Who Advises Mittens ?

[byco42]

Anyways here is my take:

Byco is wrong about Romney, he again is trying to play to the base, without full understanding.

Actually, I am quite an accomplished bass player. A lefty, in fact. Forgot to mention guitar and bass in the left/right survey.

Please point out the errors in my argument about what Romney said. And what I am not understanding.

 

[cheeno]

All you have shown there is that law breakers will break the law. When they are caught; they pay the consequences. Passing drug laws does not ban drugs from existence; they punish the people who make, sell and use them.

Banning guns will not eliminate them from existence, either, and that's the discriminating factor, and why the two issues are not the same argument. There are legislators who want to ban guns and they think it's the solution to the problem and that it is possible. No legislator would suggest that it's possible to ban drugs.

So you can't make a gun law because you couldn't eliminate guns. But you can make a drug law even though it is impossible to eliminate drugs. Excuse the pun but are you off your meds?

The fact is, you can't make a gun law because in the 18th-19th century our military was made up of private citizens and we enshrined that right in the constitution and the NRA, Weapons makers, and general nuts lobby for them. But you can make a drug law because of powerful lobbies to the contrary, misguided lawmakers, etc.

Bottom line prohibition doesn't work for guns or drugs. Regulating both would be a good idea.

 

[cheeno]

Please point out the errors in my argument about what Romney said. And what I am not understanding.

This was pointed out to you a dozen times. Romney said he shouldn't have had weapons and that many of them were obtained illegally. In fact the weapons that he did have that did the most damage are available legally to any nut who hasn't been diagnosed in the US.

 

[Michchamp]

...

However MC pointed out some areas where regulations can obviously and easily be strengthened.

this is exactly the problem I have with the weaselly speech of Romney here; he acts like there's zero chance this could've been prevented under different laws.

Obviously, criminals are going to get guns, even if they have to manufacture them themselves. This does not mean that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, or gun types, like the assault weapons ban are pointless.

Just use some common sense in the current case:

• if the restrictions on assault weapons were still in place, which, among other things, limited the size of magazines you could legally buy, A LOT fewer people would've been shot here.

• the typical loony like this guy, the guy who shot congresswoman Gabby Giffords, killed 6, and wounded 12 others, or the Va Tech shooter who killed 32 and injured 23 doesn't have extensive criminal connections; they're not going to be supplied by the local mob. if they had those kinds of connections, they wouldn't be criminally insane. No, they're going to buy whatever they can easily get their hands on. With little to no restrictions on the types of guns they can buy, you are enabling them to kill more people than they otherwise would be able to.

• it drives me nuts when the media gives equal voice to the sort of absurd arguments the NRA & gun nuts put forth to defeat any reasonable restrictions.

• no one outside of a war zone needs a 100 round magazine for an assault rifle. NO, you are never going to be out hunting wild boar, and get attacked by 100 of them at once. And even if you were, why should that absurdly remote risk outweigh the obvious danger it poses from these mass shootings?

• How come we never hear these arguments made, instead allowing campaign soundbites from panderers like Mitt Romney, and the public relations spin from the NRA's press agent to drown out any sort of public debate?

• why is this country so stupid?

 

[byco42]

So you can't make a gun law because you couldn't eliminate guns. But you can make a drug law even though it is impossible to eliminate drugs. Excuse the pun but are you off your meds?

We have a legal right to own guns. Banning them would be unconstitutional. And it still would not keep them out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

We do not have a legal right to use certain drugs. Banning them would be impossible. So the laws are to minimize their effects and abundance and that's best accomplished locally, in my opinion.

The fact is, you can't make a gun law because in the 18th-19th century our military was made up of private citizens and we enshrined that right in the constitution.

There have been standing military branches in the U.S. since 1775, and everyone who volunteered or was conscripted from then until now was/is a "private citizen."

Bottom line prohibition doesn't work for guns or drugs. Regulating both would be a good idea.

We have gun regulations. What do you suggest as additional ones?

 

[cheeno]

• why is this country so stupid?

Smart people are misguided by stupid ideology.

 

[cheeno]

We have a legal right to own guns. Banning them would be unconstitutional. And it still would not keep them out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

We do not have a legal right to use certain drugs. Banning them would be impossible. So the laws are to minimize their effects and abundance and that's best accomplished locally, in my opinion.



There have been standing military branches in the U.S. since 1775, and everyone who volunteered or was conscripted from then until now was/is a "private citizen."



We have gun regulations. What do you suggest as additional ones?

I don't want to stray too far off topic:

In short:

1. Prohibition will not eliminate guns or drugs. Depending if you are conservative or liberal you will defend/attack the other side.

2. The reason for enshrining guns in the Constitution are not the same as what they are being used to protect today.

3. MC brought up several good issues that to me are no brainers when it comes to regulation.

 

[Michchamp]

also, the simple reading of the 2nd amendment makes it clear that it relates to owning arms for purposes of being part of a well-organized militia; NOT for personal defense in public or for any of the other idiotic claims gun nuts advance... claims that would've even been considered INSANE in some towns of the old west, where you were required to check your firearms with the sheriff upon entering town.

only one (1) of the federalist papers related to the 2nd amendment, and it's even more clear in defining the intent of the amendment to provide for citizen militias in times of war and other national emergencies... NOT for crime prevention, personal safety, or any other stupid reason the NRA insists upon.

 

[byco42]

This was pointed out to you a dozen times. Romney said he shouldn't have had weapons and that many of them were obtained illegally. In fact the weapons that he did have that did the most damage are available legally to any nut who hasn't been diagnosed in the US.

I'll disagree with you.

"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already."

Show me the word "obtained" in this statement. Show me where he links the word "illegal" to "weapons." We are talking about a response in an interview and I think under the circumstances, his point is clear. The guy should not have had any of these things, and it was illegal for him to have many of them.

And now the media and people here are skewing the statement to serve their own purpose.

 

[cheeno]

I'll disagree with you.

"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already."

Show me the word "obtained" in this statement. Show me where he links the word "illegal" to "weapons." We are talking about a response in an interview and I think under the circumstances, his point is clear. The guy should not have had any of these things, and it was illegal for him to have many of them.

And now the media and people here are skewing the statement to serve their own purpose.

As long as we are bolding words how about that one.

 

[Thumb]

What point are you making now? The statement was that he "shouldn't have had" is past perfect tense, because we didn't know he was going to ventilate a movie theatre. If you think that no one should have those weapons, fine, but you will not prevent guys like that from getting them.

I didn't say nobody should have them, but I fail to see how Mitt can say "he shouldn't have had them" when he clearly would not say it about anyone else who didn't go Rambo on a crowd.

The NRA, which generally backs the GOP nominee, would get all bent outta shape if anyone suggested a guy with no criminal record and no history of mental illness should not have been able to have a small arsenal.

Saying he shouldn't have had them after it was too late is kind of pointless.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Saying he shouldn't have had them after it was too late is kind of pointless.

well... at least that part of his statement is true, unlike the part about "many" of the things he had being already illegal.

give Romney credit for the true part of the statement, at least. in these times of diminished expectations, it's pretty much all we get.