Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 82 of 162 FirstFirst ... 72 81 82 83 92 ... LastLast
Results 2,026 to 2,050 of 4048

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #2026
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,780
    I am also not against gun ownership, though I think REQUIRING a head of household to own a gun is going too far. People also have the right NOT to own a gun.

    As a kid, I went through the whole NRA riflery and marksmanship training to Bar 10. We learned a ton about gun safety, handling, and responsible use. I feel I am an informed and responsible gun owner. Who is not stockpiling weapons, FTR.

    But I am very much against the ease with which people can acquire weapons of tremendous destructive potential with virtually no requirements or tracking. We need a license to drive a car afterall, why not a weapon? (some will say gun ownership is a right and driving a privelage, but there have been numerous court cases that conclude driving IS a right as well) Why not require owners to be trained in proper handling? Why not put in place measures that can help ID and track people who exhibit behavior that raises red flags? The Colorado shooter tried to join a gun club and after leaving a disturbing message on the director’s phone was told he could not join. But they didn’t have to report him to any authorities. If I take my kid to the emergency room and anything looks suspicious, they are OBLIGATED to inform the authorities for suspicion of child abuse. I really don’t see why we can’t do this with guns (and still be able to protect people’s privacy as is done with health information)

    We even have measures to raise flags on people who try to buy large quantities of fertilizer, so why not guns? Although not ideologically driven, what is to prevent the next attack from being a terrorist attack?
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  2. #2027
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    ps. I agree with Jon Stewert.... if now isn't the time to talk about gun control... when is?
    We have a waiting period requirement on talking about gun regulations?

    In any case, I support gun rights, but I'm not sure we need to allow people to own assault weapons. And if we allow people to own assault weapons, it's incredible that we don't have more registration and liscensing requirements for them. The NRA is very good at propaganda, but they exist solely to protect profits from gun manufacturers.

    I mean, the NRA's position seems to be that people, including mentally ill people, should be ablt purchase as many assault weapons and ammunition as they want without even registering and tracking the weapons? And anyone otehr than the gun-makers really thinks that is a good idea?
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  3. #2028
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally posted by Dan View post
    Downstate, folks. Downstate. Politics, MySpace style.

    I'M SENATOR AND I KNOW IT



    Can't wait until Howard Stern gets her into his studio.
    Please tell me that is a joke. If not, she needs a professional PR person.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  4. #2029
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    We have a waiting period requirement on talking about gun regulations?

    In any case, I support gun rights, but I'm not sure we need to allow people to own assault weapons. And if we allow people to own assault weapons, it's incredible that we don't have more registration and liscensing requirements for them. The NRA is very good at propaganda, but they exist solely to protect profits from gun manufacturers.

    I mean, the NRA's position seems to be that people, including mentally ill people, should be ablt purchase as many assault weapons and ammunition as they want without even registering and tracking the weapons? And anyone otehr than the gun-makers really thinks that is a good idea?
    The assault rifle debate is an interesting one but I agree that there should be some type of background check, licensing requirement, and training program before you can buy one.

    However, I keep coming back the the realization that for the most part, those who buy the guns legally are not committing the crimes and would rather see more trained people being able to carry handguns. I think that a person with an advanced level CPL should be permitted to carry on school property, in stadiums, or similar large crowd type venues. Additionally, I think that a person should be able to carry in a restaurant or bar if they are not consuming alcohol if they have an advanced level CPL. But this would be limited to concealed weapons only and the advance training would focus on more marksmanship public safety type stuff.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  5. #2030
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,780
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    However, I keep coming back the the realization that for the most part, those who buy the guns legally are not committing the crimes and would rather see more trained people being able to carry handguns. I think that a person with an advanced level CPL should be permitted to carry on school property, in stadiums, or similar large crowd type venues. Additionally, I think that a person should be able to carry in a restaurant or bar if they are not consuming alcohol if they have an advanced level CPL. But this would be limited to concealed weapons only and the advance training would focus on more marksmanship public safety type stuff.
    My concerns would be: How would you ensure a person with a concealed weapon is not drinking? What if a kid at a school got a hold of a gun carried on to the property? Or at a sporting event where things got heated? These scenarios make me nervous, personally. Especially the alcohol issue. Both in terms of the carrier and someone else getting a hold of a concealed weapon. Not that easy to do, I realize, but many trained military or law enforcement people wold know how. And if they were drinking, well, poor judgement may be the (deadly) order of the day.

