Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bornontheblue

Is there anything you would compromise on politically

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

While I agree with that point, we have the Bill of Rights for a reason.  

Yes we do. That's a framework. 

The federal government has enumerated powers, the states have reserved powers. 

The federal government per the Constitution has the power to levy taxes, declare war and regulate interstate commerce. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law for the execution of it's powers. 

The reserve powers go to the states to make the laws fit for their populace in their state. As we know each state may have different views on how they want to live. The founders realized that it is not practical to detail legislation for every item in every state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Most of this could be solved if we just stopped calling each other names, like democrats, republicans, leftists or whatever. When we discuss ideas on their own merits we are so much closer to agreeing on things it's crazy.

Very few want open borders, very few want women to have abortions, very few want families ripped apart just because their parents violated immigration laws, very few people want anyone and everyone (insane disturbed people) to have guns, and so on and so on.

I don’t know about this one.  I have seen more than a few openly support and cheer this on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, sean327 said:

There are estimates that 75% of all gun purchases since March were made by first time buyers.

I find that very sad, but not at all surprising. If we start having armed militia lunatics patrolling in my neighborhood, I'll probably have to get one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m curious why?   With the prevalence of ghost guns it’s the only way to deal with that issue.  

I agree with Judge Benitez.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/apr/25/court-reinstates-background-checks-california-ammo/

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez in San Diego ruled in their favor, saying the law “defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.”

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, Benitez wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state’s ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

The state of CA will lose, that law is unconstitutional.  It's just a question of whether the 9th circuit sides with him.  If they overturn him, it will go to Scotus, and the NRA will win there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The majority of Americans feel in this manner nationally.  It will be interesting to see what happens when Roe v Wade is overturned.   Republicans may find themselves the dog that caught the car. 

You understand that overturning Roe V Wade wouldn't outlaw abortions, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Agree with all of this, the problem is that this sentiment gets terrible ratings on Fox News and CNN. 

Cable news has absolutely been a driver of this madness we find ourselves in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

I find that very sad, but not at all surprising. If we start having armed militia lunatics patrolling in my neighborhood, I'll probably have to get one too.

I find it sad that you leave the well being of yourself and your family in the hands of govt. I find it sad that you believe Americans shouldn’t have the means to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sean327 said:

I find it sad that you leave the well being of yourself and your family in the hands of govt. I find it sad that you believe Americans shouldn’t have the means to defend themselves.

Sorry but militiamen carrying semiautomatic rifles to protest marches has nothing whatsoever to do with defending themselves or their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

I find that very sad, but not at all surprising. If we start having armed militia lunatics patrolling in my neighborhood, I'll probably have to get one too.

Unless you are simply opposed to firearms, having one and properly learning how to use it is not a bad idea in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Sorry but militiamen carrying semiautomatic rifles to protest marches has nothing whatsoever to do with defending themselves or their families.

Do you believe that even a fraction of the first time gun owners this year militia types now?  What is the point you are trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, toonkee said:

That's the rub, isn't it? Surely there will be more kids and families in this morally gray area in the future.

Of course. But we can just deport them as a family unit in the future.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bornontheblue said:

Agree with all of this, the problem is that this sentiment gets terrible ratings on Fox News and CNN. 

Hit the nail on the head. And even when they put people from both sides of an issue on it’s just some silly shouting match that lasts 5-7 minutes and never goes beyond the surface level. Then the host says, “be right back after this commercial break”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Hit the nail on the head. And even when they put people from both sides of an issue on it’s just some silly shouting match that lasts 5-7 minutes and never goes beyond the surface level. Then the host says, “be right back after this commercial break”. 

Social media has really caused a lot of issues too.  The most vocal people in social media are the most radical so the politicians are trying to appease them because they’re the loudest. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Of course. But we can just deport them as a family unit in the future.  

Call me a bleeding heart liberal but I have a hard time being all law and order with this issue.  Just a product of my environment I guess. I have a hard time reconciling the moral and legal parts of this situation. I don't have any good answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Call me a bleeding heart liberal but I have a hard time being all law and order with this issue.  Just a product of my environment I guess. I have a hard time reconciling the moral and legal parts of this situation. I don't have any good answers.

I guess I’m just heartless. But if we continue to allow them to stay then we will continually have the same issue over and over.  We did amnesty in the 80s in exchange for tougher border protections.  If we do it again I would suggest adopting a zero tolerance policy.  If you’re caught at the border, don’t have a legit asylum claim, then you’re immediately deported.  If you have an asylum claim then you’re released but you have to wear a tracking bracelet and if your claim is found to be unsubstantiated then you and anybody you came with is immediately deported. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I guess I’m just heartless. But if we continue to allow them to stay then we will continually have the same issue over and over.  We did amnesty in the 80s in exchange for tougher border protections.  If we do it again I would suggest adopting a zero tolerance policy.  If you’re caught at the border, don’t have a legit asylum claim, then you’re immediately deported.  If you have an asylum claim then you’re released but you have to wear a tracking bracelet and if your claim is found to be unsubstantiated then you and anybody you came with is immediately deported. 

I hope you didn't feel I implied that.

The deficiency here is mine.  Those may be the best possible answers.

I know we need border control and legal immigration, but man it gets messy once those human beings are here. The real lives of 16 year old kids just isn't always reconcilable with arbitrary things like national borders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I hope you didn't feel I implied that.

The deficiency here is mine.  Those may be the best possible answers.

I know we need border control and legal immigration, but man it gets messy once those human beings are here. The real lives of 16 year old kids just isn't always reconcilable with arbitrary things like national borders. 

Oh no I’m heartless when it comes to this subject.  I know this.

I get what you’re saying about the kids.  Personally I want the DACA kids to stay.  They’re just as American as you and I.  I don’t really support a pathway to citizenship for their parents though, legal permanent residency yes but not citizenship.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...