[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[jim mk2]

It worked probably because nuclear armageddon (sp?) was at stake. We're talking handguns here.

[ultrablue]

And one of the players in the game is a suicidal maniac with no intention on surviving the day. He just wants to settle some perverse score and take as many people with him when he jumps ship.

Mutually assured destruction only works if neither side wants to die

[Blue n White Rover]

Terrorist in Washington barely getting a mention in the media having killed numerous innocent children.

What are the views on here?

I read on an article on twitter (struggling to find it again!) that he was Christian. Will Christianity now be tarnished with the terrorist label like Islam?

Be very interesting to know - if the post doesn't get deleted!

[Al]

Terrorist in Washington barely getting a mention in the media having killed numerous innocent children.

What are the views on here?

I read on an article on twitter (struggling to find it again!) that he was Christian. Will Christianity now be tarnished with the terrorist label like Islam?

Be very interesting to know - if the post doesn't get deleted!

No because Christians, these days, rarely kill in the name of their religion. They have generally matured out of such things which occurred in medieval times. Unfortunately Islam is still a medieval religion, evidenced in slicing off of limbs, stoning etc.

[Steve Moss]

I read on an article on twitter (struggling to find it again!) that he was Christian. Will Christianity now be tarnished with the terrorist label like Islam?

I thought it very clear the Navy Yard shooter was a Buddhist? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/shooters-interest-in-buddhism-prompts-debate-about-stereotype-of-peaceful-faith/2013/09/18/f0ecd938-1fcf-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html

Do you have a link to the Christian allegation? Not that it matters as the attack does not appear to be religiously motivated.

[DE.]

If you commit an act of terror you pretty much revoke any association with Buddhism. One of the fundamental aspects of that religion is that you live your life causing the least harm as possible to others. Obviously going on a shooting spree completely violates that.

[Audax]

If you commit an act of terror you pretty much revoke any association with Buddhism. One of the fundamental aspects of that religion is that you live your life causing the least harm as possible to others. Obviously going on a shooting spree completely violates that.

Correct and you try to do the least harm as possible to others per my understanding, so that in the next life, reincarnation, you come back better. Killing people would seem to be terrible for reincarnation.

[DE.]

Correct and you try to do the least harm as possible to others per my understanding, so that in the next life, reincarnation, you come back better. Killing people would seem to be terrible for reincarnation.

The ultimate goal is to reach the state of nirvana, and yes, ideally with every reincarnation you should get closer to that goal. If that was the aim of this fellow I'm afraid he's just set himself back at least a few hundred years with such heinous actions. Though I very much doubt he was a proper Buddhist as there is no way you could follow the teachings of the Buddha and then decide a killing spree was a good idea. At best he was an ex-Buddhist who lost his marbles.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

There's a very interesting article on this subject by Henry Porter in todays Sunday Observer.

I'll just quote one statistic.

The total number of Americans killed in all war time conflicts since the Wars of Independence in 1775 and up to the recent conflict in Afghanistan -1,171,177.

The total number of Americans killed by firearms ( including suicides ) since the death of Robert F Kennedy in 1968 - 1, 384 ,171.

[Audax]

There's a very interesting article on this subject by Henry Porter in todays Sunday Observer.

I'll just quote one statistic.

The total number of Americans killed in all war time conflicts since the Wars of Independence in 1775 and up to the recent conflict in Afghanistan -1,171,177.

The total number of Americans killed by firearms ( including suicides ) since the death of Robert F Kennedy in 1968 - 1, 384 ,171.

It makes you see where the "Death Wish" movies with Charles Bronson came from. Even the soundtrack for DW II by Jimmy Page makes good listening if one can ever track it down.

[Paul]

Apologies for the thread diversion but this seems a good place for a question to Steve Moss.

Yesterday the National Crime Agency (NCA) officially began its work to tackle major organised crime, drugs, people trafficking etc. some commentators have likened the NCA to America's FBI.

When the head of the NCA was interviewed yesterday he refuted this and part of his justification was "we don't have state and federal offences as in the States."

Can you explain the difference please? Would I be right in thinking state law is local, for example setting a drinking age and federal would be for example murder?

[Mike E]

Apologies for the thread diversion but this seems a good place for a question to Steve Moss.

