2016 Presidential Candidate

[Gin1984]

ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.

Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms.  Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation?  Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move.  It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France.  The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.

No it is not.  California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area.  Multiple of my friends have guns.  One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes.  No problems there.  Most democrats want reasonable restrictions.  Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns.  But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns.  Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.

Gin - The only republican I've heard talking about actual legislation to outlaw abortion lately is Huckabee.

With regard to guns, we have tons of laws on guns in this country already.

Some (not all) democrats don't want reasonable restrictions, they want more and more restrictions (than don't work) to make it difficult or impossible to own or use a firearm.

I can find you quote for every single one except maybe Trump.  As well as the progression of laws designed to in effect make there not access even if it is legal.
Can you find me an example of those restrictions?  I am not saying you can't find some extremists in the Dems.  Not at all.  We all have crazies.  I mean, come on, Gavin Newson, the mayor of SF (of gay marriage fame) was the conservative candidate there.  I know liberal crazy. 

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility? 

[Midwest]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

[MoonShadow]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.

Yes, I'm saying this.  It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.

No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.

The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.

Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves.  Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel.  The problem that you cite is already self-correcting.  A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.

-

While it's true that our nationwide mess of a transportation network is complex, it is certainly not naturally occurring. Transportation and urban development have the most obscured signals of any major segment (transportation is about 1/6 of US economy) of the economy, other than healthcare, of course (also ~1/6). Other posters nailed the issue on zoning; it's commonly discriminatory (or at least designed to be) and negatively impacts development patterns to have houses spread far apart and to set up zoning for single-use, when mixed use (store under a residence) is such a vastly more productive configuration. The length of roadway per capita has increased tenfold in many cities and towns since the 1950s, and the maintenance on all that is a huge drag.

Not all city's or towns follow this pattern of zoning regulation.  Houston, for example, does not.  Does it not suffer from urban sprawl?

Then there's the issue that more of our expressways should probably be toll roads.

I agree with this point, but the solution isn't more urban planning to prevent more urban sprawl.  That was my point to begin with, this is not something that can really be designed, we can only alter the incentives.  The dominate perspective that roads should be paid for by taxes, as opposed to usage fees (tolls) is what led to what you are describing, and functionally subsidized urban sprawl by making communting by car appear more affordable than it would otherwise if every new driver was conditioned to expect that every extra mile is going to cost them more.  MMM demonstrated quite well that short commute times are vastly cheaper, but the actual costs are well hidden inside infrastructure taxes and gas taxes.  The average gallon of gasoline profits the oil industry 5 cents, but profits the government 33 cents (in my state).  If, instead, those funds, intended for maintaince of the highways, were collected directly from drivers; we would feel the costs more and drive less, even though the actual costs to the average driver would be about the same.  But, of course, that is going to be politically unpopular, for several reasons.

[forummm]

ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.

Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms.  Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation?  Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move.  It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France.  The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.

No it is not.  California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area.  Multiple of my friends have guns.  One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes.  No problems there.  Most democrats want reasonable restrictions.  Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns.  But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns.  Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.   

Definitely false equivalency. Nowhere near the same. Republican candidates run on the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices that will be very likely to vote to rollback or overturn access to abortion if they can get a majority. No Democrat is running on the ability to appoint people who are going to ban all guns or allow a state to ban all guns.

[Chris22]

ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.

Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms.  Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation?  Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move.  It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France.  The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.

No it is not.  California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area.  Multiple of my friends have guns.  One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes.  No problems there.  Most democrats want reasonable restrictions.  Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns.  But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns.  Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.

Gin - The only republican I've heard talking about actual legislation to outlaw abortion lately is Huckabee.

With regard to guns, we have tons of laws on guns in this country already.

Some (not all) democrats don't want reasonable restrictions, they want more and more restrictions (than don't work) to make it difficult or impossible to own or use a firearm.

I can find you quote for every single one except maybe Trump.  As well as the progression of laws designed to in effect make there not access even if it is legal.
Can you find me an example of those restrictions?  I am not saying you can't find some extremists in the Dems.  Not at all.  We all have crazies.  I mean, come on, Gavin Newson, the mayor of SF (of gay marriage fame) was the conservative candidate there.  I know liberal crazy. 

