Jmorphman said, August 04, 2012, 12:24:22 pmBorders between states are generally just a sign that says "welcome to X!".And that's it.And the highway patrol waiting to catch you speedingIced said, August 04, 2012, 04:55:45 pmI managed to disagree with everyone without accusing anyone of being hitler. Im pretty hip.Jmorphman said, August 05, 2012, 12:43:11 amMy question was addressed to both you and MissB. Did I answer? I get dizzy rereading at this point. I'm not sure how many times some of us have to repeat there are already federal gun control laws that apply to every state/commonwealth. Some individual states/commonwealths have stricter yet laws and some cities within those states/commonwealths have pretty much banned any kinds of firearms at all. Our states/commonwealths each have the power and responsibility for the public safety of its citizens, (Vermont is not responsible for Nebraska's citizens) and because of the demographics of the individual states/commonwealths gun laws are going to differ from state to state. Hunting with a rifle is outlawed in Ohio (for example) because it's a populated state and a rifle bullet carries a whole lot farther than a shotgun, muzzle loader or arrow and has a greater chance of hitting something besides bambi. However in South Dakota, not only are there not very many people, but there isn't tree cover for sneaking up on bambi so you need to hunt him with a rifle. Insisting gun laws be the same for both states is either going to mean more people, property and cows in Ohio get shot up or the bambi population in South Dakota will be out of control (and that in turn causes more damage to people and property). I LOVE these kinds of debates! Keep it coming. PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?
QuoteI'm not sure how many times some of us have to repeat there are already federal gun control laws that apply to every state/commonwealth. Some individual states/commonwealths have stricter yet laws and some cities within those states/commonwealths have pretty much banned any kinds of firearms at all. Our states/commonwealths each have the power and responsibility for the public safety of its citizens, (Vermont is not responsible for Nebraska's citizens) and because of the demographics of the individual states/commonwealths gun laws are going to differ from state to state. Hunting with a rifle is outlawed in Ohio (for example) because it's a populated state and a rifle bullet carries a whole lot farther than a shotgun, muzzle loader or arrow and has a greater chance of hitting something besides bambi. However in South Dakota, not only are there not very many people, but there isn't tree cover for sneaking up on bambi so you need to hunt him with a rifle. Insisting gun laws be the same for both states is either going to mean more people, property and cows in Ohio get shot up or the bambi population in South Dakota will be out of control (and that in turn causes more damage to people and property).Very easy. Default law for every state is made more restrictive to just small handguns, and hunting-related stuff are the exception. It shouldn't matter if it's in different states. You're talking as if the law in Ohio and in South Dakota considered that handguns and sniping rifles were the same thing and had the same law (within the same state). South Dakota needs a permit for hunting rifles, I reckon ? So what's the problem ? With the same law for SD and Ohio, you just need the permit to only be valid in areas where hunting is fine, that means not Ohio. It would still be the same law, you would just need to define areas where one same permit is valid. How do you think other countries regulate their Bambi invasions ?You may tell me that it's already the case, fine. But the point is : how did the Aurora guy get his hands on so many heavy weapons and bullets in just four months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Colorado tells me you don't need a permit for open carry in Colorado. Why ? Is that normal ? Does that apply to the kind of weapons the guy had ? If yes, how and why, and if not, how did he have those weapons regardless ? Posted: August 05, 2012, 01:37:26 pmQuotePS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?It's certainly not something that should depend on the place. It doesn't matter if there are people in Ohio who disagree with people in South Dakota about that subject. It's not something that should be decided by people who agree or disagree with each other.
MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 12:41:22 pm PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?Good question. To me yes (in the sense the law should be the same in the whole country). It's hard to believe people from different states would think so differently people in one state would be 80% in favour of gay marriage and in another state 80% against. Still, that's not the point : why would gay people have the right to get married in a State, and in the next state they wouldn't be able ? What makes it so disgusting that they shouldn't be allowed to get married ? Just because a bunch of people don't like gays shouldn't mean gay marriage should be forbidden. Just because some people are racist shouldn't mean there should be segregation. Just because some people are atheist shouldn't mean some religions should be forbidden (and vice-versa).One of the main points is to change to follow changes occuring in the world. Gays have the right to be out in the society and can be "proud" of being gay. Society has changed, and laws should reflect changes in society. That's what I think anyway.
