Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[pbrower2a]

(03-02-2018, 01:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-01-2018, 11:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-01-2018, 09:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-01-2018, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good news indeed. Business is getting ahead of government on guns. It shows that some businessmen are able to come to their senses, and also reveals the abject failure so far of our government.

Business's are  ignoring the law and establishing their own law. I  didn't think Liberals would ever be willing to go for that and support it in any way.

Some are coming to the recognition that the guns that they may be selling profitably are the ones used in crimes that hurt business as a whole -- as in armed robberies.

If such retailers as Dick's Sporting Goods, Wal*Mart, and Kroger are doing something positive that government can't do or won't do, then I don't have a complaint with those corporate decisions.  Let us remember one of the basic rules of good business -- never hurt your ultimate customers. The gun that Wal*Mart or the Fred Meyer division of Kroger sells that kills or cripples a convenience-store clerk or even a welfare recipient may deprive Wal*Mart or Kroger of a desirable customer. Remember: Wal*Mart and Kroger get much revenue from TANF customers.

Are they going to stop selling cigarettes to 18 year old's too? Cigarettes kill way more people than AR-15's. Society would be much better served by banning access to them. Like I said, Columbine took place while the assault rifle ban was in place. How many mass shootings have taken place in schools or on campus's since Columbine was the first mass shooting to take place in a school? I'd say a lot and I'd say the liberal hype that followed each one provided the fuel and inspiration for the next one.

Non sequitur. This is a corporate decision. Cigarettes are not a part of the corporate decision. The harm that cancerweed products do to people is well known, and it is not part of the current debate.

The mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is a tipping point on the debate about the rightful role of firearms in American life... or it isn't. It will result in the tighter regulation of firearms or it will establish the sanctity of the gun culture -- that the right to bear firearms is a basic right more than is the right to safety from a firearm-saturated society. If this mass shooting does not redefine the role of firearms in American life, then nothing will. The smart, well-educated, middle-class students (not to mention very intelligent teachers) who lost good friends to pointless  gun violence are making a case against troubled youth having guns as no others have yet. Sure, the news media hostile to the gun culture are cherry-picking the students that they interview and editing the footage of their interviews... but that is normal television journalism.

The kids interviewed would seem to be the best-and-brightest of the lot... kids between ages 15 and 17 with IQ ratings around 130 or above.  About 2.2% of the population has an IQ of 130 or higher, and such people stick out in a school population.


(IQ distribution)

A 17-year-old with an IQ of 130 has an intellectual age of about 22.4, which is typical of graduate students at good universities. They are usually highly-presentable unless they have serious autism or  affect bohemian ways; they are good communicators. A high-school principal can usually find those students easily, and those students that a school wants representing them will tell the news media exactly what is expected. Teachers? Just imagine what a bond a high-school teacher can have with the best-and-brightest in high school, and the rush that comes from encountering an intellectual peer still in the teens. I don't know what a cocaine rush is like, but the rush that one gets from getting to work with such kids and bring out their best has to be stronger. I have felt that rush on rare occasions, as I usually get assigned to upper-elementary or middle school (where my techniques are best suited as a sub because such is more critical and that substitute teachers suited for such teaching are harder to find).  Teachers compete ferociously for the opportunity to teach middle-class high-school students as at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Those are probably the cream of the crop, and they interviewed well, too. 

If you think of the last highly-publicized school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School as the best opportunity to wreck the gun culture and that nothing could top it and thus that the American gun culture is safe, then think again. Elementary students are far from the eloquency of the kids that you saw at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

Nikolas Cruz was a troubled young man with much trouble with the comparatively benign bureaucracy of a school. He had made a terrorist threat and he was involved with hate groups. Did he target victims for ethnicity, because they had reported him to school staff, or simply out of availability? Wait until the criminal trial to find out.

Quote:Now, I recognize their right to determine what they sell in their stores and I'd have no issue with them getting out of selling guns in their stores. However, I don't recognize their right to ignore the law and establish a law of their own. I didn't see any AR-15's at the local Walmart. The local Walmart doesn't have many guns. I don't know why they waste their space with the small amount of guns that they have for sale. I doubt they sell many based on their lack of advertising and I'm pretty sure they're not selling enough to cover the cost of the space.

Those retailers have a right to decide what merchandise they sell and what they don't sell within the limits of the law. Wise businesses do not sell things that hurt their customers, like spoiled food or flammable clothing, but I have never heard of a retailer complaining of having lost the right to sell tainted food or dangerous housewares. Indeed, Kellogg's Corporation took some financial lumps to ensure that managers and sales force that sold bad peanut butter to Kellogg's Corporation got prison time for doing so.

