Dems conduct sit-in over gun laws

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2016, 12:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness Chicago gang violence is as much proof that guns don't protect you from bad guys with guns as much as it is proof that gun control doesn't work.

If most of America were the Chicago slums then the Chicago homicide rate would be a lot more applicable to the rest of the country.

In a way it does prove that, because it's bad guys with guns killing other bad guys with guns.  You take away inner city gang violence and we have a murder rate comparable to European nations.  The solution is simple, remove the economic incentive for these gangs to kill each other by legalizing drugs, or at least some of them.  Also, heavier sentences for gun related crimes, even carrying, would go some way towards solving the problem.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-23-2016, 03:22 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Isn't the easy ability to move around the country being infringed by a no fly list? Call it freedom of expression. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but it seems like no fly lists are problematic to begin with. 

All that said, constitutionally protected rights already see pragmatic compromise in other laws and have for a long time and that's OK. We have more civil liberties protections than at any point in history. 

Freedom of movement is certainly an important right, but I'm not sure anyone has the right to fly in a plane without some form of regulation. We're required to get licenses and insurance to drive cars. There are rules regarding how you operate your car. There's already rules about what we can and cannot bring onto planes. There's rules regarding who can fly planes and how they fly them. There's also the fact that without the government, travel would be a lot harder. You'd have only private roads and bridges. 

Not sure flying in a plane is a right as much as it is a privilege. 

[GMDino]

(06-23-2016, 10:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a way it does prove that, because it's bad guys with guns killing other bad guys with guns.  You take away inner city gang violence and we have a murder rate comparable to European nations.  The solution is simple, remove the economic incentive for these gangs to kill each other by legalizing drugs, or at least some of them.  Also, heavier sentences for gun related crimes, even carrying, would go some way towards solving the problem.  

Totally agree.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-23-2016, 11:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Freedom of movement is certainly an important right, but I'm not sure anyone has the right to fly in a plane without some form of regulation. We're required to get licenses and insurance to drive cars. There are rules regarding how you operate your car. There's already rules about what we can and cannot bring onto planes. There's rules regarding who can fly planes and how they fly them. There's also the fact that without the government, travel would be a lot harder. You'd have only private roads and bridges. 

Not sure flying in a plane is a right as much as it is a privilege. 

(06-23-2016, 03:22 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Isn't the easy ability to move around the country being infringed by a no fly list? Call it freedom of expression. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but it seems like no fly lists are problematic to begin with. 

All that said, constitutionally protected rights already see pragmatic compromise in other laws and have for a long time and that's OK. We have more civil liberties protections than at any point in history. 

It is my understanding that the "No Fly" list is not a mandatory thing. Airlines, being private companies, can allow people on the 'no fly' list to fly if they so desire, they generally heed the 'No Fly' list because, I mean, if someone on the list used their airplanes in a 9/11-like attack, you can imagine the response by the general public.

[THE Bigzoman]

(06-23-2016, 10:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a way it does prove that, because it's bad guys with guns killing other bad guys with guns.  You take away inner city gang violence and we have a murder rate comparable to European nations.  The solution is simple, remove the economic incentive for these gangs to kill each other by legalizing drugs, or at least some of them.  Also, heavier sentences for gun related crimes, even carrying, would go some way towards solving the problem.  

These are the kinds of economics arguments that barely scratch the surface.


Legalizing drugs wouldn't remove the incentives to kill people. At best, you'd only delay it.

You're not addressing the poverty, cultural, or single-mother problem by getting rid of the drug trade--all 3 are what are prompting inner city youth to turn to the black market. At best, you're only giving people a brief break from their negative effects.

Another black market would fill the void sooner or later, and we'd find ourselves back at square one.

[THE Bigzoman]

(06-23-2016, 03:22 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Isn't the easy ability to move around the country being infringed by a no fly list? Call it freedom of expression. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but it seems like no fly lists are problematic to begin with. 

All that said, constitutionally protected rights already see pragmatic compromise in other laws and have for a long time and that's OK. We have more civil liberties protections than at any point in history. 

I wouldn't say so.

Freedom of movement isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, unlike the right to bear arms at its current interpretation.

