gun show loophole rant

Quote: s2dbaker

You never tire of being wrong, do you?

It's nice of you to make room for him.

Quote: EvenBob

Its not a cultural issue at all. Its a political issue. The Left
is hell bent of producing a nanny state where everybody
is nurtured and protected by the gov't, and changing
the Constitution and taking away our guns is a big part
of their agenda.

The Right wants small gov't and let the Constitution stand
as it is.

Change the Constitution? Heck some of the far-left have called to just get rid of it. We laugh at it now, but in 10-15 years you can see a POTUS saying his "opinion of the Constitution is evolving" and who knows? So many things we laugh off keep getting repeated until the younger generation thinks they are normal.

Quote: EvenBob

Its not a cultural issue at all.

It's both political and cultural. The culture of the US has had the right to bear arms, due to the history. It's part of the US, that makes it different from other Western countries. The change is driven by politics, but the start point is part of the history and culture of the US. Few other liberal (*) democracies have such a far reaching, powerful political debate on gun control. Not least, because few other countries have such an enshrined right to bear arms, which comes from the constitution, and the founding of the country.

(*) Look up what liberal democracy means before you react to the use of the word liberal here. The republican party is a classical liberal party. Bob's definition of what the Right want it classical liberalism, though in terms of reaction to modern (Democratic) liberalism.

Political theory uses the word liberal in a very different way to the US politics :)

Quote: AZDuffman

Change the Constitution? Heck some of the far-left have called to just get rid of it. We laugh at it now, but in 10-15 years you can see a POTUS saying his "opinion of the Constitution is evolving" and who knows? So many things we laugh off keep getting repeated until the younger generation thinks they are normal.

Some of the far-right would like to see it changed radically as well. Both sides would be foolish, as it would then no longer be the United States of America, it'd be some other entity that controlled the same geography.

Quote: thecesspit

Some of the far-right would like to see it changed radically as well.

Changing it through a constitutional amendment is one thing. Changing it by appointing justices who ignore the parts of the Constitution that they don't like is another.

Quote: thecesspit

Some of the far-right would like to see it changed radically as well. Both sides would be foolish, as it would then no longer be the United States of America, it'd be some other entity that controlled the same geography.

Who on the so-called far right have called for radical changes and what changes are they? Has someone on the so-called far right called for eliminating it as that professor that recently made the news? Of have they said it needs "affirmative rights" as Obama has said?

Quote: AZDuffman

Who on the so-called far right have called for radical changes and what changes are they? Has someone on the so-called far right called for eliminating it as that professor that recently made the news? Of have they said it needs "affirmative rights" as Obama has said?

Not talking about a 'so-called' far right. But the actual far right. You know, the white separatist communities, for one group. I won't dig up references while at work. Unless you were talking about a 'so-called' far left?

Quote: thecesspit

Not talking about a 'so-called' far right. But the actual far right. You know, the white separatist communities, for one group.

AZ specifically asked what "radical changes" you were referring to, but there has been no answer thus far. (I had thought you were referring to a Human Life Amendment or a Federal Marriage Amendment, but apparently I was wrong)

Quote: Beethoven9th

AZ specifically asked what "radical changes" you were referring to, but there has been no answer thus far. (I had thought you were referring to a Human Life Amendment or a Federal Marriage Amendment, but apparently I was wrong)

Did you not read what I wrote? Happy to give references to far-right wishes to radically change the constitution, but I am not going to start digging through that dirt while at work.

I think it's a bit poor to use 'no answer so far' less than an hour after I gave a reply, and less than 4-5 hours after the question was posed, especially seeing as I wasn't going off at a tangent or avoiding the question.

Quote: thecesspit

Not talking about a 'so-called' far right. But the actual far right. You know, the white separatist communities, for one group. I won't dig up references while at work. Unless you were talking about a 'so-called' far left?

No, I mean an actual far left and I gave two examples. As to white supremecists I am not sure why you call them far right unless say you consider the late sen Byrd (D-WV) far right.

