champu

And the NRA argued AGAINST tougher penalties for straw purchasers. That's fascinating. The penalty for straw purchases or what an organization argues regarding said penalty doesn't change the challenges associated with catching people at it and convicting them so that the penalty can be applied.

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473: "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you." Oh wow, what a DIFFICULT problem to overcome. I bet THAT deters a lot of people. Well, to be fair, the clear-to-buy card (which I don't think rehmwa or myself will claim to have originated, since you named us) wouldn't directly address this issue either. If you wanted to go after straw purchasers, you would still need to pinpoint the transaction for firearms that had been used in crimes. You can't do that without a) the cooperation of the perp in custody or b) a database of transactions (i.e. a national gun registry, about which I think people have legitimate concerns.) I think it should be pretty clear that the specific issue of straw purchases is difficult if not impossible to address without really getting in everyone's shorts. Now, I say "directly" above because all it takes now is for someone to just go in and buy a gun for you. You fill out the form, run the check, etc. all more or less as part of the same transaction. Whereas if you needed to get an id card first, then go to a place and buy the firearm that's two steps and thus at least marginally more difficult to convince someone to do for you. Sort of "security through bureaucracy" if you will. But whether it's making someone lie on a form or making them jump through one more hoop it's still a "cross your fingers and hope for the best" sort of measure, and should not be a primary argument for implementing a clear to buy card.

I am decidedly not TK, but I've made a couple posts about why high tax-receipts, college degrees, liberal voting trends, and crime all seem to end up in the same places. The simplest answer is just high population density leads to all of that stuff.

I was going to say this seems wildly off, but then I added my (new) property tax build to the totals and it seems in the ballpark. and this is before I factor in the new fed deductions for interest and property tax. That said, what would the ratio be if you couldn't deduct state income and property taxes as well as the loan interest? Any deductions you remove will cause federal to pull away from state because of the difference in marginal rates. Full disclosure though, this calculation looks a lot different in 2013... For starters, the fed oasdi holday lapsed so that makes $X bigger. Also I refinanced at the end of last year and successfully petitioned down my assessed property value so I will be deducting quite a bit less interest and property taxes next year (making $X bigger still, and my California burden a bit smaller.) So for 2013 my state burden will be between 66% and 70% of my total federal burden. (again, largely due to paying more to the feds.)

I'll share a few numbers from 2012 to put this in perspective. I live in California, I do okay but wouldn't qualify as "rich", I'm a W-2 employee, file single, and I own a 1700 sq ft townhouse. Last year, after all the dust settled, my federal tax bill including income and my portion of medicare and fed oasdi was $X. My California tax bill including income, oasdi, property tax, and vehicle registration was about 0.75 * $X. The sales tax in this and surrounding towns is 9%. I honestly couldn't tell you off hand how much I spent last year that was subject to sales tax, but I would estimate somewhere between 0.1 and 0.15 * $X paid in sales taxes. So my total state burden was about 85% to 90% of my total federal burden.

The stun setting is for sissies.

I didn't mean it in any weird or sarcastic sense, so you don't have to keep doing that if you don't want. It's just a word I used.

I put the word "solution" in quotes because I don't think banning words solves anything either. I'm not clear on why you keep putting "empathy" in quotes though, that's kinda odd.

It is possible to disagree with someone's "solution" to a problem without denying there might be a problem. Further, it's possible to disagree with someone stating that a condition is a problem without denying that the condition exists. If you go non-linear about the "solution" and refuse to take a couple steps backwards, you end up arguing out in left field.

It's funny (to me, anyway) that you would start your post with such scorn about someone's ability to follow a thread, and then display a terrible lack of empathy for what the original post was complaining about, regardless of whether you agree with the idea of wishing words away. You truly think too highly of yourself. His complaint was about words that have come to do a terrible job at communicating information about a person's viewpoint. He's sick of people using certain words as a crutch, using words in a dismissive way when they don't wish to approach a topic in an engaging manner, and people overloading words as pejoratives and sucking all the usefulness they may have once had out of them. It has nothing to do with burying any ideas.