Careful not to confuse "should the law be the same everywhere" with "should the law agree with me everywhere".Whichever the law is, it should be the same in the whole country.
Indeed, sorry for my wording.Actually, I wasn't so much in favour of Gay Marriage some time ago. Not that I was explicitely against it, but I considered marriage was for heterosexual couples. But change in society and knowing gay people kinda made me rethink my point of view.
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 12:59:02 pmYou may tell me that it's already the case, fine. But the point is : how did the Aurora guy get his hands on so many heavy weapons and bullets in just four months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Colorado tells me you don't need a permit for open carry in Colorado. Why ? Is that normal ? Does that apply to the kind of weapons the guy had ? If yes, how and why, and if not, how did he have those weapons regardless ?There are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal. Those being rural states (such as Colorado although I can't imagine cities like Denver encouraging open carry) and there are good reasons for "packing" a handgun and keeping a loaded rifle in a truck gun rack. I have never lived in Colorado, bought or carried a weapon in Colorado, so I'm not familiar with the laws there. Had that Aurora psycho known the right people and had enough money he could have got all that stuff in a day. There are an estimated 200,000,000 firearms in the possession of civilians in the USA and every time someone mentions gun control laws or an election comes up where a Democrat president may be elected, the NRA starts the chicken-little crying that sends people out buying more guns and amo just in case they won't be around any more.I don't have an answer on how to prevent a psycho intent on some kind of rampage from killing people. The guns already exist, he's still going to get his hands on them. Making it criminal to sell firearms will just mean more organized crime, it wont mean fewer deaths.And no rifles don't need a permit in South Dakota, anyone can purchase a rifle or shotgun with no permit. People do need to purchase a hunting license though for certain game animals. Pest animals (and injured animals) can be killed with no license. Keep in mind that even though South Dakota has open carry, localities (towns) are able to make discharging a weapon in the town limits a criminal offense. So it's not like everyone can just go around shooting for no reason.And I was gonna make another point, but I forgot what it was.Doppelganger said, August 05, 2012, 01:42:22 pmMissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 12:41:22 pm PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?Good question. To me yes (in the sense the law should be the same in the whole country). It's hard to believe people from different states would think so differently people in one state would be 80% in favour of gay marriage and in another state 80% against. Still, that's not the point : why would gay people have the right to get married in a State, and in the next state they wouldn't be able ? What makes it so disgusting that they shouldn't be allowed to get married ? Just because a bunch of people don't like gays shouldn't mean gay marriage should be forbidden. Just because some people are racist shouldn't mean there should be segregation. Just because some people are atheist shouldn't mean some religions should be forbidden (and vice-versa).One of the main points is to change to follow changes occuring in the world. Gays have the right to be out in the society and can be "proud" of being gay. Society has changed, and laws should reflect changes in society. That's what I think anyway.If it were not for the whole states rights issue, there would have probably been a law preventing it nationwide by now. Bush was politicing for a federal law/amendment to the US constitution making marriage between one man and one woman. Women were allowed to vote one state at a time and it will be the same with same sex marriage.Does every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?
MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmThere are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal.NOT THE POINT. At all.MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmI don't have an answer on how to prevent a psycho intent on some kind of rampage from killing people. The guns already exist, he's still going to get his hands on them. Making it criminal to sell firearms will just mean more organized crime, it wont mean fewer deaths.I'm pretty sure this was brought up several times already. Still not the point.MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmKeep in mind that even though South Dakota has open carry, localities (towns) are able to make discharging a weapon in the town limits a criminal offense. So it's not like everyone can just go around shooting for no reason.And yet you were just making a point that those laws don't matter when someone really wants to kill people. No, I'm not going to keep that in mind.MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmDoes every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?Not relevant at all. They are different countries, which is VASTLY different. People arguing that each state has its own laws always blur out this major distinction.Are you saying different states should be able to have their own laws and be considered the same as whole countries ? Because there are different people with different tastes, they can have their own laws ? Well, if people in Arkansas like a kingdom better, shouldn't they be allowed to have their king rather than a President common to every state, because the election results clearly show they didn't want to elect that guy ? If people in Washington want an emperor, why not start proclaiming "long live the new Empire of Washington" ?You want to compare different states in the US with the different countries in Europe ? Earn it, split USA in different countries. Have your own seat at worldwide congresses. Go to war with each other.Not all countries in Europe have the same laws about same sex marriage or gun control. You know why ? Because they each have their own government. States don't. There isn't a President of European Union. If you disagree so much with each other, show it, show that having one single government is contradictory.
