Gun Control?

[DZJ 0]

Quote

For example, this one's a bit old now, but it gives you an inkling of the crazy anti-gun ideas that some Congressmen have: Senate Bill 133

Yes, that's right, it proposes a 10,000% tax on ammunition.

So you see, we gun folks aren't paranoid and crazy - this crap really happens.

Out of interest, how far did that one get? I had a click around a bit through the link you posted, but got a bit lost in the Congress-speak.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

For example, this one's a bit old now, but it gives you an inkling of the crazy anti-gun ideas that some Congressmen have: Senate Bill 133

Yes, that's right, it proposes a 10,000% tax on ammunition.

So you see, we gun folks aren't paranoid and crazy - this crap really happens.

Out of interest, how far did that one get? I had a click around a bit through the link you posted, but got a bit lost in the Congress-speak.

At the Congressional level, these are dead on arrival. But it still calls for eternal vigilance.

At the local level, they could easily pass, like San Francisco's ban on handgun, and fester for a while until the courts throw it out. Legislators aren't concerned about constitutionality much. 'Let the courts decide' is their mantra.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Whoa, time to switch to decaf.

I never said these people didn't exist. I said that I meant the quote as a joke.

And I'm not trying to come up with a bunch of bs justifications for anything. I'm trying to see things from everybody's perspective rather than just my own. Like I said.....you need to take everybody's perspective and then construct a happy medium for everybody.

You're grossly ignorant on the subject and seem to be surprised that you're getting corrected. This is Speaker's Corner, you know.

Are you a student at Wisconsin? In the ivory towers, there is often this belief that all perspectives are good. That is bullshit. You need to considered varied perspectives, but many are just stupid.

Yes, Chris Rock was telling a joke. Reasonably funny up to the point where some people believe it's an actual solution.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Whoa, time to switch to decaf.

I never said these people didn't exist. I said that I meant the quote as a joke.

And I'm not trying to come up with a bunch of bs justifications for anything. I'm trying to see things from everybody's perspective rather than just my own. Like I said.....you need to take everybody's perspective and then construct a happy medium for everybody.

Sorry, but great leadership does not and will not ever work this way. Doing otherwise will only give you a compass that constantly changes direction forcing you to constantly modify your position to try and be in the majority or make everyone happy. As the song says, "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Whoa, time to switch to decaf.

I never said these people didn't exist. I said that I meant the quote as a joke.

And I'm not trying to come up with a bunch of bs justifications for anything. I'm trying to see things from everybody's perspective rather than just my own. Like I said.....you need to take everybody's perspective and then construct a happy medium for everybody.

Sorry, but great leadership does not and will not ever work this way. Doing otherwise will only give you a compass that constantly changes direction forcing you to constantly modify your position to try and be in the majority or make everyone happy. As the song says, "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

And that's how democracy should work.......the leadership takes the vote of the people and does it's will. If the leadership were to do whatever it wanted that would not be democracy, it would be more like fascism or if one leader were to have all the power it would be a dictatorship. Not taking everyone's perspective and getting a result from just your own would be a gross failure of leadership.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

You're grossly ignorant on the subject and seem to be surprised that you're getting corrected. This is Speaker's Corner, you know.

Opinions vary.

Quote

Are you a student at Wisconsin?

not that it's any of your business, but no.

Quote

In the ivory towers, there is often this belief that all perspectives are good.That is bullshit. You need to considered varied perspectives, but many are just stupid.

That's a great attitude for the betterment of society. It's not my perspective, therefore it's stupid. I think it's time to grow up.......the world does not revolve around you.

Quote

Yes, Chris Rock was telling a joke. Reasonably funny up to the point where some people believe it's an actual solution.

As I said, you can take any meaning out of it you want. You wanna get your panties in a bunch, feel free to.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

>>And that's how democracy should work...

This aint no friggin democracy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

Should and are might be two different things, but the only thing that will right that is a lot more people realizing what should is supposed to be.

Quote

>>And that's how democracy should work...

This aint no friggin democracy.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Should and are might be two different things, but the only thing that will right that is a lot more people realizing what should is supposed to be.

Quote

>>And that's how democracy should work...

This aint no friggin democracy.

read more history.. it was NEVER designed as a democracy...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[sv3n 0]

Ahh, history.....the study of the past, it's affects on the present, and it's possible affects on the future. Whatever it may have been designed as, we have to "evolve" as a society and work towards betterment.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ahh, history.....the study of the past, it's affects on the present, and it's possible affects on the future. Whatever it may have been designed as, we have to "evolve" as a society and work towards betterment.