    I'm of mixed opinion about the whole argument that a trained gun carrier in a public setting could thwart a crime in progress (and I don't know if this is the argument you are making). Because even the best shot, or even trained law enforcement, can easily make a mistake, have a poor line on the perpetrator, etc. resulting in innocent life lost. Law enforcement is generally trained to err on the side of caution using weapons in public but your typical resident, no matter their training, may not. And hw are they held accountable? Its a different ballgame on many fronts. Also, the way these things go down is not always so clear cut that someone could just take out the perpetrator without incident. It also confuses law enforcement arriving on the scene about who is actually the criminal. Its a good way to get yourself shot, IMO, and I have read about incidents opn private property where police showed up and actually shot the homeowner, thinking they were the perpetrator because they were holding the gun.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  6. #2031
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,410
    Great, let's just start a gun proliferation movement. While we're at it, scrap the whole nuclear dissarmament thing, and let's just start gearing up.

    More guns in the hands of more people (lawabiding, or not) is not the answer for a decrease in gun violence. Sure, the good guy may shoot the bad guy, but does that equate to less violence? I don't think so.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  7. #2032
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,107
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    I see no reason why semi-automatic or large caliper guns are sold to the average citizen. I think if you want to own one, you should be cleared in every way, and be on a national database that is reviewable by the average citizen.
    Sure there are reasons... the gun manufacturing lobby will tell them to you.

    I find assault type guns are very silly to have on the market. I heard the joker out on CO had some 100 round clips. What the heck??? You going turkey hunting with an unlimited bag limit at the turkey farm?
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  8. #2033
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    6,932
    I guess I fall in line with what several here have said. I don't have a problem with owning a gun, rifle, pistol, etc. Assualt weapons are not included and shouldn't be allowed on the open market (with out modification so they are not automatic weapons). A registry, waiting period, background check, and safety class should all be requirements before a gun can be purchased. The 2nd amendment gives you the right, but doesn't address how.


    If a mass murderer, criminal, or similar minded individual wanted to obtain an 'illegal' weapon they still could (just like if you have a cocaine habit, you can still get it if you want it). That portion of the population will continue to be out there.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  9. #2034
    Cyburbian Bubba's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Above urban19's plane field
    Posts
    2,298
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I am also not against gun ownership, though I think REQUIRING a head of household to own a gun is going too far. People also have the right NOT to own a gun.
    A couple of notes on the Kennesaw, GA mandatory gun ownership law - after a legal challenge by the ACLU, the law was amended to exclude conscientious objectors, criminals, mentally handicapped, and people who could not afford a gun. Also, it is not enforced (or, at least, no one has ever been charged with violating the law).
    I found you a new motto from a sign hanging on their wall…"Drink coffee: do stupid things faster and with more energy"

  10. #2035
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    I find assault type guns are very silly to have on the market. I heard the joker out on CO had some 100 round clips. What the heck??? You going turkey hunting with an unlimited bag limit at the turkey farm?
    I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


    Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  11. #2036
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,410
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


    Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."
    No one is suggesting that the guns actually commit the crimes themselves. But they sure do make it a lot easier to kill people. Last time checked, murder was a crime. Getting fat is not.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  12. #2037
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.
    The aurora shooting was most definitely a crime committed by someone using an assault rifle. Legally purchased in the US assault rifles are used in hundred of crimes across the border.

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."
    Guns are people my friends.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  13. #2038
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am sure that this will come as a shock, but assault rifles are not use for hunting and most of the time, they are not used in crimes. They are on the same level a car that will do 200 mph.


    Best line I have heard in a ban the guns debate was "guns commit crimes like spoons make people fat. Some people use tea spoons, some people use table spoons, and some people use a full ladle."
    See this is the problem. Instead of looking at that as a great example of why assault type guns should be banned, you see it as why they shouldn't. Assault guns serve no positive purpose, and are much more likely to serve a negative one. A ladle, although serving a primarily negative purpose, does not make you fat, but it does make it easier. If we limited ladles in this country would everyone get skinny? Nope. But less people would get fat. I wish that I could get the best cheese in the world in the U.S. but they ban it for fear that it might make me sick. We have speed limits and don't allow certain cars to be imported to our borders because they go too fast. Assault weapons are much worse. They serve no purpose other than to say you have one. They are not recreational beyond saying to you shot it. They are not used to hunt...