Businesses do not like to face lawsuits for liability. The retailer who sold the weapons and ammo to Nikolas Cruz could face some hefty legal costs. 17 deaths? It may be a bit low as an estimate, but the last that I know, the Armed Forces pay $250,000 to the loved ones of anyone who dies in military service -- training, combat, or official travel. That is good reason for people with responsibilities in command and training of soldiers  to act with caution. Because vehicle travel is one of the most likely circumstances in which a soldier will die, the US Marine Corps dedicates a full day of basic training to defensive driving. Seventeen deaths at $250K ls $4.25 million. And that is an underestimate, as you can expect the parents of the killed students to get very good lawyers to exact every penny possible from anyone legally culpable, and because costs of defending a company for such liability are far from trivial the cost will be phenomenal.

The companies in question need not act with charitable objectives to do the right thing. They may do some economic calculus and recognize that guns kill potential customers and that avoiding liability lawsuits is a good way to protect the Bottom Line. Remember -- the customers killed by gun violence are disproportionately likely to be customers on welfare. Sales on TANF are as lucrative as sales on American Express for a major retailer.

It is the usual norm that good business and the interest of customers as a norm coincide. That is why capitalism works to the extent that it does.

[Bob Butler 54]

For a bartender to refuse a drink that endangers or a men's store to refuse to stock pink underwear, fine. For Walmart to limit its gun sales is fine. I have trouble, though, if you can't get a weapon at any store, if the corporations try to void a basic right through their own choice. For example, some women have trouble exercising rights to health care of certain types at certain places, and the courts sometimes have to step in to prevent prejudice.

Laws, federal, state or local, make little difference. If a right exists as clearly as the 2nd, any law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms should be unconstitutional. Limitation of rights if the life or rights of another are put at risk is allowed if due process is honored.

It is a matter of rights and law. The will of the majority does not override the rights of the individual. This is basic to our legal system.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-02-2018, 09:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-01-2018, 09:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-01-2018, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good news indeed. Business is getting ahead of government on guns. It shows that some businessmen are able to come to their senses, and also reveals the abject failure so far of our government.

Business's are  ignoring the law and establishing their own law. I didn't think Liberals would ever be willing to go for that and support it in any way.

Do you believe that businesses have the right to offer services and products they choose to offer, and not offer those they don't?  That seems to be your position, which is odd for a businessman.  If the Donald said that Carrier is anti-American (or maybe, just anti-Trump), would you cease selling or servicing Carrier products?

As for liberals, most of us are happy to see anything that resembles progress on gun control ... regardless of the source.  The US has been held hostage by an intransigent GOP which has itself been held hostage by the NRA.  When 97% of the people favor universal background checks, but they are never enacted, that's hostage taking.

Business's have the right to offer services and products they choose to offer, and the right to not offer those that they choose not to. What's odd about that, it's common knowledge that's shared by business owners and businessmen in general. What Donald thinks or says about Carrier would have/has no impact on my view of Carrier, my willingness to service Carrier equipment for Carrier customers or change the way that I conduct business in general.

I wonder how many of the 97% are aware of the background checks that are already in place and are aware that the background checks that were in place failed to stop any of the mass shootings that have occurred over the last two decades. How many red flags were ignored by high ranking blues associated with powerful offices like school administration, school faculty, local and county law enforcement, FBI, social services and so forth? You're a blue, how do you explain all the failures of blues that took place in a blue region of Florida. Would you view it as a confidence builder for liberal views, a lowering of faith in liberal views or a real life example of what the Reds have been telling the Blues for years?

[Classic-Xer]

(03-02-2018, 02:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Non sequitur. This is a corporate decision. Cigarettes are not a part of the corporate decision. The harm that cancerweed products do to people is well known, and it is not part of the current debate.

The mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is a tipping point on the debate about the rightful role of firearms in American life... or it isn't. It will result in the tighter regulation of firearms or it will establish the sanctity of the gun culture -- that the right to bear firearms is a basic right more than is the right to safety from a firearm-saturated society. If this mass shooting does not redefine the role of firearms in American life, then nothing will. The smart, well-educated, middle-class students (not to mention very intelligent teachers) who lost good friends to pointless  gun violence are making a case against troubled youth having guns as no others have yet. Sure, the news media hostile to the gun culture are cherry-picking the students that they interview and editing the footage of their interviews... but that is normal television journalism.

