermore, what might have been a good idea in 1774 is not necessarily a good idea anymore?
Why not at the very least allow data collection that backs up that initial idea, but for some reason congress is blocking funding to money into research into gun usage. That is the most insane thing about all of this. You don't even have the data to back either side's claims up, and refuse to collect it.
|
On December 04 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 03:38 Eskendereya wrote:On December 04 2015 02:03 Hier wrote:
Gun popularity in US has nothing to do with their perceived role in crime discouragement, or tyrannical government deterrent. So approaching the issue from that side really beats on a dead horse. The 2nd Amendment is for self defense against the common criminal AND for tyrannical government. Most Americans believe in the 2nd Amendment more than they like guns for the hell of it. The writings of the 2nd Amendment and the writings of the Founding Fathers made it clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers You do realize the founding fathers weren't infallible (in fact, Jefferson was downright wrong on a number of accounts, and is (and Cesare Beccaria) account here is probably another one of them). Furthermore, what might have been a good idea in 1774 is not necessarily a good idea anymore? Why not at the very least allow data collection that backs up that initial idea, but for some reason congress is blocking funding to money into research into gun usage. That is the most insane thing about all of this. You don't even have the data to back either side's claims up, and refuse to collect it.
its the same with police shootings. Why is there no collection of data on that? Almost (if not all) other western nations do it but the US doesn't seem to care how many people the police shoot every year (justified or not)
|
On December 04 2015 06:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:On December 04 2015 03:38 Eskendereya wrote:On December 04 2015 02:03 Hier wrote:
Gun popularity in US has nothing to do with their perceived role in crime discouragement, or tyrannical government deterrent. So approaching the issue from that side really beats on a dead horse. The 2nd Amendment is for self defense against the common criminal AND for tyrannical government. Most Americans believe in the 2nd Amendment more than they like guns for the hell of it. The writings of the 2nd Amendment and the writings of the Founding Fathers made it clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers You do realize the founding fathers weren't infallible (in fact, Jefferson was downright wrong on a number of accounts, and is (and Cesare Beccaria) account here is probably another one of them). Furthermore, what might have been a good idea in 1774 is not necessarily a good idea anymore? Why not at the very least allow data collection that backs up that initial idea, but for some reason congress is blocking funding to money into research into gun usage. That is the most insane thing about all of this. You don't even have the data to back either side's claims up, and refuse to collect it. its the same with police shootings. Why is there no collection of data on that? Almost (if not all) other western nations do it but the US doesn't seem to care how many people the police shoot every year (justified or not)
Because then we might be able to find out some of the root causes of violence in this country. And the major concern of the parties blocking it, is that there is a chance the cause could be police corruption and prolific gun sales with ineffective background checks.
|
There may be a presidential election raging in 2016, but new House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans to keep Congress busy, and the first order of business will be replacing Obamacare.
"Next year, we are going to unveil a plan to replace every word of Obamacare," Ryan is expected to say in an address at the Library of Congress Thursday.
"Even if [the President] won’t sign them into law, we will put out specific proposals and give the people a real choice," Ryan will say. "And I don’t mean just undo what the president has done—as if we could time-travel back to 2009. I mean show what we would do, what our ideal policy would be—looking forward to 2017 and beyond."
Ryan–who has long carried the reputation in the House as the party's ideas man– suggested Thursday that Republicans need to stop simply rolling back Obama's proposals and come up with creative ideas of their own.
In addition to healthcare, Ryan plans to simply the tax code next year and go after some of the government's most highly-guarded loopholes.
"Look, I know people like many of these loopholes, and they have their reasons. But there are so many of them that now the tax code is like a to-do list—Washington’s to-do list. But Washington has no business micromanaging people’s lives—pure and simple," Ryan is expected to say. "I also know many of these loopholes will be fiercely defended. All I can say is we will not be cowed. We are not here to smooth things over. We are here to shake things up."
He also will tackle welfare reform, which he says needs major changes.
Source
|
"Even if [the President] won’t sign them into law, we will put out specific proposals and give the people a real choice," Ryan will say. "And I don’t mean just undo what the president has done—as if we could time-travel back to 2009. I mean show what we would do, what our ideal policy would be—looking forward to 2017 and beyond."
Ryan–who has long carried the reputation in the House as the party's ideas man– suggested Thursday that Republicans need to stop simply rolling back Obama's proposals and come up with creative ideas of their own.