    Your argument is that crazy people are going to do whatever they do no matter what, it isn't guns that cause that to happen. My counter argument is that if guns were made more difficult to get, or if you had to justify your purchase, wait, and know that you were on a national database, there would be less likelihood that someone would use a gun in an act of anger or desperation. It isn't going to stop someone from doing what the guy did in Aurora. He planned it out over months. If he didn't have an assault weapon, or if he didn't have as much ammo, it might, just maybe, would have made it better. Or even better, a red flag for purchasing all the ammo and guns, might have stopped the incident altogether.

    Guns aren't bad. People are bad. Just as we shouldn't put people in a position to only be able to eat McDonald's all their lives, we should make it harder for someone to be able to pull off what the lunatic did in Colorado.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  14. #2039
    Cyburbian ofos's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Slightly Off-Center
    Posts
    8,258
    The interesting thing is that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Rarely mass suicides though. Or repeat offenders.
    “Death comes when memories of the past exceed the vision for the future.”

  15. #2040
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    199
    To make something clear. Anytime someone legally purchases a firearms from a firearms dealer (someone who holds a FFL, more on this later) the purchaser must pass a background check which is run through the FBI's National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). This check can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 30+ days, depending upon the purchaser's SSN, backlog at NCIC, crimes reported, etc. Once the purchaser has cleared the background check the serial number of the firearm he/she is purchasing shall be logged in a manifest book with the purchaser's signature. The firearms dealer (mom & pop shop, wal-mart, etc.) shall retain that manifest log in perpetual and ensure it is open to inspection by any law enforcement official, district attorney, etc.

    I state this because in many previous posts state that those who buy firearms or certain types of firearms should be placed on, "the radar." Well in fact they/we are. The problem has been that law requires this information to be obtain and maintained yet no one agency has been given the command, personnel or budget to watch over this information on a large scale or even daily.

    The firearms dealer has to pass a more rigorous background check in order to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The FFL is what legally allows a dealer to purchase firearms (either by bulk or individually), sell them and transfer ownership of the firearm to the buyer.The dealer is legally responsible for ensuring the buyer's NCIC background check is completed prior to transferring the ownership. The dealer is also responsible for watching for any signs of erratic behavior in the purchaser and can deny the transfer of ownership. The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFL holders and some of you in your job duties may have had contact with ATF field agents inquiring about an FFL applicant. I personally have completed half a dozen zoning verification forms for applicants of a FFL and have met with an ATF field agent regarding the use of selling firearms in specific zoning districts on four occasions. I've been a planner in Georgia since 2001.

    You may recall the Brady Bill set out to close what is often called the "Gun Show Loophole." The idea was to stop someone from going to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check. If I'm not mistaken the original proposal was a 30 day waiting period from the time of purchase at a gun show to taking ownership. The Bill was watered down and it is what we have now, the dealer has to have an FFL and perform the required background check prior to transferring ownership of that firearm.

    What is not regulated is the individual sell of a firearm. For example, I purchase a handgun from a dealer and decide I don't like it or that I need the money for something else. I sell it to my neighbor. The gun is registered to me in the NCIC database and will always be. My neighbor commits a crime with that gun and it is recovered. I'm questioned about the crime as the gun is traced back to my ownership of it. I then must produce documentation that I sold the gun. Courts have upheld that a receipt (with date of sell, amount, serial number, caliber, make and model, both parties signature and notarized on the receipt) are an acceptable form of transfer.