The kids interviewed would seem to be the best-and-brightest of the lot... kids between ages 15 and 17 with IQ ratings around 130 or above.  About 2.2% of the population has an IQ of 130 or higher, and such people stick out in a school population.


(IQ distribution)

A 17-year-old with an IQ of 130 has an intellectual age of about 22.4, which is typical of graduate students at good universities. They are usually highly-presentable unless they have serious autism or  affect bohemian ways; they are good communicators. A high-school principal can usually find those students easily, and those students that a school wants representing them will tell the news media exactly what is expected. Teachers? Just imagine what a bond a high-school teacher can have with the best-and-brightest in high school, and the rush that comes from encountering an intellectual peer still in the teens. I don't know what a cocaine rush is like, but the rush that one gets from getting to work with such kids and bring out their best has to be stronger. I have felt that rush on rare occasions, as I usually get assigned to upper-elementary or middle school (where my techniques are best suited as a sub because such is more critical and that substitute teachers suited for such teaching are harder to find).  Teachers compete ferociously for the opportunity to teach middle-class high-school students as at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Those are probably the cream of the crop, and they interviewed well, too. 

If you think of the last highly-publicized school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School as the best opportunity to wreck the gun culture and that nothing could top it and thus that the American gun culture is safe, then think again. Elementary students are far from the eloquency of the kids that you saw at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

Nikolas Cruz was a troubled young man with much trouble with the comparatively benign bureaucracy of a school. He had made a terrorist threat and he was involved with hate groups. Did he target victims for ethnicity, because they had reported him to school staff, or simply out of availability? Wait until the criminal trial to find out.

Those retailers have a right to decide what merchandise they sell and what they don't sell within the limits of the law. Wise businesses do not sell things that hurt their customers, like spoiled food or flammable clothing, but I have never heard of a retailer complaining of having lost the right to sell tainted food or dangerous housewares. Indeed, Kellogg's Corporation took some financial lumps to ensure that managers and sales force that sold bad peanut butter to Kellogg's Corporation got prison time for doing so.

Businesses do not like to face lawsuits for liability. The retailer who sold the weapons and ammo to Nikolas Cruz could face some hefty legal costs. 17 deaths? It may be a bit low as an estimate, but the last that I know, the Armed Forces pay $250,000 to the loved ones of anyone who dies in military service -- training, combat, or official travel. That is good reason for people with responsibilities in command and training of soldiers  to act with caution. Because vehicle travel is one of the most likely circumstances in which a soldier will die, the US Marine Corps dedicates a full day of basic training to defensive driving. Seventeen deaths at $250K ls $4.25 million. And that is an underestimate, as you can expect the parents of the killed students to get very good lawyers to exact every penny possible from anyone legally culpable, and because costs of defending a company for such liability are far from trivial the cost will be phenomenal.

The companies in question need not act with charitable objectives to do the right thing. They may do some economic calculus and recognize that guns kill potential customers and that avoiding liability lawsuits is a good way to protect the Bottom Line. Remember -- the customers killed by gun violence are disproportionately likely to be customers on welfare. Sales on TANF are as lucrative as sales on American Express for a major retailer.

It is the usual norm that good business and the interest of customers as a norm coincide. That is why capitalism works to the extent that it does.

I used cigarettes as an example of a product that is similar to guns. Similar in that it they have a legal age that is required and associated with their purchase. You're right, selling cigarettes, selling guns, selling alcohol, selling drugs, selling Bounty paper towel's and appliances are corporate decisions. However, the legal age that's required to legally purchase ISN'T a corporate decision.

Hypothetically. I'm 18 years old. I have the legal right to purchase a firearm (shotgun or rifle) as a legal adult according to the law. I am recognized and treated as a legal adult Is it legal for Walmart to raise the legal age and legal for them to enforce their decision? I don't think so. I don't recognize Walmart or Dicks as legal entities or as lawmakers who have the authority to change laws. What would I do if I was 18, I would try to buy an AR-15 and if they're dumb enough to refuse, I would get the legal authorities involved. Honestly, this is hard to believe.

[Eric the Green]

(03-02-2018, 04:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: For a bartender to refuse a drink that endangers or a men's store to refuse to stock pink underwear, fine.  For Walmart to limit its gun sales is fine.  I have trouble, though, if you can't get a weapon at any store, if the corporations try to void a basic right through their own choice. For example, some women have trouble exercising rights to health care of certain types at certain places, and the courts sometimes have to step in to prevent prejudice.

