Obama Exercises Executive Actions

[Buckwald]

I thought Democrat-republican were the "anti-central goverment" party and were the main player against the federalist party.
Mostly likely the reason we are at stance is because of the time period during which the federalist dispersed.

My memory tells me that the federalist party just fell apart and because of the lack of a seconded major player, the democrat-republican party split in two along North/South line.

The Democratic-Republican party is the Democratic party, they just dropped the "republican" portion. Nothing changed and the congressmen and senators all fell in the same party. The only party that was limited to a geographical area upon it's conception was the Republican party. It was entirely in the NE, which was a major cause of the civil war.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because you said the parties switched. Which they did not. This post is a bit more accurate than you're previous post

I never used the word switched or implied it, just stated that at certain points in history, the stances of different political parties have changed dramatically. I can imagine you get tired of hearing people say that the parties "switched" though since yes, that is incorrect.

[crazymack]

*snip*

As I thought, that is the period of interest. But I'm done talking about the "switch" in this thread, the whole discussion way to far off topic. I will gladly continue it in PM if you wish.

[Deleted]

Hey guys, Im not going to read all this political stuff but... when it comes to guns...

In sweden, where Im from, pretty much only police officers are allowed to own and wield firearms, hunters are ofc allowed rifles, when they are out hunting. Any kind of firearm found outside of its "area" is a severe offence... and you know... guess what...? NO mass shootings, shocking... I know...

But you dont need guns -.-" In fact, no one needs a fucking gun. Its a tool for killing, end of story. There is no self defence in a gun.

Now I might be waaay of track with this statement, but I've seen so much gun drivel the last weeks I had to say something.

[crazymack]

Hey guys, Im not going to read all this political stuff but... when it comes to guns...

In sweden, where Im from, pretty much only police officers are allowed to own and wield firearms, hunters are ofc allowed rifles, when they are out hunting. Any kind of firearm found outside of its "area" is a severe offence... and you know... guess what...? NO mass shootings, shocking... I know...

But you dont need guns -.-" In fact, no one needs a fucking gun. Its a tool for killing, end of story. There is no self defence in a gun.

Now I might be waaay of track with this statement, but I've seen so much gun drivel the last weeks I had to say something.

Do you realize how hard it is to talk to gun enthusiast to move their opinion in a reasonable manner when you have one side screaming "they will take your guns!" and the other side "maybe we should take the guns?" It's dam near impossible. I have lived around guns my entire life and I believe there should be a nation registry of gun and their owners as well as a red flag system that utilizes that system. Red flags sure as, "crazies, felonies, terrorist" and the advantages "could" go beyond mass shootings prevention. But I can't talk to them because of "they will take your guns!", "maybe we should take the guns" noise.

[Seranthor]

Hey guys, Im not going to read all this political stuff but... when it comes to guns...

In sweden, where Im from, pretty much only police officers are allowed to own and wield firearms, hunters are ofc allowed rifles, when they are out hunting. Any kind of firearm found outside of its "area" is a severe offence... and you know... guess what...? NO mass shootings, shocking... I know...

But you dont need guns -.-" In fact, no one needs a fucking gun. Its a tool for killing, end of story. There is no self defence in a gun.

Now I might be waaay of track with this statement, but I've seen so much gun drivel the last weeks I had to say something.

its not about 'need', its about the law. Truthfully, if its 'drivel' as you claim, then do like you do with your television, change the channel and move on with your life.

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 01:43 AM ----------

Indeed, I face a similar problem with trying to debate gun-control with people in my area, while I support gun-control (In terms of registration, maybe taxing, and better regulation), but not gun-banning it is hard for many people to see the difference sadly. Mention gun-control to anyone in my family, and they automatically clam up say something about "they be taking our guns away", quote the second amendment, and refuse to have an open opinion about gun-control because they equate it with gun-ban.

(Also grew up around guns my whole life, and do enjoy shooting them, see location)

As I see it, if they wanted an 'honest' discussion about gun control, they'd leave the emotional appeals and the exploitation of the victims OUT of the discussion. However, the only time you see a 'discussion' is after an event when a group of white folks, or public figures are shot.

[StaeleAilar]

instead of assaulting his intelligence, can you prove him wrong with a valid counter arguement backed with proof?