    One other point I will make in this long winded post is the term "assault weapon" is misleading by the media, law makers and average citizens. I will agree that any weapon (gun, knife, rock) can be used in an assault and therefore be called an "assault weapon" but what is often associated with this term is a semi-automatic rifle that resembles that what the military use. The key word is semi, meaning that only one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger. Fully automatic rifles are the only true "assault weapon" and are not easily owned by the general public unless you pay an exorbitant tax and you pass a background check more thorough than one for the FFL. What has become popular by the tacti-cool crowd and what was used by the scumbag in Aurora is what is referred to as an AR15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle but for the company that designed and patented the gun, Armalite. Armalite sold the patent to Colt I believe in 1948 or 1958. The AR platform is often used in firearm competitions, police departments and military, it is a semi-automatic rifle mostly in carbine size (barrel being 18"-20"). Another firearm synonymous with an "assault weapon" is the AK47, which is also a semi-automatic rifle design in the former U.S.S.R. and often replicated to much lower quality standards. The original design (Kalashnikov) was a select fire rifle meaning the operator had the option of pulling the trigger and having a 3 or 5 rounds fired (can't remember exact count) or single fire. Because of the basic, and trouble free design of the AK47 many third world countries have replicated the Kalashnikov AK47 and done so cheaply. These are mostly the rifles (considered small arms) that you see rebels waving in the streets and recklessly firing into the air as a form of celebration.

    Should the number of rounds a firearm can fire per minute/second be regulated (i.e. number of rounds per magazine)? That's not the purpose of my post. I think owning firearms is a right and privileged but I also believe it should not be mandatory. Unfortunately evil people will do evil things, no matter what measures are in place. The scenario I consider is why punish many for the actions of a few? This is a long post, hopefully you learn something by reading this, if not you just wasted a few minutes of your life.

  16. #2041
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,586
    Blog entries
    5
    As shell_waster noted licensed dealers have a process that they must adhere to when they sell firearms, the loophole of private party individual sales needs to be closed. Much like owning an automobile and when you sell it to some other person you sign the title over and the registration gets transferred. There should be a methodology in place for that type of transfer of firearms between individuals. All people who own a gun should have to go through some firearms safety course much like you have to pass a drivers license test.

    Although I have no issue with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms (or not) there is no reason that anyone needs a high powered assault grade weapon unless you are on active military duty or employed as law enforcement. They are meant for hunting people. Period.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  17. #2042
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by shell_waster View post
    To make something clear. Anytime someone legally purchases a firearms from a firearms dealer (someone who holds a FFL, more on this later) the purchaser must pass a background check which is run through the FBI's National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). This check can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 30+ days, depending upon the purchaser's SSN, backlog at NCIC, crimes reported, etc. Once the purchaser has cleared the background check the serial number of the firearm he/she is purchasing shall be logged in a manifest book with the purchaser's signature. The firearms dealer (mom & pop shop, wal-mart, etc.) shall retain that manifest log in perpetual and ensure it is open to inspection by any law enforcement official, district attorney, etc.

    I state this because in many previous posts state that those who buy firearms or certain types of firearms should be placed on, "the radar." Well in fact they/we are. The problem has been that law requires this information to be obtain and maintained yet no one agency has been given the command, personnel or budget to watch over this information on a large scale or even daily.

    The firearms dealer has to pass a more rigorous background check in order to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The FFL is what legally allows a dealer to purchase firearms (either by bulk or individually), sell them and transfer ownership of the firearm to the buyer.The dealer is legally responsible for ensuring the buyer's NCIC background check is completed prior to transferring the ownership. The dealer is also responsible for watching for any signs of erratic behavior in the purchaser and can deny the transfer of ownership. The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFL holders and some of you in your job duties may have had contact with ATF field agents inquiring about an FFL applicant. I personally have completed half a dozen zoning verification forms for applicants of a FFL and have met with an ATF field agent regarding the use of selling firearms in specific zoning districts on four occasions. I've been a planner in Georgia since 2001.

    You may recall the Brady Bill set out to close what is often called the "Gun Show Loophole." The idea was to stop someone from going to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check. If I'm not mistaken the original proposal was a 30 day waiting period from the time of purchase at a gun show to taking ownership. The Bill was watered down and it is what we have now, the dealer has to have an FFL and perform the required background check prior to transferring ownership of that firearm.

    What is not regulated is the individual sell of a firearm. For example, I purchase a handgun from a dealer and decide I don't like it or that I need the money for something else. I sell it to my neighbor. The gun is registered to me in the NCIC database and will always be. My neighbor commits a crime with that gun and it is recovered. I'm questioned about the crime as the gun is traced back to my ownership of it. I then must produce documentation that I sold the gun. Courts have upheld that a receipt (with date of sell, amount, serial number, caliber, make and model, both parties signature and notarized on the receipt) are an acceptable form of transfer.