Laws, federal, state or local, make little difference.  If a right exists as clearly as the 2nd, any law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms should be unconstitutional.  Limitation of rights if the life or rights of another are put at risk is allowed if due process is honored.

It is a matter of rights and law.  The will of the majority does not override the rights of the individual.  This is basic to our legal system.

It's not a clear right, of course. Only since the extremist Court was put in place by today's regressive party, has the right to bear arms been interpreted as an individual right. This Court was created by the majority of voters who put the extremist party in the White House. It can be overturned by a majority that puts a moderate progressive in the White House instead. Checks and balances.

It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

As I said to Classic Xer, if the gun advocates wish to contest the right of a store to limit the age at which someone can buy a gun, they can do so.

Meanwhile, many stores and transportation companies are demonstrating that they have a conscience. I hope more of the people who support gun rights will develop one too, if Parkland is indeed a tipping point.

If the gun advocates and gun crazies are right, as they keep insisting, the dedicated mass murderers and other criminals will find a way to get their phallic symbols to assuage their male inadequacy and act out their frustrations at the expense of peoples' lives. And they can still steal some from the owners of the remaining guns, or borrow them from their Mommy's or Daddy's collection. But, making it harder to get these macho substitutes will save some lives.

[pbrower2a]

(03-02-2018, 06:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I used cigarettes as an example of a product that is similar to guns. Similar in that it they have a legal age that is required and associated with their purchase. You're right, selling cigarettes, selling guns, selling alcohol, selling drugs, selling Bounty paper towel's and appliances are corporate decisions. However, the legal age that's required to legally purchase ISN'T a corporate decision.

Tobacco is more addictive than some illicit drugs, but at least nobody is compelled to buy them. I do not like being in the presence of lighted cigarettes; I loathe the smoke. But one cigarette is not going to kill me unless it starts a fire that I can't escape -- which is unlikely. One wound from  gunfire from an AR-15 could easily be fatal, One victim of the Parkland shooting came close to dying from a gunshot wound to his angle due to blood loss.

You can't buy on credit until you are eighteen because you are assumed unable sign a contract, You cannot vote, you cannot enlist in the Armed Forces, and you can't legally buy cancerweed products until you are eighteen. In some states you cannot legally drive until you are eighteen. There is some assumption of a need for some maturity to do certain things. It is 21 for liquor (and in some states, cancerweed products).

Because firearms are so deadly and that misuse of them is unlikely to bring personal pain (as is driving recklessly) an age of 21 as a threshold for buying them might soon be seen as reasonable. This might make it more difficult to get weapons to minors, especially in juvenile gangs; for an analogy, once cause for raising the legal age for buying liquor from 18 to 21 was that 18-year-old men were getting liquor and inducing 15-year-old girls to get inebriated so that the men could remove the girls' inhibitions against sex. Change in legal standards rarely occurs without some immediate precedent. Much regulation arises because business wants clarification on standards for the safety of customers from harm (as with tampering with medicines such as cold remedies)and to make decisions that some companies pioneer mandatory for competitors.

This is a Crisis Era, and social change comes quickly -- and irrevocably if support for change is strong. As with same-sex marriage and adoption, so it will be with certain aspects of gun control. A 21-year-old threshold for buying firearms and ammo will be far easier than banning firearms altogether even if largely as a measure for reducing gang violence..

Quote:Hypothetically. I'm 18 years old. I have the legal right to purchase a firearm (shotgun or rifle) as a legal adult according to the law. I am recognized and treated as a legal adult  Is it legal for Walmart to raise the legal age and legal for them to enforce their decision? I don't think so.  I don't recognize Walmart or Dicks as legal entities or as lawmakers who have the authority to change laws. What would I do if I was 18, I would try to buy an AR-15 and if they're dumb enough to refuse, I would get the legal authorities involved. Honestly, this is hard to believe.

It is perfectly legal for a business to require that persons wear at the least a shirt and shoes to get permission to enter. It is perfectly legal for a business (especially one selling food as a market or as a restaurant) to deny me the right to bring in a pet dog or cat. (A service animal might be a different issue). A seaside business has a reasonable right to deny entry to people in wet swimsuits, and of course any business has the right to deny the entry of people bearing firearms. A retailer can demand the people not bring in objects that make shoplifting easy. It can oust me if my behavior becomes disorderly. Surely you know that you have no right to go over the fence at Target Field from the stands without permission from the Minnesota Twins Baseball Team -- and the Minnesota Twins never grant such permission; you will be arrested.