I don't get your thing about white separatist community being a right wing thing. I personally have never heard of a white separatist community but I am assuming it is a group of people who wish to live among their own race. How is this different than any city in America? Go into any city whether it be Chicago, NYC, LA, Boston, Philly and you will have your neighborhoods that are largely African-American, ones that are largely Italian, ones that are largely Irish, ones that are largely Hispanic etc.

Quote: thecesspit

Did you not read what I wrote? Happy to give references to far-right wishes to radically change the constitution, but I am not going to start digging through that dirt while at work.

I think it's a bit poor to use 'no answer so far' less than an hour after I gave a reply, and less than 4-5 hours after the question was posed, especially seeing as I wasn't going off at a tangent or avoiding the question.

Yes, I read what you wrote. I just think that you didn't answer AZ's question because you can't back up your initial statement.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, I mean an actual far left and I gave two examples. As to white supremecists I am not sure why you call them far right unless say you consider the late sen Byrd (D-WV) far right.

sen Byrd shit has been room temp for awhile.....the whole state of West Virginia is named after the pile of Byrd-shit

Quote: Beethoven9th

Yes, I read what you wrote. I just think that you didn't answer AZ's question because you can't back up your initial statement.

Well, I take back what I wrote, as can't find a far-right white supremacist group saying that I recall them saying. So you are right, I can't back it up.

Mea Culpa.

There is far more on the -far-left- who believe the constitution gets in the way. I've already stated I think those people are rather stupid.

As for the constitutional law professors statements, read them, and think its a series of statements of fail. He kinda of proves his own point though, that constitutional lawyers will use the constitution to bend and twist it to mean what they want it to mean, not what it actually means.

And the far-right... white separatist and racial supremacist movements tend to fall to the far right, wishing to impose a strict social hierarchy and control on groups of people. I don't consider the Republican's to be a far-right organization. I don't know much about Democrat Byrd, but the old Southern Democrats were had many elements of being on the right socially (towards the extremes), even if not economically. Wearing glasses that divide it into a R vs D debate all the time doesn't show the picture of at least the history of the US.

I'd now say, having done some reading, the far-right extreme groups use the constitution as flag to rally around (making some interesting readings of the constitution) and some want to update parts (rather than remove the whole lots), often back to a pre-1860's level. That hardly makes the US Constitution a bad document, as all sorts use various items for good and bad.

I did initially say white separatists (there are movements of that kind in Washington State, when I last looked). I meant white supremacists (similar but different). There are not only -white- supremacist groups (and not only -white- separatists). I personally think groups that say someone is inferior due to race are not very pleasant.

Hohum.

Cliff Notes : I was wrong.

Quote: thecesspit

Well, I take back what I wrote, as can't find a far-right white supremacist group saying that I recall them saying. So you are right, I can't back it up.

Thank you for the direct Mea Culpa. Not often we see that here or anywhere else.

Quote:

As for the constitutional law professors statements, read them, and think its a series of statements of fail. He kinda of proves his own point though, that constitutional lawyers will use the constitution to bend and twist it to mean what they want it to mean, not what it actually means.

This is true of any document. The problem arises when people want to interpret it by what it means today vs what it was meant to mean. i.e.: it is a "contract" and not a "living, breathing document." When you write a contract you do not change the terms because the popular meaning of the word changed, you are bound to what was implied.

Here is an example (and let's not hijack this to anything else, this is just perhaps the best known example.)

Say a schoolchild sees the lyrics to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" and interprets "gay" in it's current form. I won't even type how it would be taken today. But is that what the meaning was? A quick Wikipedia check shows said lyric has sometimes been modified to say "and we'll all raise hell!" But you cannot simply change the Constitution.

Quote:

And the far-right... white separatist and racial supremacist movements tend to fall to the far right, wishing to impose a strict social hierarchy and control on groups of people.

Hardly a measure of right v left. Lefties want at least as strict a social order on people. Witness the requirement to pay for birth control for your employees and prohibition of a business license for Chick-Fil-A in Chicago based on the owner's social beliefs last year.

