Shotgun

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    8,899

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Shotgun

  1. Shotgun
    Here's a link to an interview with Joe Biden talking about gun control: http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=10E429E8-D6C5-73BE-6B76159E19DE8802 Excerpt: But I'm not finding anything to indicate that he is someone who thinks that "no one should own a firearm." The quote you posted may have been in reference to banning certain types of guns, but I don't know since I can't find anything other than pro-gun sites that post that one quote with no context.
  2. Shotgun
    Yeah, I did that too. It came up with a bunch of pro-gun sites with quotes out of context, but no real references. In the LA Times article that you posted, it's not clear whether they are referring to all guns or just a particular type of gun (handguns?).
  3. Shotgun
    Do you have references to any of these? I'm particularly interested in seeing where Biden is on public record stating that his personal goal is the removal of all firearms from civilian hands. (I assume Biden is one of the people you're talking about, since you referred me to post #8.) Also, the Feinstein remark that John quoted, I believe was in reference to a particular type of gun, not all guns. I'm not sure about this, but it's hard to draw a conclusion from quotes that may be taken out of context.
  4. Shotgun
    Can you give a few names?
  5. Shotgun
    I wouldn't support a politician who wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. (I assume that's what you mean when you say "against all gun ownership"?) But if a politician's views on gun control differ only slightly from mine, then there are plenty of other issues to consider.
  6. Shotgun
    Doh! I totally got rick rolled!
  7. Shotgun
    Which law is that? In California, you have to be registered to vote. Also, people who have felony convictions or who have been judged mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote.
  8. Shotgun
    Especially if it was inside this one.
  9. Shotgun
    Cadbury Creme Eggs
  10. Shotgun
    Oops! Sorry about that.
  11. Shotgun
    Civil union in which country? I was referring to the U.S., but I don't know how the switch would translate to other countries. Actually, it's really just a big stupid complicated idea. Makes a lot more sense to simply allow same-sex marriage.
  12. Shotgun
    I never said that you shouldn't try. I was just responding to your saying that you wouldn't have a range if you couldn't "completely eliminate" the chance of one person killing another.
  13. Shotgun
    Immigration is the benefit where it is hard to see how to completely get government out of the marriage business. Most people are against completely open borders but are in favor of allowing bona fide spouses of citizens to immigrate. And they probably split re allowing civil union partners to immigrate. But the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights.
  14. Shotgun
    I don't think it is possible for a range to "completely eliminate the chance" of a customer killing another customer. And back to the dz analogy - the same could be said for a dz.
  15. Shotgun
    I'm wondering if there should be a mechanism in place for them to either do background checks or at least require a license/permit to be presented that shows a background check has been done. I'm not sure how far that background check should go though. I sort of think that involuntary commitments should be included in that check and exclude a person from legally having a gun, but I guess I would need to know more about that process before saying for sure.
  16. Shotgun
    That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. While I'm not for having a ridiculous amount of gun legislation, I do think that background checks are a good idea for anyone buying or renting a gun.
  17. Shotgun
    Is a license required to rent a gun?
  18. Shotgun
    The rest of the article is here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html I sort of like this idea of leaving "marriage" to the religions, with no legal recognition. It would be fine with me if my "marriage" was turned into a "civil union" or whatever; it wouldn't change anything. But somehow I doubt it would satisfy the same-sex marriage opponents. I think that for most of them, their agenda is beyond simply keeping same-sex couples from using the word "marriage."
  19. Shotgun
    I doubt that it would "break the bank." Even if same-sex marriage was allowed at the federal level, I think that the spouses in same-sex marriages who would get VA benefits would be a very small number compared to the spouses in heterosexual marriages who get VA benefits. And I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we treat non-veterans before treating veterans.
  20. Shotgun
    I assume a heterosexual couple would get the same benefits if they were married, but since the same-sex couples can't get married, it makes sense to extend the benefits to them in this way. And I suspect that any companies that do this will change their policies once same-sex marriage is legal.
  21. Shotgun
    What kind of benefits?
  22. Shotgun
    Yes, there is. One thing is that marriage has mostly involved the woman basically becoming the property of the man, but that has changed in recent times (in our culture anyway). If it's about religion, then atheists such as myself should not be allowed to get married. Also, if it's about having children, then people who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married. But I don't think it's all about either of those things. It seems to me that marriage is a legal thing in this country. It may have religious meaning for _some_ married couples, but it has a legal meaning for _all_ married couples. So I think we need to either extend legal marriage to all people (consenting adults, of course), or we need to make marriage a strictly religious thing with no legal rights/benefits associated with it.
  23. Shotgun
    It's a religious issue for some people. I am married, but it has nothing to do with religion for me. And I don't think that allowing same-sex couples to marry steps into the bounds of religious freedoms, as long as no church is required to perform these marriages. And as far as how marriage has always been defined, I think it's been defined in different ways by different cultures and at different times throughout history. I think the general idea of it usually has something to do with a basic family unit, and perhaps it has most often been defined as between a man and a woman, but I see no reason why that should keep us from allowing same-sex marriage today. I think most of the dictionaries have already changed their definitions for marriage anyway.
  24. Shotgun
    Maybe it has something to do with the power of Uranus.
  25. Shotgun
    And hopefully punishing people for driving poorly, before they get in accidents. Give a hefty fine to the guy who is swerving all over the road while texting (or swerving all over the road for whatever reason) and maybe he'll change his behavior before causing an accident. But I agree that it makes more sense for the punishment to be about the reckless driving rather than about the texting.