That's not what republicans or NRA supporters do. And i say that as an outsider looking in on the foolishness of all this objection toward gun control.
Seriously, the amount of violence, murders and suicides attributed to guns in America is astounding because they are so readily available to anyone who can muster up a fake ID. Its disgusting.

[Seranthor]

That's not what republicans or NRA supporters do. And i say that as an outsider looking in on the foolishness of all this objection toward gun control.
Seriously, the amount of violence, murders and suicides attributed to guns in America is astounding because they are so readily available to anyone who can muster up a fake ID. Its disgusting.

correct me if I'm wrong, in Australia you banned guns, and your the crime rate for every single category of violent crime climbed to between 35 and 60% with the exception of murder, true? Which to me is a clear indication that your criminals LOVED the gun ban because it disarmed their victims for them

[Grizzly Willy]

As I see it, if they wanted an 'honest' discussion about gun control, they'd leave the emotional appeals and the exploitation of the victims OUT of the discussion. However, the only time you see a 'discussion' is after an event when a group of white folks, or public figures are shot.

There are legitimate reasons, though. It is possible to have a discussion on whether or not the second amendment is worth keeping. I find that the reasoning behind the second amendment - and the right to bare arms - to be weaker than the reasoning behind other rights that we uphold as being crucial.

If you want a detailed list of reasons I can provide one later - it's rather late right now and I should be heading to bed.

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 02:02 AM ----------

correct me if I'm wrong, in Australia you banned guns, and your the crime rate for every single category of violent crime climbed to between 35 and 60% with the exception of murder, true? Which to me is a clear indication that your criminals LOVED the gun ban because it disarmed their victims for them

Yep, you are wrong.

[Eats Compost]

correct me if I'm wrong, in Australia you banned guns, and your the crime rate for every single category of violent crime climbed to between 35 and 60% with the exception of murder, true? Which to me is a clear indication that your criminals LOVED the gun ban because it disarmed their victims for them

Generally, all crimes climb with population growth. If you want to talk numbers, how about actually presenting a source so we know whether or not we're dealing with per-capita rates, and so we can actually compare it to something?

Also, if that's a "clear indication" to you, then you have a serious problem dealing with cause and effect. Positive correlation does not establish cause.

[s_bushido]

As I see it, if they wanted an 'honest' discussion about gun control, they'd leave the emotional appeals and the exploitation of the victims OUT of the discussion. However, the only time you see a 'discussion' is after an event when a group of white folks, or public figures are shot.

You don't think that's because it takes a publicized tragedy to get any traction against the "it's in the Constitution so don't touch it!" crowd?

[Seranthor]

There are legitimate reasons, though. It is possible to have a discussion on whether or not the second amendment is worth keeping. I find that the reasoning behind the second amendment - and the right to bare arms - to be weaker than the reasoning behind other rights that we uphold as being crucial.

If you want a detailed list of reasons I can provide one later - it's rather late right now and I should be heading to bed.

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 02:02 AM ----------


Yep, you are wrong.

read for yourself, Now, should I believe you, or the Australian Government?

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 02:26 AM ----------

Generally, all crimes climb with population growth. If you want to talk numbers, how about actually presenting a source so we know whether or not we're dealing with per-capita rates, and so we can actually compare it to something?

Also, if that's a "clear indication" to you, then you have a serious problem dealing with cause and effect. Positive correlation does not establish cause.

Here are your number... http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf enjoy your read, you'll note, the numbers are from the Australian Government...

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 02:27 AM ----------

You don't think that's because it takes a publicized tragedy to get any traction against the "it's in the Constitution so don't touch it!" crowd?

So you admit that the only way to make it happen is exploit the victims? if its such a good idea, then why do you need to exploit something to make it happen?

[Eats Compost]

read for yourself, Now, should I believe you, or the Australian Government?

---------- Post added 2013-01-20 at 02:26 AM ----------



Here are your number... http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf enjoy your read, you'll note, the numbers are from the Australian Government...[COLOR="red"]

It's polite to provide a page number when citing something in a 150+ page document. I'll get back to you once I've actually trawled through this and found the relevant part.

[Seranthor]

It's polite to provide a page number when citing something in a 150+ page document. I'll get back to you once I've actually trawled through this and found the relevant part.

chapter 1, page 2, table 1.

[Eats Compost]

chapter 1, page 2, table 1.

Just finished reading it.

Every single category, you said? Assaults and sexual assaults have gone up significantly, but homocides and robberies have also dropped significantly. And yes, I know you said "except murder", but why is murder not as significant as the others in determining causation? Do you want to ignore the contradictory examples?