[StLucieBengal]

I saw where this was a catered "sit in"

And can you sit in when your allowed to be in there?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-23-2016, 07:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I saw where this was a catered "sit in"  

And can you sit in when your allowed to be in there?

So, should they actually all be fired, for that unsolicited work stoppage? 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-23-2016, 07:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, should they actually all be fired, for that unsolicited work stoppage? 

Term limits.  

[SunsetBengal]

(06-23-2016, 07:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Term limits.  

I just find it humorous that the activist/demonstrator/disruptor mentality has ascended all the way to congress..

[xxlt]

(06-22-2016, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think bringing a bill to a vote would be good. That is what they are asking for, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

I am more concerned about Speaker Ryan cutting media access to the chamber. I never like when that occurs on the hill.

Clearly sir, you are a communist. It is men like Ryan and Trump we need to lead us - men with the guts to restrict media coverage however and whenever they deem it serves America best!

[SunsetBengal]

(06-23-2016, 09:14 PM)xxlt Wrote: Clearly sir, you are a communist. It is men like Ryan and Trump we need to lead us - men with the guts to restrict media coverage however and whenever they deem it serves America best!

Nah, just a case of the shoe being on the other foot, this time.

http://http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/when-democrats-turned-out-the-lights-on-republicans/488321/

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2016, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I just find it humorous that the activist/demonstrator/disruptor mentality has ascended all the way to congress..

Well, IIRC, Rep. Lewis was a part of the civil rights movement and marched at Selma. So he likely brought the mentality with him.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I just find it humorous that the activist/demonstrator/disruptor mentality has ascended all the way to congress..

To me the most troubling thing in the matter is POTUS lending his support of this breech of protocol. I understand the Congressmen grandstanding; however, POTUS should ignore it at the minimum and condemn it at the most.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2016, 07:29 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: These are the kinds of economics arguments that barely scratch the surface.


Legalizing drugs wouldn't remove the incentives to kill people. At best, you'd only delay it.

You're not addressing the poverty, cultural, or single-mother problem by getting rid of the drug trade--all 3 are what are prompting inner city youth to turn to the black market. At best, you're only giving people a brief break from their negative effects.

Another black market would fill the void sooner or later, and we'd find ourselves back at square one.

Sorry, but no.  I agree that addressing the root causes of poverty and lack of opportunity are also necessary for any kind of comprehensive, and long term, solution.  However, there is no other black market product that will take the place of illegal drugs that would be even a fraction as lucrative.  If you disagree kindly name just one currently illegal item or substance that would fill that void.

[Rotobeast]

(06-23-2016, 11:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, but no.  I agree that addressing the root causes of poverty and lack of opportunity are also necessary for any kind of comprehensive, and long term, solution.  However, there is no other black market product that will take the place of illegal drugs that would be even a fraction as lucrative.  If you disagree kindly name just one currently illegal item or substance that would fill that void.

I'd wager you'd see a rise in pimpin'.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 06:45 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd wager you'd see a rise in pimpin'.

Legalize prostitution as well.  I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal and a woman's choice to sell her own body for money.  Or a dude's choice for that matter.

[Rotobeast]

(06-24-2016, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Legalize prostitution as well.  I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal and a woman's choice to sell her own body for money.  Or a dude's choice for that matter.

I whole-heartedly agree.
Then they can tax that, too.....lol

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-24-2016, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Legalize prostitution as well.  I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal and a woman's choice to sell her own body for money.  Or a dude's choice for that matter.

(06-24-2016, 12:54 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I whole-heartedly agree.
Then they can tax that, too.....lol

While I'm all for freedom of choice in individual lives, I would be concerned about the rates of increase in trafficking when it is legalized. But there do not seem to be clear cut answers yet, since different models (Nordic, U.S) all have some flaws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 01:15 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: While I'm all for freedom of choice in individual lives, I would be concerned about the rates of increase in trafficking when it is legalized.  But there do not seem to be clear cut answers yet, since different models (Nordic, U.S) all have some flaws.

As someone who works in the LEO field I can tell you legalization means regulation.  No one is going to a trafficked, illegal, prostitute when they can go to a legal, regulated, guaranteed disease free one.  The only market for trafficking will be in illegal prostitution like under aged children.  The good news is all the resources currently, and rightly, being used on adult women will be able to be transferred to these poor children meaning more effective enforcement and prevention.