Yesterday the National Crime Agency (NCA) officially began its work to tackle major organised crime, drugs, people trafficking etc. some commentators have likened the NCA to America's FBI.

When the head of the NCA was interviewed yesterday he refuted this and part of his justification was "we don't have state and federal offences as in the States."

Can you explain the difference please? Would I be right in thinking state law is local, for example setting a drinking age and federal would be for example murder?

As far as I know, that's correct. Also federal laws overrule local laws I think.

[Steve Moss]

You have the gist of it.

In theory, the states have the "police power". In theory, the federal government has only the power to provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, etc. Over the last century the federal government has greatly expanded its power by linking almost everything with interstate commerce (even those transactions which occur entirely within a state, due to the alleged ripple effect). Drug trade = commerce, etc. This gives the federal government the power to regulate almost anything.

There has been some push back in the last decade or two. The Supreme Court has issued a few decisions which seem to limit the federal commerce power. For example, the Affordable Care Act is, on the surface, a victory for the president but behind the ruling is some language which could prove troubling to the continued exertion of federal commerce power.

More traditionally, it is the state police power which defines murder, theft, etc., controls family, contract and property law, etc. Theoretically, the state has a lot more direct impact on individual lives than the federal government does. However, this has been undermined in recent decades where the federal government gives money to the states in exchange for the states passing laws. For example, drinking age, driving under the influence and speed limit laws are usually tied to federal highway moneys. If the states adopt the federal position, they get federal highway money. If not, then not or, at least, not as much.

The distinction between federal and state power can bite criminals on the posterior. Essentially most people live under the authority of two separate sovereigns, the state and federal government. If you are acquitted in state court for mobster activities, the federal government can still get you in federal court for related federal crimes (civil rights violations, racketeering, etc.). Or vice-versa. There is no double jeopardy in these cases as each is a separate and theoretically independent sovereign power within their individual spheres.

I had a law professor who explained it this way once. Simply stated, all power in the USA originates from English medieval kings. They were absolute monarchs (ignoring parliament which had taken some of the power from the king). After the revolution, that absolute power was divided twice, one part to the federal government and the other part was retained by the states. The federal and state governments then each divided what power they had three ways, executive, legislative and judicial. So as a matter of simplistic theory (the reality is more complicated- see above, and also the Bill of Rights, and the powers of counties and municipalities), the power of the absolute king is now divided 6 ways. This was by intent as it was an effort to prevent tyranny as the separation powers system (dividing the executive, legislative and judicial power) and the federalist system (dividing power between the states and federal government) prevented the accumulation of power in anyone person.

In reality power is like water and eventually, even if it takes a few centuries, it tends to flow in one direction, toward a pool, lake or reservoir of some sort. In my opinion power has been flowing to the presidency. Over the next several decades we'll truly see an "imperial" presidency unless the states, Congress and the Courts re-assert themselves.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Hi Steve, I was thinking the other day of who you remind me of. Then it came to me - Ralph Kane in " Wait Till Your Father Gets Home ". Maybe before your time.

[jim mk2]

This constant division of power is making the US ungovernable - witness the standoff over the Budget and the shutdown of government at present. Obama was elected on a mandate to reform healthcare yet is unable pass the legislation because control of the two houses is divided. It's a ludicrous way to run a country and it seems to me the US system of government needs urgent reform.

[Steve Moss]

Jim, the Founders intended to create a system of government which allowed for these stand-offs. The majority does not dictate to the minority, and vice-versa, Either a super-majority exists, consensus is reached or the government does not act. I actually think its the very best form of government.

Tyrone, I had to look it up on wiki. I thought the characterization was rather amusing, as I tend to be the moderate voice here in Mohave County. I was called a liberal as I wanted to increase funding parks, libraries and private social services (in this case, food kitchens, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, group homes, and housing assistance). Like most things, a persons politics is relative.

Personally, I think an English conservative is more akin to an American Democrat, for the most parts. And that's a shame.

[dave birch]

Jim, the Founders intended to create a system of government which allowed for these stand-offs.

Not sure I can agree with you there, Steve.

I to, live in a "federal" country, where the states and Federal governments have set rights.

From what I can glean from history here is that things were set out by people that had no inkling of how things would evolve, and our forebears were only 120 years ago. I'm not so sure they were thinking that far ahead.