This comes back to the issue of causation. If we conclude from this that banning guns increases assault and sexual assault frequency significantly, then we must also conclude that banning guns did reduce homocide and robbery rates significantly, which I'm sure you wouldn't be willing to concede. This also doesn't account for population growth, as these are raw numbers. Regardless, it would be irresponsible to conclude that gun laws are responsible are either, because gun laws aren't the only element that impacts crime rates.

I'd be interested in seeing how much crime in other countries grew in the same period, regardless of gun laws.

[Seranthor]

Just finished reading it.

Every single category, you said? Assaults and sexual assaults have gone up significantly, but homocides and robberies have also dropped significantly.

This comes back to the issue of causation. If we conclude from this that banning guns assault and sexual assault frequency significantly, then we must also conclude that banning guns did reduce homocide and robbery rates significantly, which I'm sure you wouldn't be willing to concede. This also doesn't account for population growth, as these are raw numbers. Regardless, it would be irresponsible to conclude that gun laws are responsible are either, because gun laws aren't the only element that impacts crime rates.

I'd be interested in seeing how much crime in other countries grew in the same period, regardless of gun laws.

would be interesting. but those UK folks will say you cant use their numbers for violent crime since supposely they figure their numbers differently

[ugotownd]

Do you realize how hard it is to talk to gun enthusiast to move their opinion in a reasonable manner when you have one side screaming "they will take your guns!" and the other side "maybe we should take the guns?" It's dam near impossible. I have lived around guns my entire life and I believe there should be a nation registry of gun and their owners as well as a red flag system that utilizes that system. Red flags sure as, "crazies, felonies, terrorist" and the advantages "could" go beyond mass shootings prevention. But I can't talk to them because of "they will take your guns!", "maybe we should take the guns" noise.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/to...ment%3A1226805

It's against the law to have a national registry thanks to Obamacare. Looks like Harry Reid stuffed it in the useless 2800 pages of garbage. Before your all bend out of shape about the teaparty website it was the first place that actually had the whole law stated.

[mistuhbull]

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/to...ment%3A1226805

It's against the law to have a national registry thanks to Obamacare. Looks like Harry Reid stuffed it in the useless 2800 pages of garbage. Before your all bend out of shape about the teaparty website it was the first place that actually had the whole law stated.

based on what is on that page. You're wrong.

The text of the law only states that the ACA cannot be used to justify or create a database of gun owners, not that such a database cannot be created

[Eats Compost]

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/to...ment%3A1226805

It's against the law to have a national registry thanks to Obamacare. Looks like Harry Reid stuffed it in the useless 2800 pages of garbage. Before your all bend out of shape about the teaparty website it was the first place that actually had the whole law stated.

The article's misleading. It doesn't forbid the creation of a gun registry.

[starlord]

chapter 1, page 2, table 1.

take a gander at page 6, chapter 1 which shows the actual rates per 100,000 people

• Since 1996, the rate of assault in Australia has been far higher than any other type of violent crime. At its peak in 2007, the assault rate was 840 per 100,000 population. In 2010, the rate fell to 766 victims per 100,000 population.
• Homicide and kidnapping/abduction are low volume crimes; in 2009 and 2010 the rates continued to be very low. The homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 population, while the kidnapping/abduction rate was 2.7 per 100,000 population.
• The rate of sexual assault has been declining by an average of three percent per year since 2006. Since 2004, robbery has been occurring at a lower rate than sexual assault; declining on average by two percent per year.

violent crime is on the decline.
okay how about homicide rates? Page 16:

• Since 1999, the number of murders has generally decreased by around three percent per year

well crime overall has declined as well.. what about victims of firearms? page 19

• Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms.
• The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008–09 to 13 percent of total homicides in 2009–10.
• The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).

so, an 18 percent decrease in firearm death since the ban.
assaults went up, but what are assaults? page 19

The ABS defines assault as the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts or threats. It excludes sexual assault.

"including attempts"... now i wonder why attempts might go up if the presence of extremely deadly weapons is reduced?
hm...
it would seem that a gun ban does indeed have an impact on the nature of crime.

by the by...

In Australia, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
CompareGenuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Australia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses.
In law, personal protection is not a genuine reason

looks like target shooting is still on the menu... with some exceptions

In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm

source:http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia