Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
At the end of the court battle, a bunch of gays will have a nice, framed marriage license on their walls that has nothing other than symbolic value (well, that, or the claim to be among the first few thousand). At the end of the weapons battle, you'll be left with any number of assault weapons in the hands of the people who most want them. IF you're equally comfortable with those scenarios, more power to your argument.

I am comfortable with assault weapons being in the hands of those that have gone through the same licensing process required for other types of guns.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What immediate harm is caused by an assault weapon? It does not fire itself and may not even be fired at all. The real harm I see in both cases is that harm to the will of the voters.

You are just being argumentative Club, because I know you're smater than this.

If you want to say: Elected officials should always obey the law, no matter what, and never engage in civil disobedience no matter what their consciences say -- just say it.

In fact, you seem to be suggesting that the officials' actions can't be legitimate "civil disobedience" because they're elected officials. Just say it.

Don't pretend either that (a) issuing a convicted felon (for example) a license to buy an asssault weapon poses no threat of imminent harm to society or its members; or (b) that issuing a marriage license to two committed people who say they want a committed life-long relationship poses the same threat to society.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice try.

Hey, bub, she's working from "within the system" like we all are supposed to.

This is purely a cheap shot, not an argument. I saw and took Burger's excellent point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This is purely a cheap shot, not an argument. I saw and took Burger's excellent point.

Actually I was the one who made the excellant point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You are just being argumentative Club, because I know you're smater than this.

If you want to say: Elected officials should always obey the law, no matter what, and never engage in civil disobedience no matter what their consciences say -- just say it.

In fact, you seem to be suggesting that the officials' actions can't be legitimate "civil disobedience" because they're elected officials. Just say it.

Don't pretend either that (a) issuing a convicted felon (for example) a license to buy an asssault weapon poses no threat of imminent harm to society or its members; or (b) that issuing a marriage license to two committed people who say they want a committed life-long relationship poses the same threat to society.

S_A_M

What I am saying is that the legal process should first be exhausted before an elected official engages in civil disobedience in his or her official capacity. As for the weapon license, you are clouding the issue - no one said anything about convicted felons. If you want to compare apples, than you would have to use a marriage license between a man and a dog.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Usually slippery slopes have punji sticks at the bottom of them. I get excited when people get hot and bothered about process even though it's working their way on the substance. You're disproving the bilmore thesis that when people complain about process, they're only bitching and moaning because their ox is getting gored, and I love you for it, man.

He's probably the most principled poster here, which is admirable. It also contributes to his world-view being completely unable to survive/triumph out in the world.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Actually I was the one who made the excellant point.

Sorry. I invented it. Check the post times.

Unless you meant the one about Ty being a traitor, because you don't really know who benedict arnold is. Paigow can fill you in though.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk9.htm

[Teresa blasts Walmart for destroying communties, but owns over $1.0 million in stock]

Only a million? She probably forgot all about it. That's like me having $50.00 in a passbook savings account.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for the weapon license, you are clouding the issue - no one said anything about convicted felons.

You're right, he is. BUt I don't share your confidence in either the current licensing standards nor the likelihood that those people who do have lawful licenses would never, ever resell weapons themselves and would turn any such weapons in if they were told they were not legal to possess.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sorry. I invented it. Check the post times.

Unless you meant the one about Ty being a traitor, because you don't really know who benedict arnold is. Paigow can fill you in though.

My point was that she is out just saying whatever some yokels want to hear in different places, and you can hardly expect her to shift a million bucks because Walmart is fucking up some suburb in Missouri.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My point was that she is out just saying whatever some yokels want to hear in different places, and you can hardly expect her to shift a million bucks because Walmart is fucking up some suburb in Missouri.

Ah, okay. Theresa's a hypocrite. Excellent point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're right, he is. BUt I don't share your confidence in either the current licensing standards nor the likelihood that those people who do have lawful licenses would never, ever resell weapons themselves and would turn any such weapons in if they were told they were not legal to possess.

If you look at the literature on the matter, licensed gun owners overwhelmingly do not commit gun crimes and do not resell their weapons to unauthorized people - but point taken.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Actually I was the one who made the excellant point.

While all of your points are excellent, I was referring to Burger's point re: the amount of stake she has in the company (not enough to influence its policies in any meaningful way).

Headcovering, Hank. You need to get on that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
He's probably the most principled poster here, which is admirable. It also contributes to his world-view being completely unable to survive/triumph out in the world.

S_A_M

I think that was a compliment.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you look at the literature on the matter, licensed gun owners overwhelmingly do not commit gun crimes and do not resell their weapons to unauthorized people - but point taken.

Being not familiar with the literature, I had greater concern with issuing such licenses that perhaps I should have.