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Try this: I don't know why a requirement of training before you vote is horrible, you do it with a car.  And I don't know why providing ID to vote is a bad thing, again cars have them.

The left claims those token requirements are intending to disenfranchise people.  I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people.  In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW.  That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more.  That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.

[Chris22]

MMM demonstrated quite well that short commute times are vastly cheaper, but the actual costs are well hidden inside infrastructure taxes and gas taxes.

He does, but he usually does so by ignoring the difference in property costs, or comparing apples and oranges (apartments and houses) to skew the numbers in favor of his argument.  I personally own two homes, one some 30 miles further from the metro center than the other.  The further out one is better in every respect (newer, bigger, better finishes, more modern, blah blah blah) and has a current market value about $80k lower.  That $80k pays for a shitload of commuting. 

[Jack]

<snark>

It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France.

Oh, I see how it is: I make a WWII analogy and get attacked, yet this WWI analogy is okay! Damn Godwin and his anti-Two discrimination...!~

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

</snark>

[Jack]

I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people.  In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW.  That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more.  That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.

Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?

[MoonShadow]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.

There are training requirements.  Although they vary significantly between states and types of firearm.

  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.

They don't.  Not legally, anyway.

  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.

Again, records exist.  They also vary by type of weapon.  They just shouldn't be federal.  There are very good historical reasons for that.  You can accept them, or not, but a national firearm registry is not 'sensible legislation' to any gun owner with any real knowledge of history.

Every federally licensed gun dealer in the country is required by several laws to keep minimum records on every single weapon sold, pretty much forever, and those records must be accessible to ATF agents upon request.  Not even a warrant is required. 

  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Yes, that's personal responsibility.  And yes, they are responsible for what happens to those guns, legally speaking.  Even if they are stolen, the gun owner can be held criminally liable if they didn't take proper steps to keep them secure.  For example, if I were to leave a handgun in my glove box and it got stolen, I could be charged with a crime similar to negligence if I left the car unlocked.  If a child found it, and killed someone with it, I could be charged with 2nd degree murder by proxy.

[Gin1984]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it.  But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine.  If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns".  You do kind of have to do some give and take.  And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns.  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.  You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that.  If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be.  Not if we should take take everyone's gun.  Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering.  Adding restriction for the OBs.  When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally.  I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent.  And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.

[MoonShadow]

I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people.  In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW.  That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more.  That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.

Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?

Legally, yes.  Practically, no.  You stand a very high chance of being arrested for 'inciting a panic'.

[Chris22]

I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people.  In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW.  That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more.  That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.

Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?

Not in IL

[MoonShadow]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/

This is bullshit, not worthly of a response.  The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not.  Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?

[Chris22]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it.  But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine.  If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns".  You do kind of have to do some give and take.  And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns.  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.  You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that.  If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be.  Not if we should take take everyone's gun.  Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering.  Adding restriction for the OBs.  When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally.  I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent.  And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.

Would that be like "outlawing guns for no functional reason except on the basis of 'looks scary'?"

I mean, fercrissakes, go load "shoulder thing that goes up" into your favorite search engine and report back.  It's like you're TRYING to make this easy.

[MoonShadow]

  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.

REally?  Which state is that?  Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan.  Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.

[MoonShadow]

Since we have swerved so far from the root topic, I might as well just leave this here...

http://www.a-human-right.com/

[Gin1984]

  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.

REally?  Which state is that?  Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan.  Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.

According to wiki, at least three years ago it was not.  Private sellers at gun shows are not required in many states, per federal law to background check.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
I don't know accurate wiki is and things may have changed since the men I knew were complaining that people were trying to change this.  But, yes I think anyone who is trying to buy a gun needs a background check and training.  Period.  I don't want violent people buying gun they legally can't.  I don't want people who don't know how to safely use a gun to own one.  I was taken to shoot, by more than one person.  That does not mean I am competent with a gun.  And gun owners should be competent, IMO.  But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up.  Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership.  That is how it is different than abortion.

