Guns, Guns Guns

KNick wrote:As I was reading Donnachaidhs post I came to the realization that the disconnect between Americans and citizens of the British Empire (of all stripes) is actually quite simple. They all expect their local Parliament to do their job and try to get things right, or if they can't figure out what is right, to do nothing. The US is rapidly coming to a consensus that Congress can not do anything right. If they can't figure out what to do, they will do what whoever screams the loudest or pays the most money wants them to do. They no longer listen to what the majority wants or thinks or, for that matter, explicitly tells them to do. In other words, we no longer trust "the government", just as we stopped trusting King George around 1770-73.

When did the majority of Americans trust "the government"?

For me, I trusted them until about 1965. When I was 12.

Sigh, I wish I could argue against this, but unfortunately even used car sales men are more trusted. Unfortunately the skum-bag politicians designed a system that keeps the scoundrels in power indefinitely, sigh.

Poker

KNick wrote:As I was reading Donnachaidhs post I came to the realization that the disconnect between Americans and citizens of the British Empire (of all stripes) is actually quite simple. They all expect their local Parliament to do their job and try to get things right, or if they can't figure out what is right, to do nothing. The US is rapidly coming to a consensus that Congress can not do anything right. If they can't figure out what to do, they will do what whoever screams the loudest or pays the most money wants them to do. They no longer listen to what the majority wants or thinks or, for that matter, explicitly tells them to do. In other words, we no longer trust "the government", just as we stopped trusting King George around 1770-73.

KNick wrote:As I was reading Donnachaidhs post I came to the realization that the disconnect between Americans and citizens of the British Empire (of all stripes) is actually quite simple. They all expect their local Parliament to do their job and try to get things right, or if they can't figure out what is right, to do nothing. The US is rapidly coming to a consensus that Congress can not do anything right. If they can't figure out what to do, they will do what whoever screams the loudest or pays the most money wants them to do. They no longer listen to what the majority wants or thinks or, for that matter, explicitly tells them to do. In other words, we no longer trust "the government", just as we stopped trusting King George around 1770-73.

Sadly, you may be close to the truth. I may not trust politicians overall to "do their duty for the good of all", but i KNOW that there´s a decent number who works hard to make things work and get better, while what i see from USA is that politics have become an "us and them" game of money more than not.

from my local paper.


thoughts?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10875025

Spacekiwi wrote:from my local paper.


thoughts?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10875025

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the town in Georgia that passed a law requiring every head of household to own a gun.

As far as the Connecticut law goes, the day the Governor of that state signs the bill, someone will file suit to block implementation on the grounds that it violates their rights. In 5 or 6 years, if it is upheld, it might be implemented. Then, someone will challenge it on the basis that it criminalizes an action after the fact. Another 5 or 6 years later, the state of Connecticut will be out several million dollars and then they will have scrap or rewrite the bill. If they had written several bills addressing one point each, they might have done some good.

KNick wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:from my local paper.


thoughts?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10875025

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the town in Georgia that passed a law requiring every head of household to own a gun.

As far as the Connecticut law goes, the day the Governor of that state signs the bill, someone will file suit to block implementation on the grounds that it violates their rights. In 5 or 6 years, if it is upheld, it might be implemented. Then, someone will challenge it on the basis that it criminalizes an action after the fact. Another 5 or 6 years later, the state of Connecticut will be out several million dollars and then they will have scrap or rewrite the bill. If they had written several bills addressing one point each, they might have done some good.

So kudos for effort, but aint gonna happen?

Spacekiwi wrote:So kudos for effort, but aint gonna happen?

It will happen, eventually. The problem is, by bunching it all in one bill, the parts that people will accept will get tangled with the ones they wont. Since people who disagree with any provision can keep the entire law from taking effect, the parts that make sense and actually help with the problems get shut down too. If they had done individual bills, some parts could take effect immediately. Also, with individual bills, all the different parts could be adjudicated at the same time, if people didn't like them.

KNick wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:So kudos for effort, but aint gonna happen?

It will happen, eventually. The problem is, by bunching it all in one bill, the parts that people will accept will get tangled with the ones they wont. Since people who disagree with any provision can keep the entire law from taking effect, the parts that make sense and actually help with the problems get shut down too. If they had done individual bills, some parts could take effect immediately. Also, with individual bills, all the different parts could be adjudicated at the same time, if people didn't like them.

point. But dont the GOP want all the rules on guns abolished anyway, so from that point, wouldnt they attempt to have all the single bills thrown out as well?

Hi Spacekiwi.

While that seems to be the case, it is more complicated than that. Some of the measures in the bill, such as the background check, are merely extensions of laws that are already on the books. That one has already been challenged and upheld. It has been deemed to be in the public interest to attempt to exclude criminals from purchasing a gun of any type. The new parts of the law add point of sale requirements that are not covered by previous law (the so called gun show exemption). They also add some classes of people that are not currently covered. That amendment to the law would pass almost anywhere.

The assault weapons part of the bill is the one I personally have the most trouble with. Not with what it attempts to do, but the language with which it is written. Under the proposed definitions, even a handgun could be classified as an "assault weapon". The second reason I think this is bad law is the fact that such a law already exists, with very precise definitions, very strict controls and has already been in use for over fifty years.

I object to the magazine measures because it makes owning such a magazine illegal. That would automatically make anyone who owns one a criminal, even though it was legal when purchased. Separate the different parts and let each one be decided separately.