Letting "the mob rule" isn't a good path, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

I can't say that I agree on that statement. As a democratic government the number one force behind the decisions made by the leadership should be the will of the people. When the leadership doesn't listen to the people it's working for, then it becomes something completely different and it is no longer democracy.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

You need to go back and re-read your American History. This country was set up as a representative republic and NOT a democracy specifically BECAUSE of the pitfalls that the "mob rules" engender.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

I believe it was a representative democratic republic, where by we elect representatives on our behalf, they do our bidding and therefore we don't have to vote on every little thing.

The reason this was originally done was because the technology wasn't there to take a popular vote, the same reason why we have the electoral college for elections.

Well, guess what...........we now have the technology. Time to move forward.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The reason this was originally done was because the technology wasn't there to take a popular vote,

That's just plain incorrect. But you still get a C+ because the School Board can't afford to have you repeat a year. Further, we don't want to hurt your feelings.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I believe it was a representative democratic republic, where by we elect representatives on our behalf, they do our bidding and therefore we don't have to vote on every little thing.

The reason this was originally done was because the technology wasn't there to take a popular vote, the same reason why we have the electoral college for elections.

Well, guess what...........we now have the technology. Time to move forward.

You might benefit from reading about how and why the Articles of Confederation failed and why the Constitution came with 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) right from the get go. Rights aren't subject to mob approval.

The Founding Fathers were also quite afraid of the will of the masses, so we don't need to give them complete sainthood.

[sv3n 0]

Not quite, I mispoke a little bit.....let me rephrase, it wasn't the only reason nor the main reason. But imagine a presidential election back in the days when everything was delivered via pony express.....then imagine get together every vote from every state and getting the results. It would take months. So here's where the electoral college helped as well.....you don't have to worry about getting everybody's vote in, you just tally up the electoral votes.

Quote

Quote

The reason this was originally done was because the technology wasn't there to take a popular vote,

That's just plain incorrect. But you still get a C+ because the School Board can't afford to have you repeat a year. Further, we don't want to hurt your feelings.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

You might benefit from reading about how and why the Articles of Confederation failed and why the Constitution came with 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) right from the get go. Rights aren't subject to mob approval.

The Founding Fathers were also quite afraid of the will of the masses, so we don't need to give them complete sainthood.

You're right, you have the right to bear arms. But it says nothing about being taxed or having those rights stripped away from you. So the right to have them is there, depending on if the goverment considers you fit to have them. But the taxation, that is subject to "mob approval"....also known as the will of the people. In a democracy, which is what we advertise our government to be, everyone has a right to vote and everyone has a right to have their vote count. Promoting or coming up with ways to bypass that is un-american. A free country in which you are free to vote and free to have that vote count, not in a country where someone else is free to decide whether they think your vote is ok or not.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So here's where the electoral college helped as well.....you don't have to worry about getting everybody's vote in, you just tally up the electoral votes

Logistics issues were not very high on the justification list. State's rights were.

The electoral college was based on the same foundation as a balance of the purpose of the Senate and the House. To provide representation to the States in a measure that counterbalances the direct voting power of highly populated states. Thus the voting weight of both equal state representation (like the Senate) and proportionate population (like the House) were both represented with the way Electors were allocated.

A lot more thought than just logistics went into this.

The question is whether that is important today also. I'd say it definitely is.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sv3n 0]

Agreed with everything, except the need for it today. If it's bringing about false outcomes, as it has done twice, in elections that would mean that it's time to change it to something more accurate.

Quote

Quote

So here's where the electoral college helped as well.....you don't have to worry about getting everybody's vote in, you just tally up the electoral votes

Logistics issues were not very high on the justification list. State's rights were.

The electoral college was based on the same foundation as a balance of the purpose of the Senate and the House. To provide representation to the States in a measure that counterbalances the direct voting power of highly populated states. Thus the voting weight of both equal state representation (like the Senate) and proportionate population (like the House) were both represented with the way Electors were allocated.

A lot more thought than just logistics went into this.

The question is whether that is important today also. I'd say it definitely is.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I believe it was a representative democratic republic, where by we elect representatives on our behalf, they do our bidding and therefore we don't have to vote on every little thing.

The reason this was originally done was because the technology wasn't there to take a popular vote, the same reason why we have the electoral college for elections. This statement is false. You should read the Federalists papers before you make comments like this

Well, guess what...........we now have the technology. Time to move forward.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Agreed with everything, except the need for it today. If it's bringing about false outcomes, as it has done twice, in elections that would mean that it's time to change it to something more accurate.