Quote:

I did initially say white separatists (there are movements of that kind in Washington State, when I last looked). I meant white supremacists (similar but different). There are not only -white- supremacist groups (and not only -white- separatists). I personally think groups that say someone is inferior due to race are not very pleasant.

I have to admit that is an interesting distinction. I will go one further and say the Supremacists prefer a pre-1860 while Separatists prefer a pre-1910 or so outlook. The later is really not based on race at all, they just tend to attract few minorities. This could be for many reasons, but the simple one to me is separatists tend to live in less dense areas and minorities tend to live in more urban ones. Secondarily, most whites don't think of themselves as some kind of "group" while minorities are more prone to do so.

But that distinction should be noted more by what passes for the media in the USA.

Quote: thecesspit

Well, I take back what I wrote, as can't find a far-right white supremacist group saying that I recall them saying. So you are right, I can't back it up.

Mea Culpa.

There is far more on the -far-left- who believe the constitution gets in the way. I've already stated I think those people are rather stupid.

No problem. I do agree that some on the right want to change the Constitution (I mentioned a Human Life Amendment and a Federal Marriage Amendment earlier). The difference between the right and left is that the right wants to change it the correct way--through a constitutional amendment. The left just wants to make stuff up as they go along.

Anyway, I appreciate your post. Take care, friend.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is true of any document. The problem arises when people want to interpret it by what it means today vs what it was meant to mean. i.e.: it is a "contract" and not a "living, breathing document." When you write a contract you do not change the terms because the popular meaning of the word changed, you are bound to what was implied.

I think the very statement that the constitution is a contract would be what some constitutional laywers dispute (and others), saying it's a rule book of laws.

I am not sure who I agree with on that matter. Having it as a social contract, at least initially makes sense to me, especially the items to do with society in which you want to live The Bill of Rights, for one is a series of terms for how the people of the US can expect to live within that country, and defines the culture of your country. You could probably add the 13th, 15th and 19th could be added into a Bill of Rights or Social Contract if you were writing a new one today.

Quote:

Hardly a measure of right v left. Lefties want at least as strict a social order on people. Witness the requirement to pay for birth control for your employees and prohibition of a business license for Chick-Fil-A in Chicago based on the owner's social beliefs last year.

Actually, it is a distinction in one area for right/left.

Remember, I am talking about extremes here, but the extreme right want to impose an hierarchy based on race and social class, and are extreme in their views of what is socially acceptable. The far-left are more about class-war fare and extreme economic control. Both tend to fuzz and merge, and end up in similar places, but Marxist views use the lens of class-war, while the neo-Nazi's use the lens of race-war.

The general tendency is for the mainstream right is to be socially-conservative and economically-free market; the mainstream left (or what passes for the left in the US) tends to be socially-liberal and economically-centralized. These are tendencies... and as we all know you can't plop one person into a exact place on any 1-D or even 2-D graph.

The Canadian Liberals used to be a party of social liberality while economically free market/small government. The UK Liberal Democrats have had sections with a similar view point as well, and probably still do.

I know the Republicans -tend- to be very uncomfortable in the government taking action to reduce inequalities based on race, sex, sexuality, etc. I know the Democrats -tend- to like affirmative action. These tendencies are in sharp relief at the moment (on this on many things). One party talks about reducing government, while the other about the use of government for the betterment of the whole. That to me is the biggest difference between left and right in the US at least - size and interference by the government. Everything else is idealogical window dressing. And sadly the last election didn't resolve anything, and it really does need to be sorted out one way or another for the US to move forward.

Cue: its all -there- fault discussions.

Quote:

I have to admit that is an interesting distinction. I will go one further and say the Supremacists prefer a pre-1860 while Separatists prefer a pre-1910 or so outlook. The later is really not based on race at all, they just tend to attract few minorities. This could be for many reasons, but the simple one to me is separatists tend to live in less dense areas and minorities tend to live in more urban ones. Secondarily, most whites don't think of themselves as some kind of "group" while minorities are more prone to do so.

But that distinction should be noted more by what passes for the media in the USA.

Interesting.

The white power groups try to promote a racial/culutral identity, but it's one that really has no common, mass appeal. When you are the majority, establishment, it's hard to feel like you need to celebrate it.

Quote: thecesspit

There is far more on the -far-left- who believe the constitution gets in the way.

Well, the right hardly sits around while waiting for new ammendments. Arkansas Republicans are doing what they can right now to make abortion in that state pretty much meaningless at the moment. They complain about govenrment in healthcare, but opt for legislation requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions.

There was certainly more support from the right for the intial Patriot Act, which is hardly the protector of rights. Republican senators are on record as not even reading it before passing. Same accusation as the health law, funny that.

They're much more willing to try to inject religion where it doesn't belong. And they circumvent establishment of religion any way possible, when crosses which were likely Christian symbols when they were put up, aren't Christian symbols now in order to keep them in place now, and the ten commandments gets put around court houses.

Quote: rxwine

They're much more willing to try to inject religion where it doesn't belong. And they circumvent establishment of religion any way possible, when crosses which were likely Christian symbols when they were put up, aren't Christian symbols now in order to keep them in place now, and the ten commandments gets put around court houses.

I don't view the 10 commandments in a courthouse as a separation of church and state issue. The freedom of Religion pertains to the state setting up a state run religion i.e. the Church of England. Having the 10 commandments in the courthouse does nothing of that nature whatsoever. I find that many interpret the phrase "Freedom of Religion" as "Freedom From Religion" Nobody makes you attend a church in this country, nobody makes you be a Christian in this country. If we interpreted this freedom the way it was intended this wouldn't even be a debate.

Quote: Gabes22

I don't view the 10 commandments in a courthouse as a separation of church and state issue. The freedom of Religion pertains to the state setting up a state run religion

+1

I must confess that I'm not religious myself, although I've never understood why secularists feel so threatened by the sight of a cross. It's like they're part vampire or something.

(NOTE: Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here)

Quote: Gabes22

I don't view the 10 commandments in a courthouse as a separation of church and state issue. The freedom of Religion pertains to the state setting up a state run religion i.e. the Church of England. Having the 10 commandments in the courthouse does nothing of that nature whatsoever.

Neither would be some Islamic law as long as it doesn't establish a religion in the word choice. Allah is another name for God.

"Thou shallt have no other gods", excludes Hindu religions, is probably offensive too.

Quote: Beethoven9th

+1

I must confess that I'm not religious myself, although I've never understood why secularists feel so threatened by the sight of a cross. It's like they're part vampire or something.

(NOTE: Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here)

Some view the tacit endorsement of a state run enterprise of a particular religion and in some cases, sect of that religion to be the state implicitly preferring one religion over another. Shrug.

I'd suggest if you want the state out of your lives, that should include your beliefs. If the state shouldn't pay for X (chose your favourite Democratic pork barel), why should it pay for signs of religious devotion?

Wouldn't a list of the Bill of Rights be a far more appropriate display outside a courthouse?

Quote: thecesspit

I think the very statement that the constitution is a contract would be what some constitutional laywers dispute (and others), saying it's a rule book of laws.

I am not sure who I agree with on that matter. Having it as a social contract, at least initially makes sense to me, especially the items to do with society in which you want to live The Bill of Rights, for one is a series of terms for how the people of the US can expect to live within that country, and defines the culture of your country. You could probably add the 13th, 15th and 19th could be added into a Bill of Rights or Social Contract if you were writing a new one today.

Well, the Constitution really doesn't have any "laws" in it. It is the framework for setting up laws. Most of the "laws" it sets are about restraint on government behavior. Prohibition and ending slavery are exceptions.

When you break it down the Constitution says what the government *must* do (eg: POTUS SOTU to Congress); what it *may* do (eg: declare war), and what it *cannot* do (eg: quarter troops in your home during peacetime.) Even though it is called the highest law of the land, it is really more of a contract in most regards IMHO.

Quote:

Remember, I am talking about extremes here, but the extreme right want to impose an hierarchy based on race and social class, and are extreme in their views of what is socially acceptable. The far-left are more about class-war fare and extreme economic control. Both tend to fuzz and merge, and end up in similar places, but Marxist views use the lens of class-war, while the neo-Nazi's use the lens of race-war.

