LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:46 pm

tifosi77 wrote:Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study:Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Discuss.


Would be much easier to read without the foot notes that take up half the page.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:48 pm

Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:52 pm

How about we just repeal the Second Amendment and start from scratch on gun policy in this country?
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:13 pm

tifosi77 wrote:Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study:Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Discuss.

It's an amusing coincidence that one of the authors has the same last name as one of the most recognized firearms designers of all time (and the company he operated): Mauser.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:34 pm

MWB wrote:How about we just repeal the Second Amendment and start from scratch on gun policy in this country?

While I'm of the stated opinion that neither side of the current gun control debate would relish a return to the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure if serious.

Repealing an amendment requires the passage of a Constitutional amendment, which can be done in two ways: First, passage by 2/3 majorities of both the House and the Senate followed by a ratification of 3/4 of the various state legislatures (38 states). Second, a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures (33 states), whereby any resultant proposed amendment is then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

I'm not entirely sure you could get a 2/3 majority in Congress to agree on the spelling of 'Congress', and representatives are being recalled for merely voting in favor of something that a clear majority of the population as a whole supports.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:47 pm

I'm somewhat serious, but I know it would never happen. It would never come close to getting the votes.

However, every gun debate boils down to the Second Amendment. It's a knee-jerk reaction from both sides to invoke it in one way or another. Obviously, at least in part, because it's part of the Constitution. However, I also believe that we are so far removed from the actual Amendment that it doesn't make sense any more. It's become so distorted over the years (through legal means) that it is just a crutch. It's basically created the gun culture that we have today. A lot of that gun culture isn't a problem in any way, but I don't see how the gun has as much weight in this country as the other freedoms we are granted.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:19 pm

Over/under on how may pairs of Depends that Ted Cruz is wearing?
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:20 pm

MWB wrote:I'm somewhat serious, but I know it would never happen. It would never come close to getting the votes.

However, every gun debate boils down to the Second Amendment. It's a knee-jerk reaction from both sides to invoke it in one way or another. Obviously, at least in part, because it's part of the Constitution. However, I also believe that we are so far removed from the actual Amendment that it doesn't make sense any more. It's become so distorted over the years (through legal means) that it is just a crutch. It's basically created the gun culture that we have today. A lot of that gun culture isn't a problem in any way, but I don't see how the gun has as much weight in this country as the other freedoms we are granted.

I completely disagree. The Second Amendment isn't about guns per se, it about the people having the ability to push the reset button if the government goes too far. What good is a “paper” right to, say, freedom of speech if a tyrannical government will just ignore it? The 2A is there to make the government afraid of the people.

And, yeah, I know people like tifosi will argue that the government has tanks and (lousy, overpriced) fighter planes, so the people wouldn’t stand a chance. Yeah, if a guerrilla opposition would be no match for the mighty US military, then I guess we crushed the Vietnamese and Taliban, right? Oh, we lost in Vietnam and the Taliban are still there and going strong? Huh.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:56 pm

This will please shad....

No communion for Nancy Pelosi: Vatican court head
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... cy-pelosi/
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:57 pm

Shyster wrote:
MWB wrote:I'm somewhat serious, but I know it would never happen. It would never come close to getting the votes.

However, every gun debate boils down to the Second Amendment. It's a knee-jerk reaction from both sides to invoke it in one way or another. Obviously, at least in part, because it's part of the Constitution. However, I also believe that we are so far removed from the actual Amendment that it doesn't make sense any more. It's become so distorted over the years (through legal means) that it is just a crutch. It's basically created the gun culture that we have today. A lot of that gun culture isn't a problem in any way, but I don't see how the gun has as much weight in this country as the other freedoms we are granted.

I completely disagree. The Second Amendment isn't about guns per se, it about the people having the ability to push the reset button if the government goes too far. What good is a “paper” right to, say, freedom of speech if a tyrannical government will just ignore it? The 2A is there to make the government afraid of the people.