Color me pleasantly surprised. I'll keep my expectations low, but I'm actually a bit curious to see what kinds of proposals these are.
Even if I don't end up agreeing, I'd much prefer an idea I disagree with over a substance-less "this is crap it needs to be different".
|
On December 04 2015 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +There may be a presidential election raging in 2016, but new House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans to keep Congress busy, and the first order of business will be replacing Obamacare.
"Next year, we are going to unveil a plan to replace every word of Obamacare," Ryan is expected to say in an address at the Library of Congress Thursday.
"Even if [the President] won’t sign them into law, we will put out specific proposals and give the people a real choice," Ryan will say. "And I don’t mean just undo what the president has done—as if we could time-travel back to 2009. I mean show what we would do, what our ideal policy would be—looking forward to 2017 and beyond."
Ryan–who has long carried the reputation in the House as the party's ideas man– suggested Thursday that Republicans need to stop simply rolling back Obama's proposals and come up with creative ideas of their own.
In addition to healthcare, Ryan plans to simply the tax code next year and go after some of the government's most highly-guarded loopholes.
"Look, I know people like many of these loopholes, and they have their reasons. But there are so many of them that now the tax code is like a to-do list—Washington’s to-do list. But Washington has no business micromanaging people’s lives—pure and simple," Ryan is expected to say. "I also know many of these loopholes will be fiercely defended. All I can say is we will not be cowed. We are not here to smooth things over. We are here to shake things up."
He also will tackle welfare reform, which he says needs major changes. Source
I'll believe it when I see it. Given that congress can't even agree on how to tie their shoelaces, I don't think any of this will be happening anytime soon. Let alone when half of the seats are up for reelection.
|
On December 04 2015 07:04 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +"Even if [the President] won’t sign them into law, we will put out specific proposals and give the people a real choice," Ryan will say. "And I don’t mean just undo what the president has done—as if we could time-travel back to 2009. I mean show what we would do, what our ideal policy would be—looking forward to 2017 and beyond."
Ryan–who has long carried the reputation in the House as the party's ideas man– suggested Thursday that Republicans need to stop simply rolling back Obama's proposals and come up with creative ideas of their own. Color me pleasantly surprised. I'll keep my expectations low, but I'm actually a bit curious to see what kinds of proposals these are. Even if I don't end up agreeing, I'd much prefer an idea I disagree with over a substance-less "this is crap it needs to be different".
Indeed, the first step if you disagree with an idea is to come up with a better one. So far the Republicans have failed there but I'll be interested in what they bring forth.
|
United States42778 Posts
The to-do list aspects of the tax code are not the same as loopholes. Tax breaks for going back to school are not to tell people to go back to school but to encourage them to invest in themselves. It's a net positive to the treasury, people get educated, they produce more valuable labour, society as a whole prospers by an amount that more than offsets the tax lost. Likewise poor people save for retirement, they get tax breaks, that money compounds over time and the burden on the treasury for those people in retirement is reduced.
These are not the same as tax loopholes, this is the government paying you to invest in yourself with your own money. It's a very profitable activity for the government and for the recipient. There are tax loopholes but the prescriptive elements of the tax code people see in their day to day lives are not tax loopholes. Nor are they prescriptive, they are optional incentives to reward behaviour which is positive to both you and society.
|
I am all for whatever Ryan proposes if it actually is better. Hell if revisions are good Obama will probably sign them (he already has signed several changes to the law). Instead of framing it the way he has (antagonistic) why not approach it from the angle that "yea we don't like the law as is but it is the law so lets propose improvements". That way they have a shot at getting things done.
|
I am 100% sure Ryan could find a section of democrats to work on refining the ACA and fixing some of its issues. We could get back to the era where Republicans and Democrats did things in the House and then bitched about the Senate's changes. It was a way more functional Government.
|
On December 04 2015 07:25 Slaughter wrote:
I am all for whatever Ryan proposes if it actually is better. Hell if revisions are good Obama will probably sign them (he already has signed several changes to the law). Instead of framing it the way he has (antagonistic) why not approach it from the angle that "yea we don't like the law as is but it is the law so lets propose improvements". That way they have a shot at getting things done.
Because you cant just change your narrative 180 degrees. You have to take it in little steps.
|
Unless Ryan has done a complete 180 from his ideal healthcare plan from 2012 (which might be possible) it's unlikely it'll be anything more than boilerplate Republican Medicare privatization/voucher rhetoric regurgitated with a shiny new coat.
We'll see, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