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 02:13:41 pmMissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmThere are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal.NOT THE POINT. At all.Then why did you ask me if it was normal? I was answering your questions.QuoteAnd yet you were just making a point that those laws don't matter when someone really wants to kill people. Choose. Choose what? Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist. But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable. QuoteMissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pmDoes every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?Not relevant at all. They are different countries, which is VASTLY different. People arguing that each state has its own laws always blur out this major distinction.Are you saying different states should be able to have their own laws and be considered the same as whole countries ? Because there are different people with different tastes, they can have their own laws ? Well, if people in Arkansas like a kingdom better, shouldn't they be allowed to have their king rather than a President common to every state, because the election results clearly show they didn't want to elect that guy ? If people in Washington want an emperor, why not start proclaiming "long live the new Empire of Washington" ?You want to compare different states in the US with the different countries in Europe ? Earn it, split USA in different countries. Have your own seat at worldwide congresses. Go to war with each other.Not all countries in Europe have the same laws about same sex marriage or gun control. You know why ? Because they each have their own government. States don't. If you disagree so much with each other, show it.I asked about laws in Europe because of this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_UnionNot because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany. Oh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other. And states most certainly DO have their own governments.
MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:38:20 pmThen why did you ask me if it was normal? I was answering your questions.You answered part of the question and then dropped the other part, which was the point.edit - if you're just telling me that you don't know what the law is for those heavy weapons, then no, you're not answering my question.QuoteChoose what? Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist. But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable.You can't make a point that even if there were stricter laws there would still be gun deaths, and then make a point that there is a law that prevents people from entering a town and start shooting. Even if both points are true on their own, they don't fit in the same logic. Or you only have one point, which is that laws don't work, but in this case you can't tell me to keep in mind that there is a law that prevents so and so. I don't have to keep it in mind if you just said it doesn't work.QuoteI asked about laws in Europe because of this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_UnionNot because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany.It doesn't say there's a President of the European Union who is on the same step as the President of the United States and who is elected regularly, picks his government, and has authority over everyone inside (and then lets everyone disagree and split up because he's nice like that). The European Union is born out of an agreement on financial and technological markets.EU exists because everyone in it agrees with each other. You're making a point that states exist because everyone disagrees. So yes, the comparison is null and void.QuoteOh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other. And states most certainly DO have their own governments. So the presidency is completely meaningless then, okay. Posted: August 05, 2012, 03:13:32 pmJust to clear up the matter on whether you are or not answering my questions about gun laws and their relevance.What you are saying is that there may be a law (for that particular State), but that law is useless considering the guy did get those weapons. This is just making an excuse. What I'm asking you is if that's supposed to be normal, to be considered the norm. You're responding by saying that even if there is a law, anyone who wants to can bypass it and still get those kinds of weapons. You're not saying "that is perfectly fine if someone can do that" or "no, it shouldn't happen", you're only saying "well, a stricter law would fail to prevent that". This is only providing excuses as to why it happens. All it does is make your answer sound like "well, he can, therefore it's what we're considering normal" (normal as in the norm, what everyone does) even if you're trying not to say it.And I'm not taking that as an answer.
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 02:50:13 pmMissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 02:38:20 pmThen why did you ask me if it was normal? I was answering your questions.You answered part of the question and then dropped the other part, which was the point.edit - if you're just telling me that you don't know what the law is for those heavy weapons, then no, you're not answering my question.QuoteChoose what? Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist. But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable.You can't make a point that even if there were stricter laws there would still be gun deaths, and then make a point that there is a law that prevents people from entering a town and start shooting. Even if both points are true on their own, they don't fit in the same logic. Or you only have one point, which is that laws don't work, but in this case you can't tell me to keep in mind that there is a law that prevents so and so. I don't have to keep it in mind if you just said it doesn't work.QuoteI asked about laws in Europe because of this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_UnionNot because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany.It doesn't say there's a President of the European Union who is on the same step as the President of the United States and who is elected regularly, picks his government, and has authority over everyone inside (and then lets everyone disagree and split up because he's nice like that). The European Union is born out of an agreement on financial and technological markets.EU exists because everyone in it agrees with each other. You're making a point that states exist because everyone disagrees. So yes, the comparison is null and void.QuoteOh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other. And states most certainly DO have their own governments. So the presidency is completely meaningless then, okay. Posted: August 05, 2012, 03:13:32 pmJust to clear up the matter on whether you are or not answering my questions about gun laws and their relevance.What you are saying is that there may be a law (for that particular State), but that law is useless considering the guy did get those weapons. This is just making an excuse. What I'm asking you is if that's supposed to be normal, to be considered the norm. You're responding by saying that even if there is a law, anyone who wants to can bypass it and still get those kinds of weapons. You're not saying "that is perfectly fine if someone can do that" or "no, it shouldn't happen", you're only saying "well, a stricter law would fail to prevent that". This is only providing excuses as to why it happens. All it does is make your answer sound like "well, he can, therefore it's what we're considering normal" (normal as in the norm, what everyone does) even if you're trying not to say it.And I'm not taking that as an answer.I hate the he said/I said back and forth because it takes me forever to get the quote brackets right. So.I suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion. When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?Also, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either. It's almost impossible for me to put in simple terms, but each state has it's own government elected by the citizens of that state and has it's own constitution governing that state ratified by the citizens of that state. The president of the USA does not pick his own government and does not have authority over everyone inside. There are checks and balances, congress, SCOTUS. It would be a terrible idea for a president to declare a law that every state had to follow without question. It doesnt work that way and shouldnt work that way.Who makes decisions for the European Union?
QuoteI suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion. When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?Knowing that the response that "who cares, it would happen even if it was illegal" was rejected several times by several people, which one do you think it is ?QuoteAlso, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either.I wish you stopped saying "you don't know about X, you haven't studied, you don't know what the law is". It doesn't matter, and it's not an excuse. People from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.QuoteWho makes decisions for the European Union?There is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.You're equating one State with one country, this is the problem because it makes it sound like you're arguing there really isn't one country called the United States of America, just a bunch of States that are as good as countries on their own. Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. This is not a mistake on their part, or lack of education or of understanding of how States work. People in each State recognize their own State as if it was a country, is what you're saying ; all this shows is that they do not have a large enough vision to understand they're really not.One State in the US is not the same as one country in the EU. Your position in the world is not "50 States that have one representative", it's "one representative for one country".
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 04:35:01 pmThere is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.Ummmmmmmmm that's not right. There are a lot of EU directives, which were originally intended to only require a particular result without dictating the means, but they have since turned into de facto if not nominal laws
Those directives are established when each country agrees to reach that common goal, as I was saying. And then, when one country fails to achieve that goal, the other countries (in the form of the European Commission) may take legal action. This is still treated as an agreement between each country, like a contract they make with each other and with legal consequences should one party fail to uphold it. That's still not comparable to a single government, the parties involved are still different entities signing that contract.
You make it sound like those directives are always an unanimous decision, which I am pretty sure is not the case. I know Germany pays significant fines every year for refusing to implement a number of (extremely stupid) ones The two systems are perfectly comparable, and if you do compare them you will find they are quite different in various aspects
Those directives are on the same "very important stuff" as what Cybaster and I were suggesting for the US, they're standards for ethics, environment, technology and safety, transport... And as standards, they're mostly born out of a common agreement (baring some exceptions where a minority doesn't agree with the others anyway, as you say). They have nothing to do with the more specific laws each country can have on much broader subjects.Edit - incidentally, same sex marriage should not be a directive for the EU, but it should be a law in a given country - say, France, Germany, or the US. Gun control should probably be a directive in theory (I don't think it is, is it ?), but it just so happens that every country in the EU already considers it common sense.
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 04:35:01 pmQuoteI suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion. When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?Knowing that the response that "who cares, it would happen even if it was illegal" was rejected several times by several people, which one do you think it is ? I have no idea, which is why I asked the question. If you can't (ie: are unable to) give an answer, thats OK.QuoteQuoteAlso, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either.I wish you stopped saying "you don't know about X, you haven't studied, you don't know what the law is". It doesn't matter, and it's not an excuse. People from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.I can and will debate anything ad infinitum with someone who takes the time to at least try to understand facts. Trying to debate with someone who's posts project emotion driven hysteria isnt really very fun.exampleSpoiler, click to toggle visibiltyQuoteWell, if people in Arkansas like a kingdom better, shouldn't they be allowed to have their king rather than a President common to every state, because the election results clearly show they didn't want to elect that guy ? If people in Washington want an emperor, why not start proclaiming "long live the new Empire of Washington" ?You want to compare different states in the US with the different countries in Europe ? Earn it, split USA in different countries. Have your own seat at worldwide congresses. Go to war with each other.QuoteQuoteWho makes decisions for the European Union?There is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.You're equating one State with one country, this is the problem because it makes it sound like you're arguing there really isn't one country called the United States of America, just a bunch of States that are as good as countries on their own. Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. This is not a mistake on their part, or lack of education or of understanding of how States work. People in each State recognize their own State as if it was a country, is what you're saying ; all this shows is that they do not have a large enough vision to understand they're really not.One State in the US is not the same as one country in the EU. Your position in the world is not "50 States that have one representative", it's "one representative for one country".I'm not going to go back through and requote every time someone mentioned State VS US Federal law, so no ...this statement: QuoteThroughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. is untrue.I'm not trying to compare any states to any countries, I dont have a clue how the European Union works and thats why I asked. I'm not afraid to admit I dont know something, to take the time to ask questions so I can better understand how things work and why someone has a different POV from me. Someone who doesnt have a clue what shared sovereignty means only shows ignorance by trying to discuss any of the inner workings of the US Government and how it applies to states rights.Now. If I have misunderstood any of your statements, questions, motives or rantings feel free to correct me and I will apologize. Added: so is same sex marriage "very important stuff"? (ie: standards for ethics?)edit! Dangit Val, we need one of those warnings if someone EDITS before we post!!!
MissBHaven said, August 05, 2012, 06:01:45 pmI'm not going to go back through and requote every time someone mentioned State VS US Federal law, so no ...this statement: QuoteThroughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. is untrue.Anytime someone not from the US and not defending the right of States to have their own gun laws. Thought the context of this topic made it obvious since it's the very subject people get angry on.As for the rest of your post I already said why it was not an answer. And it's also quite enough now that you're just getting haughty if people don't know every little detail of the law and never giving a clear cut answer on whether you think it's okay for someone to just buy the kind of weapons the Aurora guy had - no matter which State he is in, or even which country he's in.
i think there is already a difference between rifles that are used by armed forces to ones that can be bought by civilian, civilian version can't be set into auto fire or something like that.I personally can't see the point in legalizing assault rifles for civilian even with that downgrade, by looking at their category's name it should be already clear why.
Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 02:50:13 pmstates exist because everyone disagrees.Hmm, yes I think that's a pretty good description, if this was added to that statement: the federal government exists beause everyone agrees.Carpe Diem said, August 05, 2012, 04:35:01 pmPeople from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.They do when they have no idea what they're talking about. And it truly seems (to me) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Jmorphman said, August 06, 2012, 02:03:23 amThey do when they have no idea what they're talking about. And it truly seems (to me) that you don't know what you're talking about.Okay, so I'm wrong in thinking something's not right ? Then it means it was perfectly normal for this random guy to even have shotguns, assault rifles and smoke grenades. I thought you were saying the opposite a little while ago.I'm not even talking about States law here. You guys are the ones who keep throwing in my face that each State has different laws, and maybe it's normal in one State and not in another. I don't even care. It's not an excuse. I'm saying, if anyone can get this kind of armament, then something's seriously wrong. Do you agree or do you disagree ? Do you think a given person, regardless of his State or country, can just buy those weapons ? Or maybe you are even saying that, depending on the State, it might be fine to get a handful of heavy weaponry like that ? And the capacity of a bad guy to ignore a law that would ban them anyway is not an excuse.
