OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
VoidTerraFirma said:
Nevermind...
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for Guantanamo to close. There are still troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and approximately 3700 people have been killed by drone strikes. He's failed to lead his party in any fashion, and in turn, hasn't had any support across the aisle by Republicans. And his support of the TPP puts him squarely in the pockets of the Fortune 100.

I'm glad he was able to push through ACA. It was a step in the right direction. Single payer would be better. And for every good decision the Supreme Court has made during the past 7 years, there's been an equally terrible one (though I don't agree you can blame or credit the President for SCOTUS decisions, even if some would like to).

So yes, marginally better.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
That's hilarious. Guantanamo...at the top of your list? That's your big one?

Guantanamo? Keep hustling, bro.
Click to expand...

my number one, would be to figure out how to get out of the middle east and stay out. but now that there are several civil wars going there and at least one side of each of those civil wars are declared mortal enemies of the west and specificaly the USA, i don't see how we could ever get out and stay out. it will just end up coming here.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Sure, that's fine. I personally just do not see requiring reasonable training and registration being undue restriction on those rights. And apparently as it turns out, some training in how to properly handle weapons seems to be helpful.
Click to expand...
Would you make the same training/handling argument for all rights enumerated in the BOR?

Fwiw, I do believe people should get training before handling firearms - that, in my opinion is what the gun safety debate should be focused on, not removing peoples access to them. I don't however believe in making it a requirement any more than I believe mandating training for people shooting their mouth off in public.

sunvalleylaw said:
But beyond that, taking the legislative time to pass this law well not taking the time to solve the Medicaid issue seems like a colossal waste. I am sure that the many people that have no access to healthcare in the state are pretty glad they can stick a gun in your back pocket or front pocket or wherever.
Click to expand...
If there is one thing I'd love our government to solve, it is universal access to health care across the board.

Sadly, if the last 8 years have been any indication, that's not going to happen.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
Marginally? Are you nostalgic for endless, unbudgeted ground war and anthrax in your mailbox?
Click to expand...
While I'm not dismissing Bush's war mongering in the middle east, there is no question that one way or the other we will always be involved there in some fashion militarily. That is until the world stops running on oil. Then we won't care.

I'm pretty sure that Bush did not cause the anthrax attacks.

I'd put Bush and Obama on almost the same rung of the Presidential rating ladder, with a nod to Bush for his ability to rally the nation when it needed it (i.e. immediately following 9/11). Obama has been largely ineffective at home and I can't recall him doing anything of consequence on the world's stage. At best, I'd say Obama's presidency maintained the status quo.
 
wagdog said:
Would you make the same training/handling argument for all rights enumerated in the BOR?

Fwiw, I do believe people should get training before handling firearms - that, in my opinion is what the gun safety debate should be focused on, not removing peoples access to them. I don't however believe in making it a requirement any more than I believe mandating training for people shooting their mouth off in public.


If there is one thing I'd love our government to solve, it is universal access to health care across the board.

Sadly, if the last 8 years have been any indication, that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Actually, we have time/manner/place restrictions on speech and assembly. See for example: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions Lots of regulations regarding how, where, when people can gather and protest. You cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater for the classic example given by Justice Holmes in Schenk v. US. Forcing education or training before exercising right to speech would be regulation aimed at controlling content, so therefore generally would not be allowed. It is not about the time, manner, place.

Some similar time, manner, place regulations as part of the "well regulated militia" discussed in the 2nd Amendment should not be that big a deal IMHO. Frankly, the blatant open carrying of AK's etc. astounds me. To me, that is more alarming than someone yelling fire.

Interestingly, this guy tells us in the comments below his vid that we should not watch it and exercise our right to free speech. He disabled comments. Not gonna stop me bitchin' about dudes like him walking around with such a gun for no good reason. I know others disagree. But again, it astounds me.



Seems to me, under the relevant law, such as US v. Miller, which is still good law from 1939 allowing the govt. to outlaw sawed off shotguns, a guy like this could be regulated. His right to swing his guns around in public might end where another person's right to enjoy the same space without fear of gun violence begins. (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's face).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

I am probably going even further into dangerous waters by discussing this stuff. But you and I are talking respectfully, and we are just exchanging points of view. I understand you may have a differing point of view on some of this stuff. I do not want to cause a problem here in the forum so I will stand down on the gun stuff. Other than to say that with rights come responsibilities, and if that teacher had shot a student when he mishandled his concealed deadly weapon in class, he would have had hell to pay. I shudder to think what might happen at this upcoming convention where there are bunch of citizens wanting to carry around guns at their political assembly. I think that you believe it should be safe or safer if there are guns around, but that presumes people can properly handle their weapons, do not make mistakes, and can hold their tempers

You and I agree on the healthcare, but I am more optimistic. I believe the tides are shifting and all boats rise with the tide. We will get there sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
While I'm not dismissing Bush's war mongering in the middle east,
Dismisses Bush's war-mongering completely...
there is no question that one way or the other we will always be involved there in some fashion militarily. That is until the world stops running on oil. Then we won't care.

I'm pretty sure that Bush did not cause the anthrax attacks.
Nobody said he did. He did war-monger more than any president ever, though.

I'd put Bush and Obama on almost the same rung of the Presidential rating ladder, with a nod to Bush for his ability to rally the nation when it needed it (i.e. immediately following 9/11).
History will prove you wrong.
Obama has been largely ineffective at home
Marriage equality, ACA, strong economy, no major attacks on our soil
and I can't recall him doing anything of consequence on the world's stage.
Bin Laden, no pointless wars based on faulty intelligence
At best, I'd say Obama's presidency maintained the status quo.
Yes. The Bush1, Clinton status quo. And this country needed that very badly.
 
wagdog said:
with a nod to Bush for his ability to rally the nation when it needed it (i.e. immediately following 9/11).
Click to expand...

With all due respect to your opinion, I was more angry and upset, and feeling like my president and country had left me right then than I ever had been before. entering that asinine war, and even worse, (except for all the families that lost people over there), the Patriot Act, which to me gutted the country in terms of freedom. I will never forgive the people that voted for that piece of crap. It is one of the reasons I choose Bernie over Ms. Clinton.

Neil pretty much captured how I felt in the Living with War Album.



 
While I am disappointed that Obama continued many Bush policies regarding the War on Terror, I am amazed he has been able to do anything when an entire group of people decided right after he was elected that they would vote against anything and everything he proposed.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
the Patriot Act, which to me gutted the country in terms of freedom.
Click to expand...

and it is DAMN unlikely that we will EVER get those freedoms back again, EVER. the machine has been given WAY too much power and will NEVER let it go.

btw, i voted for Dubya the first term. and i am very sorry that i did. there was know way i could know what he was going to do. (or that 911 was going to happen).
however, i could not stomach Al Gore's bullshit.
 
wagdog said:
Pretty sure, not positive, but pretty sure the general consensus was that withholding federal hwy funds was looked at as an overreach of the federal government by most people regardless of party. I'm just going on memory here, that was a long time ago - but I don't recall the way the 55 mph speed limit was implemented was very popular and I'm pretty sure the term "federal overreach" was often used to describe it.

You had asked if lowering the speed limit was something that would cause people to vote against a sitting president; the answer is yes, it was one of the reasons. Not because of what it was, but how it was implemented. That coupled with Carter's disastrous handling of Iran and other reasons mentioned before.
Click to expand...

So the 55 mph law was passed and signed into law under Nixon in '74.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

That set the speed limit to 55 and with held federal funds.

Under Reagan a law was passed to limit federal highway funds unless a state raised the drinking age to 21 in '84 and he wn in a landslide. So I guess people like to speed more than drink.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
You cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater for the classic example given by Justice Holmes in Schenk v. US. Forcing education or training before exercising right to speech would be regulation aimed at controlling content, so therefore generally would not be allowed. It is not about the time, manner, place.
Click to expand...

It is a classic example, however if there is no fire, it's a lie and meant to incite panic, which I don't know the wording of, but I believe it's a crime (not the words obviously, but the action). Forcing someone to get training to exercise their 2nd amendment rights really has no similarity with the 1st (or any other right so enumerated).

sunvalleylaw said:
Some similar time, manner, place regulations as part of the "well regulated militia" discussed in the 2nd Amendment should not be that big a deal IMHO. Frankly, the blatant open carrying of AK's etc. astounds me. To me, that is more alarming than someone yelling fire.

Interestingly, this guy tells us in the comments below his vid that we should not watch it and exercise our right to free speech. He disabled comments. Not gonna stop me bitchin' about dudes like him walking around with such a gun for no good reason. I know others disagree. But again, it astounds me.

Click to expand...


The guy in that video is an idiot, as are others like him. I open carry a rifle (and a handgun), when I go hunting - I'm pretty sure I don't look out of place or incite panic when doing so. People who carry like that are looking for trouble. I do understand that they think they're exercising their rights (and technically, they are), but I don't believe they're furthering their cause in a positive manner.

BTW, kudos to the second cop in that video for maintaining an even keel with him. I suspect he was more looking out for his partner who was, IMO, starting to escalate the situation.

sunvalleylaw said:
Seems to me, under the relevant law, such as US v. Miller, which is still good law from 1939 allowing the govt. to outlaw sawed off shotguns, a guy like this could be regulated. His right to swing his guns around in public might end where another person's right to enjoy the same space without fear of gun violence begins. (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's face).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

I am probably going even further into dangerous waters by discussing this stuff. But you and I are talking respectfully, and we are just exchanging points of view. I understand you may have a differing point of view on some of this stuff. I do not want to cause a problem here in the forum so I will stand down on the gun stuff. Other than to say that with rights come responsibilities, and if that teacher had shot a student when he mishandled his concealed deadly weapon in class, he would have had hell to pay.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're aware that the 2nd amendment was held up as an individual right by the USSC. As I read it, the case you cited is more concerned with the sawed-off shotgun not being ordinary military equipment that could contribute to the common defense (i.e. the well regulated militia). Also worth noting: that case is relevant to the discussion of whether of whether or not ordinary citizens should be allowed to own AR or AK style weapons based on them being "military style weapons".

FWIW, I don't get too wound up about any of this. I understand and respect other peoples opinions and points of view. I'd still sit down and have some laughs over a beer with most of you. I have very close friends who virulent anti-gunners and ultra-liberal, we're still friends.

sunvalleylaw said:
You and I agree on the healthcare, but I am more optimistic. I believe the tides are shifting and all boats rise with the tide. We will get there sooner or later.
Click to expand...
One can only hope. My fear is the government is the balance of government is the same, but both sides are moving further and further away from the middle that they can't even see the dividing line.
 
Chad said:
So the 55 mph law was passed and signed into law under Nixon in '74.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

That set the speed limit to 55 and with held federal funds.

Under Reagan a law was passed to limit federal highway funds unless a state raised the drinking age to 21 in '84 and he wn in a landslide. So I guess people like to speed more than drink.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for that. I was only a kid at that time, but for some reason I remember the speed limit coming to fruition during Carter's presidency.

I do remember the drinking age being raised to 21 nationwide. I'm still against that, fwiw.
 
@wagdog , The "individual right" theory is open to question. See the link I provided to discussion from Cornell University. Here is a quote:

On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Also, the right to free speech is an individual right. So is the right against unreasonable search and seizure. The issue at hand is whether those are rights that the government may not regulate at all. In neither case is that true. You even admit in your comments that the sawed off shotgun was allowed to be regulated as not equipment related to a well regulated militia. Even though the recent conservative court trimmed back the 1939 Miller case (collective rights theory) regarding said modified shotgun, it left the exception (Heller, decided on individual rights theory, striking down an old handgun ban in DC, but leaving Miller as an exception regarding modified shotguns). So the point is that 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute. Just like 1st amendment rights are not. I am not worried about you. You are knowledgeable and passionate about your guns and the handling thereof. It is the asshat you mention. Like you say, yelling "fire" in a theatre is illegal. Inciting a riot is as well. That asshat walking around with an AK is doing just that, and such conduct can be regulated. In my view anyway. His right to waive his damn gun around smacks up against others' rights for him not to create a dangerous situation. Much like the yelling "fire" which also creates a dangerous situation. You are correct that the sawed off shotgun case informs us about the rights of ordinary citizens to carry AKs or other military style automatic weapons. Also, even the Heller Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession. So, some qualification and registration prior to purchase is acceptable for those purposes. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

This is all a far cry from taking your shotgun for a walk up the road from my house on BLM land to go grouse hunting. I am talking about when one person endangers others while "exercising his rights".

"FWIW, I don't get too wound up about any of this. I understand and respect other peoples opinions and points of view. I'd still sit down and have some laughs over a beer with most of you. I have very close friends who virulent anti-gunners and ultra-liberal, we're still friends. "

Me neither mostly, other than when people seem to think incorrectly (not directed at you) that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and there can be no regulation. And when asshats want to walk around with their AK's putting everyone at risk, or shoot themselves in a crowded classroom because they put their damn gun in their pocket. That the Idaho legislature spent time making sure that idiot could shoot himself in the foot on campus with his permit, and then just do away with permits altogether, rather than solve healthcare, the underfunding of the education of kids in this state, and the crappy roads really annoys me. Not to even address all the money they spent trying to "defend Idaho's concept of marriage". Can I have my share of those tax dollars back please?

I would enjoy discussing it with you I am sure. The issues at play can be solved rationally if there can be discussion. Again, it is the age old discussion of the right to throw one's fist being limited by the proximity of the other guy's face. When we were all spread out, things were less of an issue. Now that we are closer together overall, both literally and via internet and etc., our elbows bump more than they used to. As my Dad used to say, you need more law once everyones' elbows are closer.



"One can only hope. My fear is the government is the balance of government is the same, but both sides are moving further and further away from the middle that they can't even see the dividing line."

Maybe. But the boomers are aging and becoming less relevant (over time. They are not done yet, sad to say), and young people are not primarily in the GOP wheelhouse on this issue. Not to mention ethnic minorities that are becoming more and more prevalent. The tides are changing.


Interesting times.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top