What businesses can't get away with is discriminatory behavior. Hotels used to get away with asking whether anyone in your party was 'a Hebrew', and all sorts of ordinary businesses used to ban 'colored people'. That is all illegal now, but it is not much harm to businesses. "NO DOGS ALLOWED" is legal, and movie theaters generally will not allow people under 17 to attend an NC-17 (formerly X-, and occasionally "XXX"-rated) movie on the assumption that the viewing of gratuitous, overt sex is harmful to children.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not a clear right, of course. Only since the extremist Court was put in place by today's regressive party, has the right to bear arms been interpreted as an individual right. This Court was created by the majority of voters who put the extremist party in the White House. It can be overturned by a majority that puts a moderate progressive in the White House instead. Checks and balances.

It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

As I said to Classic Xer, if the gun advocates wish to contest the right of a store to limit the age at which someone can buy a gun, they can do so.

Meanwhile, many stores and transportation companies are demonstrating that they have a conscience. I hope more of the people who support gun rights will develop one too, if Parkland is indeed a tipping point.

If the gun advocates and gun crazies are right, as they keep insisting, the dedicated mass murderers and other criminals will find a way to get their phallic symbols to assuage their male inadequacy and act out their frustrations at the expense of peoples' lives. And they can still steal some from the owners of the remaining guns, or borrow them from their Mommy's or Daddy's collection. But, making it harder to get these macho substitutes will save some lives.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

[David Horn]

(03-02-2018, 06:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I used cigarettes as an example of a product that is similar to guns. Similar in that it they have a legal age that is required and associated with their purchase. You're right, selling cigarettes, selling guns, selling alcohol, selling drugs, selling Bounty paper towel's and appliances are corporate decisions. However, the legal age that's required to legally purchase ISN'T a corporate decision.

Hypothetically. I'm 18 years old. I have the legal right to purchase a firearm (shotgun or rifle) as a legal adult according to the law. I am recognized and treated as a legal adult  Is it legal for Walmart to raise the legal age and legal for them to enforce their decision? I don't think so.  I don't recognize Walmart or Dicks as legal entities or as lawmakers who have the authority to change laws. What would I do if I was 18, I would try to buy an AR-15 and if they're dumb enough to refuse, I would get the legal authorities involved. Honestly, this is hard to believe.

You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have.  If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't.  Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race.  You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.

[David Horn]

(03-02-2018, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

No, you are wrong on this.  What makes an AR-15 a military arm is exactly what makes an AK-47 one.  Both have detachable magazines that can hold as many as 30 rounds (perhaps more in some cases).  Both use high velocity, minimally stable rounds, though the AR-15 is both faster and less stable.  Those two criteria alone are enough for me.  High capacity is the root of all the problems we've seen with mass shootings.  The speed and stability of the rounds make them more deadly and able to penetrate body armor ... unless it's the armor we supply our troops.  In short, they have no civilian application outside a SWAT team.

FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-03-2018, 09:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

No, you are wrong on this.  What makes an AR-15 a military arm is exactly what makes an AK-47 one.  Both have detachable magazines that can hold as many as 30 rounds (perhaps more in some cases).  Both use high velocity, minimally stable rounds, though the AR-15 is both faster and less stable.  Those two criteria alone are enough for me.  High capacity is the root of all the problems we've seen with mass shootings.  The speed and stability of the rounds make them more deadly and able to penetrate body armor ... unless it's the armor we supply our troops.  In short, they have no civilian application outside a SWAT team.

FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

That is the blue wet dream.  The law of the land is different.  With regard to sawed off shot guns and the Tommy gun - the 1930s equivalent of the assault rifle - the US Supreme Court interpreted the Second as having a litmus test.  If the US military uses an arm, it is an arm.  Both weapons were regulated because they were not used by the military.

Of course, the ban by that litmus test was temporary.  Tommy guns were commonly carried by the US military in World War II.  Sawed off shotguns were convenient for clearing out tunnels in Vietnam.  It is a changing legal litmus test.

But that was when the Second was interpreted as only protecting the militia.  It was a case where the Supremes wanted to justify more authority to the government.  Still, it has not been overturned.  Some think the People can only carry military arms.

Still, there are multiple versions of the law.  The Standard Model suggests the right to keep and bear arms.  Some blues think the Constitution can be changed on whim.  The one thing certain is uncertainty, that whatever you believe, some out there will disagree firmly at a values and legal level.