The general tendency is for the mainstream right is to be socially-conservative and economically-free market; the mainstream left (or what passes for the left in the US) tends to be socially-liberal and economically-centralized. These are tendencies... and as we all know you can't plop one person into a exact place on any 1-D or even 2-D graph.

It helps to think of the political spectrum as a sphere. Far left and right systems say fascism and communism are actually quite close on one side with libertarianism on the other.

Quote:

The white power groups try to promote a racial/culutral identity, but it's one that really has no common, mass appeal. When you are the majority, establishment, it's hard to feel like you need to celebrate it.

White people celebrate along lines of nationality, not race. 100 years ago Irish and Italians would rarely mix, today both enjoy St Patrick's Day and Columbus Day.

Quote:

It helps to think of the political spectrum as a sphere. Far left and right systems say fascism and communism are actually quite close on one side with libertarianism on the other.

Fascism is especially close to communism, as Fascism descended from Communism. Mussolini was a National Socialist, giving up on the class-warfare and going towards a National Identity and using outsiders as the reason for the problems, not the rich. This allowed them to garner support from a variety of groups beyond the working class, groups with existing power.

Communist thought and development is mired in the idea of class-war. Fascism much less so. Communism, on paper at least, tries to make all equal. Fascism (on paper) doesn't.

The net result is big government, reduction in freedoms and social oppression of some (or all) of society (Pol Pot and Hitler had very different ideologies, but all led to much the same path, the Khymer Rouge were an super extreme national socialistic group, but based on communal agriculture, which had about 0 grounding in any sort of reality).

If we use your sphere, there is also various forms of Anarchy that are close Libertarianism.

Quote:

White people celebrate along lines of nationality, not race. 100 years ago Irish and Italians would rarely mix, today both enjoy St Patrick's Day and Columbus Day.

Many reasons for that, but suffice to say, you can drop the word 'white' in the sentence in many other countries. But topic for another day.

For the love of god AZDuffman! I'm starting to feel sorry for you......the gun control dopes can never be reasoned with......I'm guessing nobody is going to take your gun/guns so in your world there is no "gun control". Right?

Quote: treetopbuddy

For the love of god AZDuffman! I'm starting to feel sorry for you......the gun control dopes can never be reasoned with......I'm guessing nobody is going to take your gun/guns so in your world there is no "gun control". Right?

In my world "gun control" means hitting what you aim at.

Quote: AZDuffman

In my world "gun control" means hitting what you aim at.

yup

The Futurama future...

Every illegal gun confiscated could be melted and used for the raw material for gun control robots.

If you can keep control of your legal guns like you're supposed to do, you can keep the robots from proliferating. Fail, and the robots become numerous and will run around collecting more and more guns.

So, you control your destiny.

Quote: thecesspit

Some view the tacit endorsement of a state run enterprise of a particular religion and in some cases, sect of that religion to be the state implicitly preferring one religion over another.

The display of a cross does not make one a Christian any more than having a beard makes one a Muslim.

Quote: thecesspit

I'd suggest if you want the state out of your lives, that should include your beliefs. If the state shouldn't pay for X (chose your favourite Democratic pork barel), why should it pay for signs of religious devotion?

A completely different issue from what we were talking about. Back to the original point, any secularist who feels threatened by a cross has bigger problems of their own that they should be worrying about.

Quote:

any secularist who feels threatened by a cross has bigger problems of their own that they should be worrying about.

Any judge who thinks a middle finger held up in his court room is a sign of contempt shouldn't be ruling that simple crosses are innocous. It's just a finger.

Quote: Beethoven9th

The display of a cross does not make one a Christian any more than having a beard makes one a Muslim.

No? What does the cross mean to you then>

Quote:

A completely different issue from what we were talking about. Back to the original point, any secularist who feels threatened by a cross has bigger problems of their own that they should be worrying about.

It's not about 'threat'.