[Gin1984]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/

This is bullshit, not worthly of a response.  The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not.  Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?

Citation please.  I've never heard that.  And what about other races? 

[MoonShadow]

  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.

REally?  Which state is that?  Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan.  Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.

According to wiki, at least three years ago it was not.  Private sellers at gun shows are not required in many states, per federal law to background check.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

The per federal law part is what trips you up.  This can't be a federal law, due to federal interference into internal state commerce.  It pretty much has to be a state law.  And they are.  So what state are you in again, and when can you buy me that un-registered gun again?

[Midwest]

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it.  But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine.  If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns".  You do kind of have to do some give and take.  And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns.  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.  You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that.  If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be.  Not if we should take take everyone's gun.  Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering.  Adding restriction for the OBs.  When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally.  I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent.  And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.

Gin:

This was in the first paragraph of the referenced website:

"Tragically, our lax gun laws make it easier for abusers to acquire a firearm than it is to purchase a Sudafed."

That statement is complete horseshit.  What is mom's demand action proposing?  I see they don't want people that commit domestic violence to have guns although I'm not sure what that means and don't trust them when they make ridiculous claims like that.

Felons are prohibited from getting guns now.  Who else would they like to prohibit?

[Chris22]

But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up.

Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical.  Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions.  "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."

Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership.  That is how it is different than abortion.

The fuck it isn't.  The only reason it hasn't been a bigger push is because Dems know it is toxic politically.  But let me tell you, the exact same fear you have that GOPers will stack the Supreme Court to ban abortions is the fear the GOPers have the Dems will do with the court on guns. 

[MoonShadow]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/

This is bullshit, not worthly of a response.  The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not.  Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?

Citation please.  I've never heard that.  And what about other races?

Here's the book...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember.  I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much.  It's a published work, try to find it in your library.  I wager you will learn much.  Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc.  But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.

[forummm]

  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.

REally?  Which state is that?  Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan.  Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.

Georgia is at least one state. My friend bought a gun at a gun show with no ID.

[Gin1984]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/

This is bullshit, not worthly of a response.  The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not.  Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?

Citation please.  I've never heard that.  And what about other races?

Here's the book...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember.  I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much.  It's a published work, try to find it in your library.  I wager you will learn much.  Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc.  But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.

So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study.  Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies?  Am I misunderstanding?  And btw, isn't there no funding for research into gun research from federal government?  I thought I had heard that, because that would another reason for not replicating it.  If you already saying people are complaining about his methodology and it is not a peer reviewed study (as you appear be saying), I am not sure the purpose of reading it.  The methodology of any study is the most important part.  If his methodology was so bad to not be publish (in peer reviewed journal) then the data is useless.

[Midwest]

  For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.

REally?  Which state is that?  Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan.  Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.

Georgia is at least one state. My friend bought a gun at a gun show with no ID.

On a federal level, private parties can sell at guns shows w/o a background check but dealers cannot.

[Chris22]

I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership.  For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns.  I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.  I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.  And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.  My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns.  But they both know what they are doing.  And they don't let little children get to them.  Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence.  Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three.  Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves?  Isn't that personal responsibility?

Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns.  The difference is in how we get there.

For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it. 

With regard to violence, what you referring to?  Felons can't have guns now.

On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.  Owning a gun is.  In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit.  I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.

On records, we don't have a knife database.  What's the purpose of a database?  If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it.  How does a database change that? 

On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people.  I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family.  My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both).  Ammo is separate from guns.  I've also educated my children.  How about mandatory gun safety education for kids?  That would do a lot of good.

This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/

This is bullshit, not worthly of a response.  The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not.  Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?

Citation please.  I've never heard that.  And what about other races?

Here's the book...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember.  I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much.  It's a published work, try to find it in your library.  I wager you will learn much.  Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc.  But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.