    One other point I will make in this long winded post is the term "assault weapon" is misleading by the media, law makers and average citizens. I will agree that any weapon (gun, knife, rock) can be used in an assault and therefore be called an "assault weapon" but what is often associated with this term is a semi-automatic rifle that resembles that what the military use. The key word is semi, meaning that only one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger. Fully automatic rifles are the only true "assault weapon" and are not easily owned by the general public unless you pay an exorbitant tax and you pass a background check more thorough than one for the FFL. What has become popular by the tacti-cool crowd and what was used by the scumbag in Aurora is what is referred to as an AR15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle but for the company that designed and patented the gun, Armalite. Armalite sold the patent to Colt I believe in 1948 or 1958. The AR platform is often used in firearm competitions, police departments and military, it is a semi-automatic rifle mostly in carbine size (barrel being 18"-20"). Another firearm synonymous with an "assault weapon" is the AK47, which is also a semi-automatic rifle design in the former U.S.S.R. and often replicated to much lower quality standards. The original design (Kalashnikov) was a select fire rifle meaning the operator had the option of pulling the trigger and having a 3 or 5 rounds fired (can't remember exact count) or single fire. Because of the basic, and trouble free design of the AK47 many third world countries have replicated the Kalashnikov AK47 and done so cheaply. These are mostly the rifles (considered small arms) that you see rebels waving in the streets and recklessly firing into the air as a form of celebration.

    Should the number of rounds a firearm can fire per minute/second be regulated (i.e. number of rounds per magazine)? That's not the purpose of my post. I think owning firearms is a right and privileged but I also believe it should not be mandatory. Unfortunately evil people will do evil things, no matter what measures are in place. The scenario I consider is why punish many for the actions of a few? This is a long post, hopefully you learn something by reading this, if not you just wasted a few minutes of your life.
    What about sales over the internet? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011...gun-sales.html

    Also, can't you buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo with no tracking? I kind of feel like if you buy thousands of rounds it should probably raise some sort of a red flag.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  18. #2043
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,382
    I predict a train wreck coming.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  19. #2044
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    What about sales over the internet? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011...gun-sales.html

    Also, can't you buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo with no tracking? I kind of feel like if you buy thousands of rounds it should probably raise some sort of a red flag.
    I had dinner with a friend of mine who is a gun collector and CPL instructor and he said that an online sale needs to go though a local fire arms dealer. (at least here in Michigan)

    I also I fully agree with shell_wasters comments.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  20. #2045
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,177
    I'll admit I'm personally not a huge fan of concealed weapons or assault weapons for civilian use but it's not something I feel too strongly about. What I do have issue with are extended round clips. I just have a hard time seeing how something like a 30 round clip for a handgun is really necessary. Reloading at least gives people a chance to stop a shooter like in Tucson.

  21. #2046
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    I feel like we talked about this somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Here is a timeline of events...

    Chick-fil-a President Dan Cathy says some really bigoted stuff to the Baptist Press on Monday...
    “ “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...vzvW_blog.html

    Then the Mayor of Boston issued a letter to Chick-fil-a asking it to not come to Boston...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1703770.html

    Then the Boston Globe and lots of other people have this view...

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-2...-freedom-trail
    But using the power of government to freeze the company out of a city sends a disturbing message to all businesses. If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.
    I am not sure what I think about this. I am happy that the Mayor stood up to the bigoted views of the CEO of Chick-fil-a, but in the end they have said they don't discriminate, they hire and are happy to have gays at their stores. So should a bigoted views of one man mean a company can't be in a community? I'm not sure.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  22. #2047
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,780
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    I am not sure what I think about this. I am happy that the Mayor stood up to the bigoted views of the CEO of Chick-fil-a, but in the end they have said they don't discriminate, they hire and are happy to have gays at their stores. So should a bigoted views of one man mean a company can't be in a community? I'm not sure.
    I agree this is a complicated one. But forcing the hand of the one bigoted man, who happens to be the head of the company, is a lot of what actions like boycotts or sanctions are all about. It is based on the concept that you are “punishing” the group to create pressure on the leader to change the position. It’s the same as with Cuba, for example. Are the Cuban people the problem? No, it’s the leadership. The embargo is supposed to put pressure on the leader by depriving the people. Clearly, that strategy is working well....

