Larry Warner

I don't think most would agree although by technical definition it could be construed that way.

 

We agree that it's not all roses ie negatives can and often will come with a raise in the minimum wage.

 

My thinking is that if the govt has true social programs set up (ie UE/welfare) then the businesses have to have some skin in the game especially those that employ non-skilled workers.

Why not just allow the market to set wage prices. The market sets wages higher for unskilled labor than the minimum wage in almost every industry, save retail sales clerk. Wages are usually higher than the min in that industry as well.

I agree, but what do you do cut people off assistance and increase homelessness and more crime?

Do you really believe our welfare state reduces crime? Perhaps a lack of assistance beyond housing would transcribe to better preparation on the part of citizens to be part of the workforce. As you stated earlier, there is no motivation for anyone caught in the welfare cycle.

This may be true, but your parent weren't living with the prices of clothes, food, gas, and others things that are happening today.

They were living at that level as late as the late 90's. They were able to own their own house, and 150 acres of property in a low selling county. Many of the problems we have in this country are people spending more than they have, no matter how much they make.

It should at least be $8.00 an hr. 8x40 hours=320 a week, 640 every pay period (before taxes). I don't know if the answer is to add more tax breaks for companies to hire. My problem I have with the minimum wage is it doesn't offer incentive for people to move away from government assistance. In most cases, some people are worse off working 40 hours a week at 7.25 than they are receiving government assistance. IMO if we as America want to reduce government assistance, minimum wage is a starting point.

I agree that it doesn't offer incentive, but I think the assistance should be reduced.

Let's see how you do on $7.50 an hour after taxes!!!

The poverty level for a family of four is $22,313. If you are two to four people in a family making $31,200 a year, your taxes would be very low. Many people get it done, as my parents did for a large part of my life, without ever taking the first dime of assistance.

You could be right about being out of date but your argument surely doesn't show that. No one is saying gun ownership hasn't increased.

My point is that the statistics they use in the article are way off compared to today. Also, most new gun owners buy new from dealers. That argument blows the 40% out of the water.

Quick search cited this 1997 study.

 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

This study is extremely out of date Clyde. I personally know of more than a dozen households that had no guns in them until 2008, which has been changed since. I also know of many more people that went from owning long guns only, to owning handguns and black rifles since 2008. Most of these purchases are going to have been from dealers, who would have the firearms registered upon sale. Gun ownership has gone through drastic changes in this country in the last fifteen years.

That's fine. He never expressed it as an opinion. He used it as supporting evidence.

He is right, the BOR does declare "Shall Not Be Infringed."

Was a U.S citizen killed on U.S soil? Or, are you using a hypothetical situation?

That is the stated direction of the new policy.

Right. So Marvel said that the BOR guarantees rights "without infringements." True or not?

It is obvious that Scotus hasn't upheld the words of the Constitution several times concerning the 2nd Amendment, lest there would be no type of gun control or restrictions. The first restrictions came in the 1800's when some cities chose to make it illegal for firarms to be carried within their city limits. Marvel is simply going off of what the 2nd Amendment states, which is what Scotus is supposed to do.

Good question. Quick Google search said that about 40% of all gun sales are through private transactions. I didn't find out which states do but apparently about 25% of them require background checks even for private sales. CA, RI, and IL have some form of background check/registration for private transactions. Onerous?

I have zero doubt that CA, RI, and IL have those restrictions. I hope to never be under the type of oppressive laws that those states, their voters, and their representatives place upon law abiding citizens. To put it simply, CA and IL have proven their horrible state leadership record on many issue, not just guns.

Obama's drone program is a mere reflection of the policies implemented by the Bush Admin.

 

First U.S. citizen killed by drone strike:

 

November 5, 2002, an American citizen named Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA drone strike inside Yemen.

 

Kamal Derwish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are trying to compare the killing of a U.S. citizen on foreign soil to a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without due process? You know there is no comparison. If anything like this would have even come out of Bush's mouth, there would have been immediate media turmoil, let alone acting on the idea.

SCOTUS gets to decide what rights we have under the Bill of Rights. So let's not play games here.

 

As to their track record, it's irrelevant to the argument. I asked a simple question. Has SCOTUS placed limitations or not? If so, then that takes away your argument that any restrictions I put forth are invalid because of the 2nd Amendment.

Scotus is supposed to be deciding Constitutionality. Common sense, according to your description, is not supposed to be the grounds Scotus uses in determining Constitutionality. It is the written words and the intent of those that produced our Constitution and its amendments.

Am I correct that many states already require gun owners to register their weapons?

Your dealer registers new weapons under your name. However, used weapons are not registered under private sales. Also, how many is many?

The Constitutional right comes with responsibilities and requirements.

 

Registering a gun would not preclude anyone from owning a gun and would not preclude anyone from protecting their family.

 

Gun registration would come with a renewal process. At that time a background check can be made to make sure something hasn't changed that would prevent that person from owning a gun.

 

Police responding to a scene could benefit from knowing what guns are registered to the owner.

 

It would make it more difficult (note I didn't say impossible) for those that shouldn't be able to buy guns from actually purchasing them.

So you are saying that the government needs to know the firearms each citizen owns? Are you listening to your argument? Do you not see just a little bit of liberty being surpassed and violated by that remark?

Ah yes, good-'ol Saint Ronnie, the patron saint of deficit spending and convenient memory loss.

He may have used to be the patron saint of deficit spending, but I think our current leadership has taken his title.

I agree.

 

Certainly with the technological innovations we have seen with helicopters, drones, satellites, ect, going to war using 'more precise' tactics is appealing both for policy and political capital, but it doesn't seem to hurting the moral of the enemy, and often, seems to make it worse.

Total warfare hasn't been one of our military policies since WWII.

I'm speaking in the terms of terrorism.

You are obviosly an intelligent person, so you know that leaving it up to the executive to decide who and who is not terrorist is a recipe for tyranny.

cancel....sounds like fox news

On American citizens on American soil, yes.

You think that confirmed terrorist that are American citizens should have due process if we are unable to catch them?

If it can be done to any citizen, it can be done to me or you. No, assasination is exactly what is being done.

Anwar Al-Awlaki. American citizen. Was killed intentionally. He was with other suspected Al-Qaeda members.

 

His 16 year old boy Abdulrahman Al -Awlaki was targeted in a separate attack. He is from Denver, Colorado. Collateral damage included his 17 year old cousin. If you can find a good reasoning behind it with evidence supporting he was an imminent threat that needed to be assassinated by his own country, please share.

My mind is absolutely blown to know that there are American citizens willing to turn the other cheek towards our government assasinating American citizens on American soil without due process.

Are you saying there is not a gun show loophole?

 

The private sale issue is a problem. Not sure how you can fully cover that issue.

 

Criminals and morons are the ones that drink and drive. Should we not have laws for that?

The only loophole at gun shows are private citizen sales, which shows do bring private citizens together where they can make deals with one another. Dealers must follow the same rules they do in their shop, and you have to be a dealer to have a booth at a gun show. I have never bought a gun at a show without having a background check ran on me, and I have bought a lot of guns at a lot of shows. Gun shows do however bring private citizens together that more easily allow cash deals. On the last part, once again, what would this legislation accomplish?

Common sense legislation. It's not onerous on a gun owner.

My point is that the first part of the legislation already exist for dealers at gun shows in most states. I disagree that a private gun owner should have to run a criminal background check before they sell, or give away, one of their guns to someone. As far as the second part of the legislation, criminals or morons are the only ones not doing this anyway. Why add legislation that isn't going to accomplish anything?

Let me ask you this, do you think a piece of paper should to protect a individual who has turned his or her back on duties of being an citizen to plot attacks against Americans who actually value their life and liberties? Obviously, this person does not appreciate being an American citizen. IMO

It doesn't matter if they value it or not. I don't think people value being an American citizen who burn our flag either, but they have that right. If you choose not to protect the rights of some, you endanger the rights of all. If you consider the Constitution to be a peice of paper, then I once again don't know what to say. Our government is not a government of the people without it. It becomes a government of chosen tyranny. I want these people hunted down with extreme predjudice in a legal fashion. However, I don't want our government to have legal power to assasinate Amercian citizens.

That would seem to be one to look at.

 

A Republican pollster polled NRA members recently.

 

75% were for background checks

60% said they supported a requirement to alert police when a gun was lost or stolen

 

 

Those would be a good place to start when it comes to rational legislation.

I have never bought a gun at a gun show without having a background check ran on me just like I was in a gun store. I would also say that if a gun is lost or stolen and you don't report it, you are either extremely stupid or up to something shady. Either way, I don't see how either of these would make a difference. What is the goal of this legislation? What crime wave is this legislation attempting to stop?