So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study.  Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies?  Am I misunderstanding?  And btw, isn't there no funding for research into gun research from federal government?  I thought I had heard that, because that would another reason for not replicating it.  If you already saying people are complaining about his methodology and it is not a peer reviewed study (as you appear be saying), I am not sure the purpose of reading it.  The methodology of any study is the most important part.  If his methodology was so bad to not be publish (in peer reviewed journal) then the data is useless.

"The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies.[1]"

[KittyCat]

Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical.  Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions.  "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."

Perhaps certain regulations could be relaxed some, like that requirement to complete a background check within 3 days or whatever, but I hardly think that proper education and registration are meant to be barriers to make ownership impractical. I'm definitely not against gun ownership or use, but if someone is using something that is inherently a weapon, I would hope that he/she can properly handle it.

[Gin1984]

But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up.

Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical.  Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions.  "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."

Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership.  That is how it is different than abortion.

The fuck it isn't.  The only reason it hasn't been a bigger push is because Dems know it is toxic politically.  But let me tell you, the exact same fear you have that GOPers will stack the Supreme Court to ban abortions is the fear the GOPers have the Dems will do with the court on guns.

Except that the GOP has done it already.  They have passed laws in red states to try to limit access.  In California (which I think is a liberal area) I have not seen this because I can I go buy a gun.  I know multiple people with enough guns to arm small army in California.  Granted some of the people would useless cause some of the guns are old and not as efficient as modern day one but even in California people have multiple guns and have no issue getting more. 
I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed.  Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?  Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.  Instead of getting angry, convince me.  Keeping in mind that I am the kind of person you want to convince because I have no guns, I think the Dems position makes sense but have no issue with people with guns aka I don't think all gun owners are "gun nuts".  In fact, I have been taken gun ranges.  So, instead of being mad, convince me.

[MoonShadow]

So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study.  Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies?  Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, you are misunderstanding.  The book is the published summary of a huge set of peer review work.  Literally the largest data set ever performed.  It's specific to the United States, though, and doesn't really apply generally to other nations.  It's not been replicated with a different conclusion mostly because the data set is so large, any other similar study would have to use the same data set, and the statistical relationships would remain the same.  The greatest complaint about it from actual scientists is that the conclusion cannot be proven to be cause and effect, as it could be partially or completely corrolation; and that the use of econometrics could not ever be proof of causation.  Said another way, no credible critic says that Lott is actually wrong, only that the association between the increase in firearms ownership cannot be proven to be the cause of the decrease in crime rates.  There is no one that says that he made any statistical errors worthy of note, or that he failed to include any data that would have contradicted his conclusion.  In fact, the original study was inspired and initially funded by an anti-gun institution; and John Lott was a liberal, at least on the gun control issue.  His original sponsors pulled out of the project after it became obvious that the results were not going to be anything that they could support, and John Lott himself had to admit that the evidence affected his political perspectives.

[Gin1984]

So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study.  Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies?  Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, you are misunderstanding.  The book is the published summary of a huge set of peer review work.  Literally the largest data set ever performed.  It's specific to the United States, though, and doesn't really apply generally to other nations.  It's not been replicated with a different conclusion mostly because the data set is so large, any other similar study would have to use the same data set, and the statistical relationships would remain the same.  The greatest complaint about it from actual scientists is that the conclusion cannot be proven to be cause and effect, as it could be partially or completely corrolation; and that the use of econometrics could not ever be proof of causation.  Said another way, no credible critic says that Lott is actually wrong, only that the association between the increase in firearms ownership cannot be proven to be the cause of the decrease in crime rates.  There is no one that says that he made any statistical errors worthy of note, or that he failed to include any data that would have contradicted his conclusion.  In fact, the original study was inspired and initially funded by an anti-gun institution; and John Lott was a liberal, at least on the gun control issue.  His original sponsors pulled out of the project after it became obvious that the results were not going to be anything that they could support, and John Lott himself had to admit that the evidence affected his political perspectives.

Thank you for explaining that I misunderstood.  I'll get the book then.

[MoonShadow]

I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed.  Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?

Yes, easy.  There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there.  Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone.   That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/

http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

Alright, now it's your turn.  Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.

  Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.

You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law. 

[zoltani]

This might be helpful

[Jack]

I mean, fercrissakes, go load "shoulder thing that goes up" into your favorite search engine and report back.  It's like you're TRYING to make this easy.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp is forum member.

[Gin1984]

I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed.  Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?

Yes, easy.  There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there.  Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone.   That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/

http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

Alright, now it's your turn.  Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.

  Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.

You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law.

A city counsel?  Try multiple state legislatures, they are called TRAP laws are in more than 27 states.  They are not zoning laws, they are directed specifically at forcing abortion clinics to do remodeling they can't afford, etc.  Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, and so forth.  A city zoning law would be easier to deal with but again, I never mentioned zoning laws.  I actually am trying to get information from you, but if you just want to try to make straw men, I can bow out.
But, seriously your links don't show what you are accusing, at least the not biased one is not:
Actually, the bank decided recently to end relationships with pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashers, but it will still work with firearms dealers. The FDIC has warned banks to examine relationships with customers that use third-party payment processors, because of the risk of consumer fraud, and a federal program called Operation Choke Point has investigated the same issue. Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.

[dramaman]

I still can't see how anyone can equate gun control on the left with abortion restrictions on the right.

Guns - The intent is to limit who can get what guns. Nobody is trying to outlaw all guns. No gun control groups are opposed to gun ownership. No Presidential candidates are running on a position to outlaw guns.

Abortion - The intent is to end abortion. Period. Multiple groups on the right make this clear. Multiple Presidential candidates are openly opposed to ALL abortions. In the last debate Huckabee announced that he would use the national guard to shut down abortion clinics.

Now, how can anyone claim that these two issues are equivalent? They may be similar, but the gun control proponents are nowhere near as radical as the abortion opponents and anyone arguing otherwise is basing it not on facts, but paranoia.

[Psychstache]

I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed.  Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?

Yes, easy.  There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there.  Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone.   That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/

http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

Alright, now it's your turn.  Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.

  Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.

You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law.

A city counsel?  Try multiple state legislatures, they are called TRAP laws are in more than 27 states.  They are not zoning laws, they are directed specifically at forcing abortion clinics to do remodeling they can't afford, etc.  Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, and so forth.  A city zoning law would be easier to deal with but again, I never mentioned zoning laws.  I actually am trying to get information from you, but if you just want to try to make straw men, I can bow out.
But, seriously your links don't show what you are accusing, at least the not biased one is not:
Actually, the bank decided recently to end relationships with pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashiers, but it will still work with firearms dealers. The FDIC has warned banks to examine relationships with customers that use third-party payment processors, because of the risk of consumer fraud, and a federal program called Operation Choke Point has investigated the same issue. Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.

Yeah, this seemed like a layup. Texas passed a series of laws specifically targeting clinics that provide abortions with inane regulation that caused 23 of the states 41 clinics to close. Half of the 18 that remained open are under duress from the most recent round of useless legislation and are only open thanks to a stay from the US supreme court.

Texas republicans are a funny bunch. "Government needs to get out of the way of business and out of peoples lives, unless their hallways are too small or they want to buy a beer at 11:30 on Sunday, then they can go straight to hell."

[MoonShadow]

Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.

Strange how that works.  Never believe a rumor until it's been officially denied. 

And when I asked you to show me abortion clinics that have been shut down by local regulations, I specified that because IIRC zoning laws were mentioned higher up this thread, not necessarily by yourself.  And that is what I want to see, just showing me some law that openly targets abortion clinics isn't an equal malice, because it doesn't show that those republicans are willing to do so in secret.  I don't care if Texas want's to openly restrict abortion clinics, because they do so for political gain.  Show me the true believers who are so opposed to abortion, and that know that it's so politically popular among their electorate, that they are both willing and inclined to do so in the dark.  That is what the gun-grabbers among the left will do, because they know that whenever they do it in the open, they end up losing in the long run.  There have been proposals to enlist doctors to ask if patients own guns, as a sign of mental illness.  Another idea was to tax the manufacture of ammunition so high as to make it unaffordable, under the idea that the 2nd doesn't mention ammunition.  Still another was the idea of suing gun manufacturers over criminal acts performed by people who legally could buy their product at the time, in order to drive up the liability costs of gun manufacturing so high that the costs of insurance alone would force up the price of guns so that no one but governments could afford them anyway, which was actually attempted in court several times.  And there was another idea that deliberately increased the cost of buying certain types of firearms, by simply adding a huge tax upon their sale or transfer.  That last one became the National Firearms Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[Gin1984]

Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.