I'd think that your constitution was set up when most people were like-minded and there was little division in political thought. Like many things in this world, things evolve, and so they should. So adhering to those guidelines set down so long ago is plainly wrong.

It's no different to those saying that Islam should progress to the 21 century, or that Christianity should update to take into account the change in attitudes etc. So the political set up should evolve as well.

From my perspective in Australia, I'd like to get rid of our state system and replace it with an "area" local government, taking into account things like river catchment areas, large cities and the like. There are many areas here that have little or no commonality with their capital cities.

It would take out of the public purse many politician/public servants. We've got seven states, you've got, what is it 51? the bureaucracy must be huge and very frustrating to get around.

[jim mk2]

Jim, the Founders intended to create a system of government which allowed for these stand-offs. The majority does not dictate to the minority, and vice-versa, Either a super-majority exists, consensus is reached or the government does not act. I actually think its the very best form of government.

Tyrone, I had to look it up on wiki. I thought the characterization was rather amusing, as I tend to be the moderate voice here in Mohave County. I was called a liberal as I wanted to increase funding parks, libraries and private social services (in this case, food kitchens, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, group homes, and housing assistance). Like most things, a persons politics is relative.

Personally, I think an English conservative is more akin to an American Democrat, for the most parts. And that's a shame.

How can it be "the best form of government" when the US economy (and by extension the world economy - witness the warnings to Washington from Beijing this week) is at risk and private and public sector workers risk losing their jobs because of the political paralysis on Capitol Hill ? It's the same as lack of US reform on gun controls - the rest of the world looks on and just shakes its head at the madness of it.

You're not far wrong there. It's to our great benefit and credit that we have a proper left wing party and we do not have the equivalent of the Republican or Tea parties - although Ukip are doing their best on the back of xenophobic immigration and Europe policies. Although I love visiting the country the Republican party is one reason I could never live in the US.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

When did we have a left wing party Jim ? Must have been before my time.

Steve, Ralph Kane used to make me laugh all the time, he was a very funny cartoon character. In spite of his paranoia you couldn't dislike him. Was the fact he was a Richard Nixon look a like just a coincidence ?

[Guest Norbert]

John Smith was the last vaugely left wing political leader.

Anyhow, it seems the USA is being held hostage by the Tea Baggers, and their hatred for all things Obama related. I admit I do not know the 'Obamacare' details, but I am guessing it was created to sort out the previous system which was said to effectively exclude 40 Million from any form of healthcare. Reforms were fought at every stage by the extreme right of the GOP, who obviously could not give a crap about a sizable section of the country's population, and would rather see people suffer than accept any 'socialism'.

Again, I accept the argument that 'Obamacare' may be to expensive to run in the long term, but to hold the world's economy to ransom over a bill that has already passed, and could not be stopped despite copious amounts of time, money and energy being is frankly mad. It passed, move on. Maybe one day a Republican President can change it back, or make a new, cheaper, system of healthcare. If it all goes down the toilet again like 2008, then the blame for the USA's decline is laid on the doorstep of the Republican Party. They blame Obama for the debts, but Bush Jnr. was spending loads on the wars for oil and running up the debts whilst cutting taxes for the richer people. And then the big crash happened. So it wasn't just the (half) black guy's fault.

[Mike E]

Jim don't kid yourself. Labour is currently centre-right at best and more likely as right as the Tories. Full of people who see you and I as plebs.

[Steve Moss]

When did we have a left wing party Jim ? Must have been before my time.

Steve, Ralph Kane used to make me laugh all the time, he was a very funny cartoon character. In spite of his paranoia you couldn't dislike him. Was the fact he was a Richard Nixon look a like just a coincidence ?

No worries. I was merely illustrating if you think I'm far right, you haven't really encountered far right. I'll introduce you to a few of them if you are ever in the Vegas area. Don't worry, they don't bite.

I suspect the similar look is no coincidence, considering the times and artists habit to subtly comment on current affairs.

John Smith was the last vaugely left wing political leader.

Anyhow, it seems the USA is being held hostage by the Tea Baggers, and their hatred for all things Obama related. I admit I do not know the 'Obamacare' details, but I am guessing it was created to sort out the previous system which was said to effectively exclude 40 Million from any form of healthcare. Reforms were fought at every stage by the extreme right of the GOP, who obviously could not give a crap about a sizable section of the country's population, and would rather see people suffer than accept any 'socialism'.