The original intent was to make the government more afraid of the people. That is not how it is being used now, by and large. It is being used as an excuse for people to have guns for whatever reason they want.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Factorial on Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:11 pm

On Ted Cruz:

Sarah Palin wrote:People throw rocks at things that shine.
Factorial
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 9,123
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: Gleefully Ignorant

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:47 pm

MWB wrote:The original intent was to make the government more afraid of the people. That is not how it is being used now, by and large. It is being used as an excuse for people to have guns for whatever reason they want.

And does that make politicians nervous? If so, IMO it's working as designed. And what reasons for owning guns do you think should be prohibited?
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:55 am

columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby bh on Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:14 am

columbia wrote:This will please shad....

No communion for Nancy Pelosi: Vatican court head
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... cy-pelosi/

Yesssssss! ka-ching!
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,605
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:48 am

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:33 am

That's a pretty impressive impersonation by Bono
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:54 am

He was always pretty good at pretending.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:47 am

tifosi77 wrote:Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study:Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Discuss.


That's an interesting read, thanks for posting.

My main complaint in discussing gun control laws is that most people default to basic opinions and not fact especially including not having a clue what being a certain gun type means.

Gun control has been one issue I haven't really dug deep into but plan to at some point while traveling. Probably look up some info and start reading.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,120
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:06 am

columbia wrote:How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/309448/


These are always interesting reads but I have a sore spot for articles that complain about tax payers footing the bill for rich sports owners. It's not that in theory I think the idea is wrong its that:

1. Government funding is essential to all cities to businesses. The numbers I see that go to sports teams are pittance compared to tax breaks and funds other entities get.

2. People need to understand its not free cash. It's cities/states or counties competing against other cities, states and even local areas to keep tax revenue. It's Pittsburgh vs Kansas City/Cranberry Township/Butler/Washington PA/Seattle.

3. Again, I get the point of the rich getting richer but this is so common I find it hilarious that sports teams always getting negative articles while other entities this exact same cash break/gives are lauded. A few examples: people love Pittsburgh tax breaks to get movies to be made in The City and they are more than the few million per year the teams each get, Cranberry/Southpoine/Pittsburgh were revitalized or grown largely based on tax breaks and funding for VERY RICH businesses even pointed out as the standard by Obama, all other entertainment is funded in cities like the cultural district etc. I could go in with that one.

They also don't take into account non specific items such as how many college students don't come to or near Pittsburgh without pro sports teams (as an example). You just ignore non directly related dollars.

4. Final point, I did a ton of reading on the articles of how sports teams cost cities money and by the end I had to laugh. All the articles written by economists supposedly 10 times smarter than me were amazingly flawed. First you can't take the economic impact of a team based on the stadium/arena. You have to take into account things like money spent during away games at bars, grocery store spends for home and away games, beer distributors, bars on home games all the way past areas like cranberry and Washington.

One study pointed out that tax revenue didn't much increase on game days? First of course not, the government investment and return is a small piece of the pie but second a city like Pittsburgh has pro, college and other events almost every day plus huge spends on away games.

For example: An away game steelers Sunday with a home pirates game with people at bars and people at PNC would show the same tax revenue as a home steelers Sunday - but the studies show that as a negative.

Anyway ways sorry for the long reply its just been a sore spot with me since I did a lot of reading up on it for a year or so. Not saying I am right just thinking that until someone shows me an actual study that isn't extremely flawed AND includes their reasoning for excluding the same funding/tax breaks to like individuals or businesses (the same type that is seen as a positive) then I am skeptical and don't care.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,120
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby pensfan1989 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:38 am

If the Steelers didn't exist, the alcohol tax revenue in Allegheny County would be a lot lower :pop:
pensfan1989
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,220
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Ponakronkoski

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:39 am

Shyster wrote:
MWB wrote:I'm somewhat serious, but I know it would never happen. It would never come close to getting the votes.