Strange how that works.  Never believe a rumor until it's been officially denied. 

And when I asked you to show me abortion clinics that have been shut down by local regulations, I specified that because IIRC zoning laws were mentioned higher up this thread, not necessarily by yourself.  And that is what I want to see, just showing me some law that openly targets abortion clinics isn't an equal malice, because it doesn't show that those republicans are willing to do so in secret.  I don't care if Texas want's to openly restrict abortion clinics, because they do so for political gain.  Show me the true believers who are so opposed to abortion, and that know that it's so politically popular among their electorate, that they are both willing and inclined to do so in the dark.  That is what the gun-grabrrbers among the left will do, because they know that whenever they do it in the open, they end up losing in the long run.  There have been proposals to enlist doctors to ask if patients own guns, as a sign of mental illness.  Another idea was to tax the manufacture of ammunition so high as to make it unaffordable, under the idea that the 2nd doesn't mention ammunition.  Still another was the idea of suing gun manufacturers over criminal acts performed by people who legally could buy their product at the time, in order to drive up the liability costs of gun manufacturing so high that the costs of insurance alone would force up the price of guns so that no one but governments could afford them anyway, which was actually attempted in court several times.  And there was another idea that deliberately increased the cost of buying certain types of firearms, by simply adding a huge tax upon their sale or transfer.  That last one became the National Firearms Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

You don't remember correctly.  I stated "Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering.  Adding restriction for the OBs.  When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally.  I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent.  And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the
Which was in reference to the TRAP laws.  Changing the codes for building housing abortion clinics.  You may have misunderstood but then ask.  You are lashing out, using biased and some flat out incorrect statements. 

[MoonShadow]

You are lashing out, using biased and some flat out incorrect statements.

Nonsense, I'm not lashing out.  I'm not even upset.  I'm not the emotional type, and certainly don't get upset over someone's opinions on the Internet.  I'd be mad all the time, and I honestly don't know how some people maintain that.

As for biased and incorrect, while I may be incorrect occasionally, I never claimed to be unbiased.  I have a bias, and I am quite open about it.

[nereo]

This might be helpful

I'm surprised that the two circles are of equal size ;-)

[Jeremy E.]

I think John Kasich should be added to the poll if possible.

[Bob W]

I think John Kasich should be added to the poll if possible.

Yes I agree 100%,  although it would be too late for the voters.   Perhaps we should renew this thread at some point.

I have a feeling Bernie's numbers would go even higher now that Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

Please lets add a few more dems as well.

As mentioned somewhere the Democrats are supposedly the party of the young and diverse.   So why are they running 2 old white folks from the 1940s?  I realize one has a vagina but most women will not vote for her.   These candidates cannot excite the young diverse base. 

[sol]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

[Midwest]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

I don't think she's a traitor.  She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails. 

[MoonShadow]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now.  Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it.  So there was no possibility of an actual court case.  For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.

[Midwest]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now.  Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it.  So there was no possibility of an actual court case.  For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he can pardon someone unless they are convicted.

[MoonShadow]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now.  Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it.  So there was no possibility of an actual court case.  For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he can pardon someone unless they are convicted.

Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed.  It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president.  This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line.  Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS.  Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.

[Midwest]

Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed.  It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president.  This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line.  Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS.  Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.

I stand corrected.  Can't imagine the optics of pardoning her at this point would help her campaign, but who knows.

[Bob W]

Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed.  It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president.  This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line.  Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS.  Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.

I stand corrected.  Can't imagine the optics of pardoning her at this point would help her campaign, but who knows.

Did not know that!    Oh the benefits of the political class.

[forummm]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

I don't think she's a traitor.  She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails. 

I think she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed by sending or receiving emails. Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.