"False Outcome"??

oh cripes - they played by the rules and that's the outcome not matter inpalatible it might be - albeit, Gore and Co tried to change rules part way through, but that's not your issue....

Had the situation been reversed, would you still have the same viewpoint and be arguing the issue? That's your test of fairness.

Further - Did either of your perceived elections have the outcome come into question due to the electoral college process? or something else? (1 one state's rule regarding validating of votes, and 2 various allegations of voter fraud and malpractice)

If this whole thing is just a big pile of sour grapes, then I really wish I'd have not even exchanged posts. Because the issue is whether a process that balances state's rights and effectiveness against individual person's voting effectiveness is worth retaining. If the best argument to change to popular vote ONLY (the current concept in cludes an aspect of popular vote AND state's rights) someone can put forth is logistics, then the concept will get approval by the grade school contingient. the rest of the thinking population will do better in review of the proposal.

That's worth talking about. Pissing and moaning about the other is a waste of bandwidth.

You do realize, that any potential change going forward isn't retroactive, don't you?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sv3n 0]

No, I'm not whining regarding the Gore vs. Bush election. While that election is one of the two where the electoral college has caused a "false outcome" where the popular vote was won by the person chosen loser by the electoral college votes...the other being Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland in 1888. And there's also the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden which showed how easily the electoral college can be manipulated....which also seems strangely familiar to the Gore vs Bush election oddly.

And yes regardless of the outcome, I would like to see the people get the president that they wanted.

It would make no point making any change retro-active....."Oh by the way Mr. Gore you've been president for the last 2 terms...congratulations".........and I wouldn't expect it to happen. No sense crying over spilled milk. Put we should learn from our mistakes and progress.

Quote

"False Outcome"??

oh cripes - they played by the rules and that's the outcome not matter inpalatible it might be - albeit, Gore and Co tried to change rules part way through, but that's not your issue....

Had the situation been reversed, would you still have the same viewpoint and be arguing the issue? That's your test of fairness.

Further - Did either of your perceived elections have the outcome come into question due to the electoral college process? or something else? (1 one state's rule regarding validating of votes, and 2 various allegations of voter fraud and malpractice)

If this whole thing is just a big pile of sour grapes, then I really wish I'd have not even exchanged posts. Because the issue is whether a process that balances state's rights and effectiveness against individual person's voting effectiveness is worth retaining. If the best argument to change to popular vote ONLY (the current concept in cludes an aspect of popular vote AND state's rights) someone can put forth is logistics, then the concept will get approval by the grade school contingient. the rest of the thinking population will do better in review of the proposal.

That's worth talking about. Pissing and moaning about the other is a waste of bandwidth.

You do realize, that any potential change going forward isn't retroactive, don't you?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You're right, you have the right to bear arms. But it says nothing about being taxed or having those rights stripped away from you. So the right to have them is there, depending on if the goverment considers you fit to have them. But the taxation, that is subject to "mob approval"....also known as the will of the people.

This was the defense for the poll tax or literacy tests used to keep blacks from voting. You'll notice those were eventually eliminated as unconstitutional. Restrictions that effectly remove the right itself are not supportable.

As for the electoral college not respecting the will of the people - that is not clear. Gore's popular vote lead mirrored very closely his lead in California, a state that Shrub didn't bother to campaign in. Likewise for New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Gore probably didn't waste time in Texas for the same reason. Each campaigned by the rules of the game. Change to a popular vote - they campaign differently and the vote outcome changes too.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

This was the defense for the poll tax or literacy tests used to keep blacks from voting. You'll notice those were eventually eliminated as unconstitutional. Restrictions that effectly remove the right itself are not supportable.

As for the electoral college not respecting the will of the people - that is not clear. Gore's popular vote lead mirrored very closely his lead in California, a state that Shrub didn't bother to campaign in. Likewise for New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Gore probably didn't waste time in Texas for the same reason. Each campaigned by the rules of the game. Change to a popular vote - they campaign differently and the vote outcome changes too.

I watched this a while ago..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylhR8i8D4tQ&mode=related&search=..while it's a bit lengthy it's got some shocking stuff on voting. The reason I put the link is is because it directly deals with the issue of african-american voting and taking those rights away.

The 2000 election results:

Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

(you can verify them here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm)

Gore won the poplular vote, the people didn't get the president they wanted......that pretty much proves that the electoral college doesn't work.

...and you're in violation of your face!