I don't think one part of the country can change another part's values.  Some people want to be able to protect themselves, and the Constitution is clear that they can by law.  I also don't believe prohibition works.  I'm a bit dubious that armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing can work.

But folks disagree.

[Eric the Green]

(03-03-2018, 11:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-03-2018, 09:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

No, you are wrong on this.  What makes an AR-15 a military arm is exactly what makes an AK-47 one.  Both have detachable magazines that can hold as many as 30 rounds (perhaps more in some cases).  Both use high velocity, minimally stable rounds, though the AR-15 is both faster and less stable.  Those two criteria alone are enough for me.  High capacity is the root of all the problems we've seen with mass shootings.  The speed and stability of the rounds make them more deadly and able to penetrate body armor ... unless it's the armor we supply our troops.  In short, they have no civilian application outside a SWAT team.

FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

That is the blue wet dream.  The law of the land is different.  With regard to sawed off shot guns and the Tommy gun - the 1930s equivalent of the assault rifle - the US Supreme Court interpreted the Second as having a litmus test.  If the US military uses an arm, it is an arm.  Both weapons were regulated because they were not used by the military.

Of course, the ban by that litmus test was temporary.  Tommy guns were commonly carried by the US military in World War II.  Sawed off shotguns were convenient for clearing out tunnels in Vietnam.  It is a changing legal litmus test.

But that was when the Second was interpreted as only protecting the militia.  It was a case where the Supremes wanted to justify more authority to the government.  Still, it has not been overturned.  Some think the People can only carry military arms.

Still, there are multiple versions of the law.  The Standard Model suggests the right to keep and bear arms.  Some blues think the Constitution can be changed on whim.  The one thing certain is uncertainty, that whatever you believe, some out there will disagree firmly at a values and legal level.

I don't think one part of the country can change another part's values.  Some people want to be able to protect themselves, and the Constitution is clear that they can by law.  I also don't believe prohibition works.  I'm a bit dubious that armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing can work.

But folks disagree.

Thanks David for your input on the debate, and the need to go past the attempt by the right-wing to obfuscate what constitutes a weapon of war. I'm sure the legislatures, once more free from the NRA and their GOP synchophants, will need to work frequently to update the ability of greedy gun makers to get around bans on weapons of war for civilian use.

Folks disagree. But usually one side wins the debate eventually. Folks disagreed on slavery, and went to war over it. Slavery was abolished, eventually. Folks may rebel or go to war over guns. The progressive side will win eventually, and eventually we'll get rid of guns. It is not really a values issue, except that we're talking the value of life. The question is how to protect it. So at bottom, although it concerns a primary value, the debate is only about the best way to fulfill it. It is a question of strategy and safety. And the Constitution is by no means clear on it. It only depends on which faction has chosen a majority of Court members.

Armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing will not work, I don't think, whether the rebellion is against the right-wing people or the left-wing people, so-called, that we have been electing. I don't think stockpiling and arming the citizenry will facilitate such a rebellion. It would need to be well organized, essentially by a state-in-exile or a seceding group of states. Then, the question for the rebels would be whether the new boss turned out to be essentially the same as the old boss.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-03-2018, 01:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing will not work, I don't think, whether the rebellion is against the right-wing people or the left-wing people, so-called, that we have been electing. I don't think stockpiling and arming the citizenry will facilitate such a rebellion. It would need to be well organized, essentially by a state-in-exile or a seceding group of states. Then, the question for the rebels would be whether the new boss turned out to be essentially the same as the old boss.

On another note entirely, you man want to watch PBS's American Creed.  David Kennedy and Condoleezza Rice attempt to peg just what is America and American.  They seem to be putting emphasis on inclusiveness, service, and working together.  In this they are leaning blue, but even more so they are pushing working together to solve a crisis.  The theme was S&Hish, of getting together and not being self oriented.

Just one thing leaning towards a cyclical reality, pursuing collective crisis values, not selfish unraveling, but it is hardly strange to see PBS pushing blue values.  If I had to push just one thing it would be balance, but the cycle seems more likely.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-03-2018, 09:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

No, you are wrong on this.  What makes an AR-15 a military arm is exactly what makes an AK-47 one.  Both have detachable magazines that can hold as many as 30 rounds (perhaps more in some cases).  Both use high velocity, minimally stable rounds, though the AR-15 is both faster and less stable.  Those two criteria alone are enough for me.  High capacity is the root of all the problems we've seen with mass shootings.  The speed and stability of the rounds make them more deadly and able to penetrate body armor ... unless it's the armor we supply our troops.  In short, they have no civilian application outside a SWAT team.

FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU.  Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.


Willy Nilly Dicks Sporting Goods, who caters more to urban Yuppi's, the majority of whom must have been determined to be more of the blue persuasion. You know, the folks who strap their cross country skies to roof of their little SUV's and head out to some trail or park for a few hours or some expensive cross country skiing resort for a few days of pleasure in a controlled area that's relatively safe and secure. Does primarily loaded with over priced Yuppi stuff sound like the kind of place where an AVID outdoors man is going to hang out or enter to buy an over priced AR-15 that happens to be pink or looks a lot prettier and more appealing than an average/run of the mill AR-15 that cost a third less. Dicks Sporting Goods made a ploy that isn't going to turn out very good for them considering how much of the American market that they lost forever. Who want's a war zone in their parking lots? Who wants to look like a group of dictators before American eyes and the American public? Who wants to drive through angry crowds of protestors and barriers to buy a pair of snow shoes? Yuppi's aren't going to do that because their lives, their property and over all well being are more important to them and not worth risking for a pair of snow shoes or a tent at Dicks Sporting Goods. What should Cabelas and others do? Stand pat and stick with following the rule of law or join the fray or attack Dick's with marketing and peel away customers and attract loose customers. Wouldn't it be funny if Dick's ends up bankrupt?

[Eric the Green]

I don't think that's going to happen. I think you or Bob pointed out already that AR-15s were not available at Dick's anyway; this is an affiliate store that will stop selling them, probably one located in red-voting areas, not Yuppie areas. If you see reports of huge demonstrations blocking Field and Stream stores, let me know. You guys are the dictators, forcing us to accept weapons of war bought by crazy teenagers bent on shooting up public places.

Avid outdoorsmen don't need weapons of war to go hunting. That is cheating, and very un-sporting. Hunters need to go back to plain rifles and stfu about it. Stop slaughtering wildlife for no purpose.

[Eric the Green]

(03-03-2018, 02:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-03-2018, 01:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing will not work, I don't think, whether the rebellion is against the right-wing people or the left-wing people, so-called, that we have been electing. I don't think stockpiling and arming the citizenry will facilitate such a rebellion. It would need to be well organized, essentially by a state-in-exile or a seceding group of states. Then, the question for the rebels would be whether the new boss turned out to be essentially the same as the old boss.

On another note entirely, you man want to watch PBS's American Creed.  David Kennedy and Condoleezza Rice attempt to peg just what is America and American.  They seem to be putting emphasis on inclusiveness, service, and working together.  In this they are leaning blue, but even more so they are pushing working together to solve a crisis.  The theme was S&Hish, of getting together and not being self oriented.

Just one thing leaning towards a cyclical reality, pursuing collective crisis values, not selfish unraveling, but it is hardly strange to see PBS pushing blue values.  If I had to push just one thing it would be balance, but the cycle seems more likely.

I remind you again, "red and blue values" did not exist before the 1980s (and not called that until the year 2000), and not since the after-years of the civil war, when they were called blue and gray values. Today the polarization exists ONLY because the Republicans have gone way overboard and their voters completely crazy and brainwashed by their media bubble, financed by greedy barons. Just as crazy as the Dixie hotheads of 1860. Not so long ago the parties were themselves more balanced, and today an Eisenhower Republican would be more like a Sanders Democrat. PBrower has pointed out this fact here numerous times.

[pbrower2a]

(03-03-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-03-2018, 09:01 AM)David Horn Wrote: FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU.  Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.

A sniper rifle is for a sniper. Let us remember that in military action, a sniper can kill lots of people before he eventually is killed... because he must be taken out, and will be taken  out. This gun looks made for picking off lots of people with the scope that it has. 

Quote:Willy Nilly Dicks Sporting Goods, who caters more to urban Yuppies, the majority of whom must have been determined to be more of the blue persuasion. You know, the folks who strap their cross country skies to roof of their little SUV's and head out to some trail or park for a few hours or some expensive cross country skiing resort for a few days of pleasure in a controlled area that's relatively safe and secure. Does primarily loaded with over priced Yuppie stuff sound like the kind of place where an AVID outdoors man is going to hang out or enter to buy an over priced AR-15 that happens to be pink or looks a lot prettier and more appealing than an average/run of the mill AR-15 that cost a third less. Dicks Sporting Goods made a ploy that isn't going to turn out very good for them considering how much of the American market that they lost forever. Who want's a war zone in their parking lots? Who wants to look like a group of dictators before American eyes and the American public? Who wants to drive through angry crowds of protestors and barriers to buy a pair of snow shoes? Yuppi's aren't going to do that because their lives, their property and over all well being are more important to them and not worth risking for a pair of snow shoes or a tent at Dicks Sporting Goods. What should Cabelas and others do? Stand pat and stick with following the rule of law or join the fray or attack Dick's with marketing and peel away customers and attract loose customers. Wouldn't it be funny if Dick's ends up bankrupt?