However, every gun debate boils down to the Second Amendment. It's a knee-jerk reaction from both sides to invoke it in one way or another. Obviously, at least in part, because it's part of the Constitution. However, I also believe that we are so far removed from the actual Amendment that it doesn't make sense any more. It's become so distorted over the years (through legal means) that it is just a crutch. It's basically created the gun culture that we have today. A lot of that gun culture isn't a problem in any way, but I don't see how the gun has as much weight in this country as the other freedoms we are granted.

I completely disagree. The Second Amendment isn't about guns per se, it about the people having the ability to push the reset button if the government goes too far. What good is a “paper” right to, say, freedom of speech if a tyrannical government will just ignore it? The 2A is there to make the government afraid of the people.

And, yeah, I know people like tifosi will argue that the government has tanks and (lousy, overpriced) fighter planes, so the people wouldn’t stand a chance. Yeah, if a guerrilla opposition would be no match for the mighty US military, then I guess we crushed the Vietnamese and Taliban, right? Oh, we lost in Vietnam and the Taliban are still there and going strong? Huh.

The 2A was about the people only inasmuch as it was/is individual citizens who comprise(d) the state militias. It was these state militias that were seen as the bulwark against federal tyranny, not necessarily the people themselves. It's about the ability of a smaller geopolitical entity protecting its sovereignty against a larger affiliate. It's not about people en mass hitting the reset button at all; that's just a mob, and the 2A does not mention anything about a well regulated mob. It's about preserving the ability of the states to hit the reset button in the case of federal overreach. The 2A represents an individual right - in the context of 1789 - only inasmuch as the militia is comprised of the people. And also remember the militia was not only the heat sink between the states and the federal government, it was the primary land fighting force of the U.S. government when called into service; when the Constitution was drafted it forbade appropriations for a standing army for periods longer than two years. The militia was the army.

The individual right to possess firearms did not exist outside the context of militia service until fairly recently. It took 230-odd years of jurisprudence and evolving interpretations of the 2A to get to Miller, and another almost seven decades to get to Heller. But even in Heller the Court said, "...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty." So the Court in its landmark decision interpreting an individual right recognized by the 2A concedes that when drafted that individual right existed solely in the context of militia service. (They then go on, just two sentences later, to explain that even tho that's not how militias are set up anymore the underlying right of possessing firearms can be completely divorced from the concept of militias.... which is totally contradictory reasoning.)

And in terms of military action, the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong and Taliban were utterly destroyed by a U.S. military was was allowed to unleash only a percentage of its capabilities. I'm not necessarily saying that things would be different in the case of putting down an armed insurrection, because you'd have the inherent brother-v-brother tensions and whatnot, but it's almost funny to see this type of example being bandied about. Really? The American people are going to build underground jungle tunnels and hide in mountainous caves? We the People are going to become so savvy with guerrilla warfare tactics that the U.S. military will just go, "Oh fine..... f**k it, you're West Maryland". Please. We make angry Facebook status updates and Twitter posts when someone snakes a parking spot forcing us to walk an extra 30 feet. We are almost immeasurably soft as a people.

I simply cannot take it seriously when people say the guns in their safe are to protect them against the tyranny of the government. It's just so much foil hat nonsense that I have a hard time understanding how reasonably intelligent people can even arrive that sort of mental construct that has them look at a carbine and say, "Ah yes.... this will keep the 2nd Battalion /1st Marines bottled up at Pendleton and out of my business."
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:46 am

Bravo, Sir.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:48 am

I live in a county that would be part of West Maryland. I love the idea but know it will never happen.
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,916
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby redwill on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:55 am

shafnutz05 wrote:That's a pretty impressive impersonation by Bono


Sounded more like Pat Robertson IMO.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,342
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:56 am

redwill wrote:
shafnutz05 wrote:That's a pretty impressive impersonation by Bono


Sounded more like Pat Robertson IMO.


:thumb: :lol:
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:11 am

tifosi has obviously never seen "Red Dawn."
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


e-mail