I know exactly the kinds of posts you're talking about and while I too lament the use of words like "liberal" and "conservative" as slurs, doing away with them wouldn't help. People are as capable and/or willing to engage in civil debate as they are... chipping away at the languge won't suddenly make people more critical thinkers. I am reminded, again, of FYAD. If I remember correctly that website has seperate forums for guns, religion, and politics in addition to FYAD. Speakers Corner kinda lumps all those sentiments together.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate. Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited. "Be the change that you wish to see in the world."

Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

See post #100. Again, I think this was dancing around on a fine line and there wasn't enough information in the affidavit to convince me one way or the other.

I'd be surprised if that were possible.

We have a LONG way to go before that. A really, really, fucking long way. Like a trip to the Andromeda Galaxy kinda long... ...trust me. Things said off the cuff and without a thought or care in this country could easily get you killed in other "civilized" countries. That's downright hyperbolic. Aside: I got a pretty good chuckle out of this...

Aiding and abetting is to help someone else commit a crime. An aider and abettor is a helper who is present at a crime scene but in a passive role, such as acting as a lookout. That means assisting a person in committing a crime, but in a lesser role. No what happened here. Just to be clear... I'm asserting the existence of a line. I don't necessarily think the reporter in this case crossed it. I actually don't think there's enough information in the affidavit to say, but there are people that are saying hands down reporters are in the clear and I simply don't think that's the case. The precedent is important to understand regardless of which way the pendulum swings. So, devil's advocating it up a bit here... It would depend on the physical access restrictions in place for the system the person was accessing (e.g. no ability to print, disabled media drives, bags subject to search on exit, etc.), but if you planned a phone call with the cleared individual and you could be reasonably expected to know that the information you were going to receive was classified, then being on the other end of the phone while the person reads the information to you could be considered aiding and abetting. My reasoning being you are actively involved in the removal of the information and circumvention of security measures.

I'd be interested to hear your take on my take (post #30, it probably got lost in the commotion)

Now we know what you think Thanks Indeed... when I write, "I really think..." you are free to assume that what follows is what I really think and nothing more. I do try to differentiate between when I am intending to speak authoritatively and when I'm sharing my opinion. No worries on the quip. My comment wasn't soley directed at you and was intended to be in the context of the recent useful debate or just lots and lots of yelling thread. I used the word "people" instead of "you" and included another example to try and garner some "speakers corner impartiality cred." My point is simply to not worry so much about making sure that "political crap" has a place.

From the letter that quade posted... Here is a link to 18 U.S.C. section 793 for reference And I've attached an excerpt from page 20 which is an e-mail they recovered on the receiving end prior to obtaining/executing the warrant against the reporter. The litmus test is not exactly the same, but you can kinda draw a parallel to trying to figure out if a law enforcement officer on a sting operation entrapped the suspect. It's walking a fine line when you're trying to get someone to break the law for you, whether it's so you can arrest them or if it's for your own personal/career benefit.

I really think it would help if people would stop posting threads that use a web article to pin a viewpoint on "the other side" of posters here. The umbrella thread was another example in the other direction. "Here, look at this garbage you believe. What a pack of morons..."

I don't see anything particularly funky in the decision, although I haven't studied it all that intently. To me it's the Third Circuit's decision that was off-putting, [paraphrased] "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"

Speakers corner is probably about 1/3 people who want to trumpet their staunch opinions as loudly and frequently as possible because they're just frustrated about something, 1/3 people who just enjoy egging the first group on, and 1/3 people interested in discussing current events or reading discussions about them. These groups don't necessarily post with the same frequency though. If you look around in the threads there really just aren't that many people who post here anymore. The thing I found most iconic in the umbrella thread was someone writing early on, "This is just a website stirring up shit." and the next post is someone saying [paraphrased], "Well then let's go for a swim."

Well, that was a lie we all saw coming.