Yuppies rarely go on shooting rampages. Yes, I consider cross-country skiing or downhill skiing activities of 'outdoor sportspeople'.

Liability for sale of certain non-sporting firearms might be a concern of Dick's Sporting Goods. Corporate retailers are very cautious about the risk of big lawsuits.  A one-location pawn shop that sells guns as a big part of its business might not have so much of a chouice unless a government takes away that choice.

Cabela's might choose to go with its other corporate competitors. Cabela's may better fit the more proletarian sport hunter -- but it will have to choose between selling guns that have no legitimate sporting purpose and limiting its chances of facing horrible law suits.

As for retailers going bankrupt -- it happens all the time. I expect Sears, K-Mart, and Toys 'R' Us to go under.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-03-2018, 08:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 06:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I used cigarettes as an example of a product that is similar to guns. Similar in that it they have a legal age that is required and associated with their purchase. You're right, selling cigarettes, selling guns, selling alcohol, selling drugs, selling Bounty paper towel's and appliances are corporate decisions. However, the legal age that's required to legally purchase ISN'T a corporate decision.

Hypothetically. I'm 18 years old. I have the legal right to purchase a firearm (shotgun or rifle) as a legal adult according to the law. I am recognized and treated as a legal adult  Is it legal for Walmart to raise the legal age and legal for them to enforce their decision? I don't think so.  I don't recognize Walmart or Dicks as legal entities or as lawmakers who have the authority to change laws. What would I do if I was 18, I would try to buy an AR-15 and if they're dumb enough to refuse, I would get the legal authorities involved. Honestly, this is hard to believe.

You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have.  If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't.  Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race.  You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.

No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so. I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"

[Classic-Xer]

(03-03-2018, 07:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: A sniper rifle is for a sniper. Let us remember that in military action, a sniper can kill lots of people before he eventually is killed... because he must be taken out, and will be taken  out. This gun looks made for picking off lots of people with the scope that it has. 

My deer rifle is also used as a military sniper rifle. It doesn't look like that one but it's just a deadly.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-03-2018, 06:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I remind you again, "red and blue values" did not exist before the 1980s (and not called that until the year 2000), and not since the after-years of the civil war, when they were called blue and gray values. Today the polarization exists ONLY because the Republicans have gone way overboard and their voters completely crazy and brainwashed by their media bubble, financed by greedy barons. Just as crazy as the Dixie hotheads of 1860. Not so long ago the parties were themselves more balanced, and today an Eisenhower Republican would be more like a Sanders Democrat. PBrower has pointed out this fact here numerous times.

I'm a good old American Yankee. What are you?

[Classic-Xer]

(03-03-2018, 06:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think that's going to happen. I think you or Bob pointed out already that AR-15s were not available at Dick's anyway; this is an affiliate store that will stop selling them, probably one located in red-voting areas, not Yuppie areas. If you see reports of huge demonstrations blocking Field and Stream stores, let me know. You guys are the dictators, forcing us to accept weapons of war bought by crazy teenagers bent on shooting up public places.

Avid outdoorsmen don't need weapons of war to go hunting. That is cheating, and very un-sporting. Hunters need to go back to plain rifles and stfu about it. Stop slaughtering wildlife for no purpose.

I pointed out that they weren't available at the local Walmart store. The local Walmart had a very small selection of basic guns and a small selection of ammunition. Dick's has assault rifles available for sale. I see their adds all the time. The Dick's Sporting Goods store in Bloomington, Minnesota is located in a Yuppie area. Dick's is the dictator in this case. You have Dick's Sporting Good's age to purchase an assault rifle at Dick's Sporting Goods. It's funny, you are doing what you've been accusing me and telling me and warning me about that I've been doing with and doing for corporations for years. As you see, I wouldn't do what you're doing regardless of the issue. Like I said, Nazi's wouldn't have risen without mindless blue idiots like you to give them the power to do it.