Again, I accept the argument that 'Obamacare' may be to expensive to run in the long term, but to hold the world's economy to ransom over a bill that has already passed, and could not be stopped despite copious amounts of time, money and energy being is frankly mad. It passed, move on. Maybe one day a Republican President can change it back, or make a new, cheaper, system of healthcare. If it all goes down the toilet again like 2008, then the blame for the USA's decline is laid on the doorstep of the Republican Party. They blame Obama for the debts, but Bush Jnr. was spending loads on the wars for oil and running up the debts whilst cutting taxes for the richer people. And then the big crash happened. So it wasn't just the (half) black guy's fault.

When Bush came into office, the debt was about 6 trillion. When he left (and Obama took office), it was about 10 trillion. The debt is now 16 trillion, despite Obama serving not yet 5 years compared to Bush's 8. The math is pretty clear. Here's another interesting stat- http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/09/us-adds-two-times-more-debt-economic-output-last-2-years

Obamacare will throw the country back into recession. It is nothing but a heavy tax and regulatory scheme imposed in a frail economy, which will massively and negatively impact business and families. The timing is stupid.

As to the alleged 40 million uninsured, one big block is aliens. The next biggest is young adults who don't want or don't value insurance, and can easily rely on the emergency room or family doctor to deal with their mundane problems (I did). 20% are families who make more than 75,000/year and could pay for insurance if they wanted it. Amazingly, nearly 30% already qualify for public insurance but never got around to applying for it. There was never a health care insurance "crisis" in the USA.

The Republicans are right to fight Obamacare. More, in our system of government they have the power to fight it. The Democrats will have to come to the table and negotiate, despite their rhetoric otherwise. They'll have to make concessions on either Obamacare or the debt. They won't get a "clean" bill. Stating otherwise will only make them look weak or stupid, and Boehner knows it. And it they push it, all Boehner need do is point to the nearly 30 bills the Republican House passed which would avert a financial crisis (such as offering to pay interest on the existing debt, no strings attached, to prevent a default during the shutdown). None of which the Democrats have picked up. If there is a default, our supposed intellectual leaders in the Democratic Senate will be to blame.

Jim don't kid yourself. Labour is currently centre-right at best and more likely as right as the Tories. Full of people who see you and I as plebs.

And I view them both as being Democrats. Like I said, perspective depends on where one stands.

[Steve Moss]

Not sure I can agree with you there, Steve.

I to, live in a "federal" country, where the states and Federal governments have set rights.

From what I can glean from history here is that things were set out by people that had no inkling of how things would evolve, and our forebears were only 120 years ago. I'm not so sure they were thinking that far ahead.

I'd think that your constitution was set up when most people were like-minded and there was little division in political thought. Like many things in this world, things evolve, and so they should. So adhering to those guidelines set down so long ago is plainly wrong.

James Madison:

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

My interpretation- The House was intentionally given the budget power and was intentionally given the ability to use that budget power to restrain the Senate, the Presidency and the Courts. And if the House does not like a law, it can use its budget power to coerce a change.

The reason for this is that the House stands for election every two years. If the people don't like what the House is doing, the people can change the House on a fairly rapid basis, unlike the Presidency (4 year term), the Senate (6 year term) and the Courts (life term).

[dave birch]

Sure, Steve, the people can change things if they feel that way, but that doesn't go anywhere near the need to change with time. In fact it probably does the opposite.

I've found that people will say, I'll vote this way in the reps, and as a counter balance, vote a different way in the senate, just to keep them in check, so you end up with a reverse stalemate of the present situation.

The only time it can get in sync is when there's a really bad government.

People are rightly critical of Islam, with it's unbending refusal to come into the 21st century, of the Catholic Church to embrace the fact that things have changed since it's formation, and of many other institutions that hold onto their "ways".

So why should governments be any different?

[Steve Moss]

Except I don't view what the House is doing as a bug but rather a feature. There is nothing to change.

I don't want government working in sync, harmonious, smoothly functioning. That sort of government usually extends its power [though I would be curious what real libertarians or conservatives might do with it, as opposed to the Democrats and 'mainstream' Republicans]. I want government in conflict with itself. Though it may surprise you, so did our Founders.