Quote: rxwine

Any judge who thinks a middle finger held up in his court room is a sign of contempt shouldn't be ruling that simple crosses are innocous. It's just a finger.

So you equate a cross with a middle finger? I can understand now why you hold such an opinion.

Quote: thecesspit

No? What does the cross mean to you then>

What does a beard mean to you then?

Quote: thecesspit

It's not about 'threat'.

It obviously is, or else you wouldn't be writing.


Anyway, you had initially said:

Quote: thecesspit

I'd suggest if you want the state out of your lives, that should include your beliefs. If the state shouldn't pay for X (chose your favourite Democratic pork barel), why should it pay for signs of religious devotion?

This analogy is completely flawed. You forget one simple fact: The state does pay for "Democratic pork barrel" spending every single day whether you like it or not.

Quote: rxwine

Any judge who thinks a middle finger held up in his court room is a sign of contempt shouldn't be ruling that simple crosses are innocous. It's just a finger.

Mae West
“JUDGE: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?

MAE WEST: I was doin' my best to hide it.”

Quote: Beethoven9th

What does a beard mean to you then?

Answering a question with a question, eh? A beard means someone hasn't shaved.

So what does a cross mean to you then? Or are we avoiding the question for some reason.

Quote:

It obviously is, or else you wouldn't be writing.

In case you aren't aware, I'm a Brit, living in Canada. I don't live in the US. I am interested in US political history. I often get corrected. That's fine by me.

I don't find any threat to a cross, and ascribing to me some imagined emotional response isn't very helpful. I personally don't care if the US adorns it's court houses with cross or the star of david or the all seeing eye of illumanti. I just find it interesting that it's in counter-point to the seperation of church and state (see various justices opinions from 1870's onwards). I understand some folks think that the 1st Amendment is limited only to the banning of a state-sanctioned church.

And just because someone doesn't like something it doesn't mean they are threatened by it. I don't like Justin Bieber. I am not threatened by him. And just for your benefit, I don''t 'not like' crosses either.

Quote:

This analogy is completely flawed. You forget one simple fact: The state does pay for "Democratic pork barrel" spending every single day whether you like it or not.

Why is this flawed? The argument put forward often is that the state and state-spending should be reduced. So why should the state spend any many on religious paraphernalia? Shouldn't your beliefs be your own concious, and not influenced by the state? Even if the state may exhibit areas you don't like, it's not very consistent. Taking the attitude 'they do it, so we can' won't fly.

It appears to me a good analogy. If X should not be paid for, why should Y be paid for, if there's a equivalence (state paying for things that increase government spending beyond that desired for small government). Or are adornments for the law courts acceptable spending in a small-state? Maybe they are? Are they better or worse then state spending money on subsidizing birth control, GM Cars, the building of a new sports stadium or after-schools programmes or NPR?

"We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines."--Diane Feinstein

And people call "the far right" crazy?


M'amm, it is already illegal to "hunt humans" period.

Quote: Beethoven9th

The display of a cross does not make one a Christian any more than having a beard makes one a Muslim.

This is true! Even non-Christians can support execution by crucifixion and will proudly display that support by wearing a cross or by burning a large one on the front lawn of their more swarthy neighbors. Happens all the time, just like huge mobs of people attacking law-abiding citizens.

Quote: s2dbaker

This is true! Even non-Christians can support execution by crucifixion and will proudly display that support by wearing a cross or by burning a large one on the front lawn of their more swarthy neighbors. Happens all the time, just like huge mobs of people attacking law-abiding citizens.

I never heard that wearing a cross is supporting execution by crucifixion. Though I will say if you seem to see crosses being burned "all the time" in your neighborhood then you may want to consider moving.

Though I can say I have heard of law-abiding citizens attacked citizens being attacked by huge mobs on the news. Ask people who have had their shops looted by the "Occupy" movement or by anarchist socialists during a G-20 meeting or similar gathering.

Quote: thecesspit

Answering a question with a question, eh? A beard means someone hasn't shaved.

So what does a cross mean to you then? Or are we avoiding the question for some reason.

Nope, just demonstrating why the question is so silly. Since a beard means one "hasn't shaved", then a cross is simply a shape just like a rhombus or a trapezoid.

Quote: thecesspit

I don't find any threat to a cross,

That was my whole point.

Quote: thecesspit

And just because someone doesn't like something it doesn't mean they are threatened by it. I don't like Justin Bieber. I am not threatened by him. And just for your benefit, I don''t 'not like' crosses either.

I don't like him either. Then again, if they played his music in a federal building, I would look ridiculous if I went out and screamed, "That's unconstitutional!"

Quote: thecesspit

Why is this flawed? The argument put forward often is that the state and state-spending should be reduced.

It's flawed because "state-spending" is not unconstitutional.

Quote: thecesspit

If X should not be paid for, why should Y be paid for, if there's a equivalence (state paying for things that increase government spending beyond that desired for small government)...Are they better or worse then state spending money on subsidizing birth control, GM Cars, the building of a new sports stadium or after-schools programmes or NPR?

Sounds like your objection is based on "bad spending" rather than constitutional grounds. Big difference.

Quote: s2dbaker

This is true! Even non-Christians can support execution by crucifixion and will proudly display that support by wearing a cross or by burning a large one on the front lawn of their more swarthy neighbors.

If a crucifixion ever occurs in a government building, I will oppose it.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Nope, just demonstrating why the question is so silly. Since a beard means one "hasn't shaved", then a cross is simply a shape just like a rhombus or a trapezoid.

.

BTW, Here is what I was referring to: (june 25, 2012)

Supreme Court clears way for California cross removal

Quote:

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that a large Christian cross as part of a war memorial in California violated the constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion.

The justices rejected an appeal by the Obama administration and by an association that erected the cross arguing the government should not be forced to take down the memorial cross that stood atop Mount Soledad in San Diego since 1954 to honor veterans.

The case involved whether a religious symbol can be prominently displayed on public land and whether the cross violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement on church-state separation.

Quote: rxwine

BTW, Here is what I was referring to: (june 25, 2012)

I don't recall you referring to this story in any of your posts to me (although you did talk about middle fingers). Anyway, refusing to hear a case is completely different from issuing an actual decision.


Also, you missed this part of the story, which does deal with an actual ruling:

Quote:

"The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that a federal judge erred by ordering the removal of a large Christian cross as part of a war memorial in a remote part of the California desert..."

Quote: Beethoven9th

I don't recall you referring to this story in any of your posts to me (although you did talk about middle fingers). Anyway, refusing to hear a case is completely different from issuing an actual decision.

I was the one that brought up a cross in a post. Since you guys were talking about, it, I figured I'd clarify what I had posted about.

" Anyway, refusing to hear a case is completely different from issuing an actual decision."

It had the same result.

Quote: Buzzard

" Anyway, refusing to hear a case is completely different from issuing an actual decision."

It had the same result.

Murder and suicide also have the same result (i.e. dead bodies).....but they're completely different.

As for the suggestion that gun laws only punish law abiding citizens, isn't that the exact model of the insurance industry? Health, life and car insurance often punish people based on statistical probability before you've even done anything. For instance, it punishes young men who drive over young woman not because they had any prior accidents, but because of that demographic of teen men who drive more recklessly as a group.

The idea of punishing people as a risk group is hardly novel as it's done in many things, including one-offs, like signing releases of responsibility or laying down deposits to cover potential damage.

Saying that you're being punished is actually "you" asking for special priviledges that often aren't allowed in a number of other activities.

Quote: rxwine

As for the suggestion that gun laws only punish law abiding citizens, isn't that the exact model of the insurance industry? Health, life and car insurance often punish people based on statistical probability before you've even done anything. For instance, it punishes young men who drive over young woman not because they had any prior accidents, but because of that demographic of teen men who drive more recklessly as a group.

The idea of punishing people as a risk group is hardly novel as it's done in many things, including one-offs, like signing releases of responsibility or laying down deposits to cover potential damage.

Saying that you're being punished is actually "you" asking for special priviledges that often aren't allowed in a number of other activities.

Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

You're arguing that our constitutional rights should be handled like insurance? *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven9th

Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

You're arguing that our constitutional rights should be handled like insurance? *facepalm*

+1.25.

LOL! I got this far...

Quote: rxwine

... punishes young men who drive over young woman...

...and I thought, "Hell yeah! Me and rxwine are finally going to reach common ground in this thread! Punish those guys running over women with their cars!"

But it went downhill from there.

It seems no matter how many times I say "you can't compare guns to cars", we keep going back to this same apples and oranges arguement. I think it's because guns are such a unique issue. We try to make connections based on what we already know, in this case cars and vehicle laws, but I'll say it again, It Cannot Be Done.

Insurance works from a financial standpoint. That's all it is, a financial safety net. It has 0 to do with actual safety. And due to the daily use of cars, the constant verification of car safety and legality through use of plate scanners and the like, the car game works. By its very nature, you cannot do the same with gun ownership.

If being a single male meant I had to pay 5% more for an MG-42, then hell yeah, I'll take that "punishment" and be happy. But saying I can't own anything "scary looking" for no reason other than "BECAUSE I'M THE GOV AND I SAID SO" ain't gonna fly.

I really wish everyone would educate themselves on gun function and capabilities. Seriously, do something for me right now. Imagine you're somewhere where guns shouldn't be out, somewhere out on the town or whatever. Suddenly you see a guy weilding a weapon, or maybe you just hear a shot. You reach for your phone, dial 911, and wait.

Think in your head... how long is it from the time you detect a threat to the time the calvary arrives? If you're at my place, it's 15-20 minutes. Downtown, maybe <15 minutes. City? 10, maybe? Right near the courthouse? Maybe 2, they just got to run outside, right?

Look at this. Fast forward to 2:12 for my point.



For those who don't care to watch, it's a reload of a shotgun, in my opinion, the single hardest weapon to reload outside of a single action revolver. This weapon is legal now and would remain legal even if Cuomo, Obama, and Feinstein all got every one of their wishes. To boot, it is one of the most devastating small arms anyone can buy.

It's an 8+1 configuration, and he reloads the 8 shot tube mag in 6 seconds. Let's add another second to put one in the chamber, so we got 9 shots. And let's also add one second per shot, and one second to rechamber and aquire target. So, a man dedicated to wasting a movie theatre, school, or any other soft target, is putting out 9 casualties every ~30 seconds with this awkward, hard to reload, perpetually legal firearm.

The largest mass shooting in US history was V-Tech. 32 dead. The top 10 mass shootings average 18.4 deaths.

2 minute response time in Best Case Scenario.

1 casualty every 3 seconds, a possible 40 casualties per 2 minutes, using the most diffcult possible weapon which will always be legal and is on nobody's radar.

Is this making sense to anyone else but me?

My Del-Ton is not the problem. Also, again, it's illegal. Yet I still have it. That makes me a criminal. With a gun. Many guns. Which are also illegal. Funny how those laws can't seem to prevent that, innit?

Quote: Face

If being a single male meant I had to pay 5% more for an MG-42, then hell yeah, I'll take that "punishment" and be happy. But saying I can't own anything "scary looking" for no reason other than "BECAUSE I'M THE GOV AND I SAID SO" ain't gonna fly.

Well, the first part is exactly the kind of point I was going for. As to the second, I didn't mention anything about not being able to own a gun at all.

I'm mostly responding to an oft repeated Duffman answer, that we shouldn't punish innocent people, but we often do in other arrangements where we have reason to suspect a demographic group brings enough risk to warrant a pre-condition. (I suspect women as a group probably do pose a lesser risk than men in gun violence, and would suffer less pre-obligation. Although there is evidence I believe that they're catching up in the violence area over the years. )

As to what a Constitutional right encompasses or doesn't (Beethoven) that's not up to you or me. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Even the conservative members endorse some form of gun control at state levels. I don't know if there is a true outlier on the Court in that respect for all-out guns everywhere.

Furthermore, changes occur in the application of rights and clarifications occur without even getting to new ammendments. So, facepalm all you want.