[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-05, 14:13, said:

Yes, we definitely need more government oversight of every aspect of our lives.

Yes, how dare the government regulate the sale of stuff designed to kill other people?? You have lost all sense of perspective.

There is nothing more central to the mission of government than to defend the country against people from outside the country, and to provide for its citizens to leave peacefully with each other.

And if you really think that the government regulating gun ownership is comparable to the government overseeing every aspect of your life, then you should 1. get a life, and 2. see a shrink.

[blackshoe]

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-06, 00:36, said:

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

And "promote the general welfare" ≠ "let every Tom, Dick, and Harry run around armed to the teeth".
And "insure domestic tranquility" ≠ "do not regulate firearms".

[kenberg]

The Constitution was soon supplemented by ten amendments. Roughly speaking, the Constitution says what the government can do, the amendments set out restrictions. This tension between wanting the government to be a force for good and wanting the government to be restrained has been with us from the beginning.

Finding the balance is the task of every age. Our specific problems today are vastly different from what they were some 200+ years ago so it is just natural that we have to revise our approach. The tension between government involvement and government restraint will remain, however. All in all, I have found government action a net plus in my own life. That does not mean I always favor government intervention (aka meddling), not by a long shot.

[y66]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-06, 00:36, said:

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

Not necessarily equal you mean. If people want a more libertarian style of government, the Constitution provides flexibility for that. Ditto for Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders style "social democracies". If you want to characterize their positions as "welfare states" it covers that too.

On each of the 4 issues below, the majority of Americans are more aligned with Sanders and Obama than they are with you.



And yet, every attempt to act on these issues has been thwarted by the NRA and its minions who have no qualms about turning the Constitution on its head. The only thing more galling than their absurd interpretation of the Constitution in this context -- and yours -- is their claim that their self serving actions are more in keeping with the spirit of that document than acting prudently to keep some insane people from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

[blackshoe]

All Americans are either Republicans or Democrats? I don't think so. I do think a lot people hold the view that "all Americans are either Republicans, Democrats, or a fringe that can be ignored". From my end of the telescope, that's called "the tyranny of the majority".

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-06, 15:58, said:

All Americans are either Republicans or Democrats? I don't think so. I do think a lot people hold the view that "all Americans are either Republicans, Democrats, or a fringe that can be ignored". From my end of the telescope, that's called "the tyranny of the majority".

Ed, people don't ignore you because your not a Republican or a Democrat, people ignore you because your ideas are stupid.

[mike777]

this has been often said here in the forums.



Gun laws at some point really mean gun consifiscation.

I do not add anything new.

But if you think the election is about that ...guns....you will lose those voters.

If you think the election is about to deny those weapons that kill.....no

see post 521 for another view point.

[y66]

The New York Times called for tighter gun control on its front page on Saturday, the first time it published an editorial there in nearly 100 years.

Quote

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

[y66]

I see that Patti Smith closed for U2 last night in Paris with “People Have the Power” which she co-wrote with her husband Fred "Sonic" Smith in 1988.

Quote

People have the power...
The power to dream, to rule
To wrestle the world from fools.

We are obviously pretty good at doing nothing too.

[billw55]

Quote

It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2015-December-07, 09:03, said:

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

I don't speak for the NYT. However, here's what I would like to see:

First: I think that folks should be able to own most any firearm they want, up to and including fully automatic weapons. However, the overwhelming majority of said weapons need to be securely stored at a firing range. If you want to use your AR-15 or fire your Uzi, off to the range you go.

Second: Folks who want a weapon for home defense or hunting can have a bolt action rifle or a pump action shot gun. You can keep these long arms at home, have them on land posted for hunting, and transport them in between in a lock box.

Third: Handguns live at the firing range.

Fourth: When it comes to public spaces, No concealed carry. No open carry for that matter. You don't gt to carry a gun at the store, at school, at church, walking down the street, ...

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2015-December-07, 09:03, said:

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

Highland Park gave it a try.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights.

The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.

[PassedOut]

Maybe no one else does, but Hillary Clinton has been reading mike777's old posts.

Quote

And it shouldn’t just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives’ bonuses, too.

Yep, mike777 never forgets the importance of "skin in the game," and Hillary is in lockstep with him on that...

[y66]

From Bizarre Responses to a Plea for Reason by the NYT Editorial Board (December 8, 2015):

Quote

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2015-December-07, 12:24, said:

Maybe no one else does, but Hillary Clinton has been reading mike777's old posts.


Yep, mike777 never forgets the importance of "skin in the game," and Hillary is in lockstep with him on that...

thanks


Offtopic but it reminded me of a new rant from Bill O'reilly. He states he does not use sources for his books that had skin in the game. Skin in the game makes them bias in their memory. I wanted to scream...You want people/sources who have skin in the game.


Same argument when it comes to BOD, you want members who have skin in the game, not members who are "independent". ONe major reason is "independent" dr. are not asdependent as those who own a large amount of the company.


I use bridge and bbo as an example....those with skin in the game.....care more....


See Taleb who writes on this issue and I quote often.
------------------
------------------


btw most of these chat regarding banks is pure nonsense.


1) If the banks are too large to fail
2) make the banks smaller......sigh

many ways to do this... for example
1) forbid branch banking
2) forbid branch banking

I wrote a paper on branch banking decades ago when I was a child....sigh

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2015-December-09, 22:44, said:

Same argument when it comes to BOD

Here comes Bod.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-December-09, 22:44, said:

Same argument when it comes to BOD, you want members who have skin in the game, not members who are "independent". ONe major reason is "independent" dr. are not asdependent as those who own a large amount of the company.

You probably want a mix. Dependent directors may be biased towards short-term results. Or they may make decisions that are best for them personally, not the company as a whole (e.g. higher executive compensation).

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-07, 09:43, said:

Fourth: When it comes to public spaces, No concealed carry. No open carry for that matter. You don't gt to carry a gun at the store, at school, at church, walking down the street, ...

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-10, 18:46, said:

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

Comment 1: Never once in my life have I been involved in a situation when criminals have been shooting at me
Comment 2: If I am in a position where criminals are shooting at me, I don't want to be tempted to return fire. I want to be focused on getting the hell out of dodge.

I'm sure that it is possible to craft some elaborate hypothetical where my life would be better if I were carrying a gun.
However, on average, my life is going to be a hell of a lot better if the number of people carry guns decreases sharply.
And at the end of the day, I'm a lot more interested in playing the odds than catering to your paranoid delusions.