    Regardless of the company’s statements about not discriminating, I don’t believe they offer coverage for same-sex couples. And do they hire openly LGBT folks? I really don't know, but I would like to.

    I would also say there is a difference between telling a company that has a stated agenda to deprive people of a right from coming to their town and telling a company that provides those rights (in the form of benefits for same sex couples, for example) to stay away. And this is my issue with proposals to “define marriage” as part of a constitutional amendment. It would be the first amendment that restricts a particular group’s freedoms rather than clarifies or extends them (with the exception of prohibition, which obviously was repealed). I think of it as similar to the cases where certain states or cities have said they won’t do business with Arizona because of the immigration policies there. That’s another case where these boycotts are geared toward reversing the denial of rights to a certain population.

    In one way, you can view these actions by multiple parties, including municipalities, as “market correction” in action.

    In the WaPo article you cited, it also says:
    But when a business leader elects to take a public and vocal position on a hot-button political issue in an election year, he or she also risks losing the support of many of its customers. It is one thing to be an organization that “operate[s] on biblical principles”—staying closed on Sundays, making donations to groups it supports, remaining debt-free. But it is quite another to imply that people who support same-sex marriage—many of whom are surely customers—have a “prideful, arrogant attitude.”
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  23. #2048
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by Richmond Jake View post
    I predict a train wreck coming.
    I oughta stand my ground on you for that comment.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  24. #2049
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,968
    I don't think it is all that complicated. It is a fast food restaurant that may or may not have eat in, carry out, or drive through going into an area that has other fast food restaurants. What if it was a catholic book store in an area that had other book stores? If the regulations allow that activity to occur, then how can they prevent it. For example, what if it was a Hooters?

    I think that if people don't like what the guy said, then they should should stop eating there and encourage others to do the same.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  25. #2050
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,202
    I don't know about others on here, but I actually have a CHL here in Texas (yeah, yeah... cliche). I don't routinely carry my gun, but have the license. I don't shoot living things--I just like going to the range with some friends on a routine basis and having a CHL helps avoid issues before/after. For what it is worth, I find range shooting cathartic and recommend it to release tension.

    My take:

    There really isn't a lot you can do about criminals/crazies. However, it is worth noting that in countries with stricter gun laws, violent crime rates are lower. I have no reason to believe that our ratio of crazies to normal people in the US is substantially different, so stronger gun laws have some positive effect.

    Sudafed appears to be more regulated than gun purchases. It is far too easy to purchase a gun in this country, especially person-to-person sales. This needs to be corrected.

    It was too easy for me to get my CHL. The accuracy test was too easy, and I feel there should be renewals with a refresher training & verification. I also think that anger management should be a part of the training. I think a license should be required to own ANY gun, not just for CHLs. I'm not a fan of Scalia, but it is worth noting that he clearly believes the government can regulate in order to preserve life & ensure safety. I like the idea of graduated licensing/training based on the type of gun involved or situations in which the gun may be carried (single-shot rifle v. something more substantial).

    I do not feel that owning a gun makes someone more or less patriotic. Forcing gun ownership is not acceptable under any circumstance.

    Likewise, I don't believe in banning everything. I do think there are categories of guns/gun accessories that should be banned. For example, large clips are inappropriate. Large caliper weapons should be considered for a ban, along with types of ammunition designed to penetrate metal/protective clothing. At least some types of semi-automatic weapons should be either banned or tightly regulated, but others aren't a problem (my gun of choice, a Glock 19, is classified as semi-automatic). I don't care if you are a gun collector. There should be limitations on ammo quantities purchased, or at least a mechanism that triggers some kind of check.

    I don't think having a bunch of armed people is a good idea in a crowd situation, as it would almost assuredly lead to more casualties. I think there was even a study done on this, if I'm not mistaken.

    The Feds need to get their ass in gear on assigning an agency to manage national databases, funding & staffing it appropriately.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

+ Reply to thread
Page 82 of 162 FirstFirst ... 72 81 82 83 92 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 30 Apr 2013, 2:53 PM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM