nsplayr

I disagree. Cops face more frequent threats that may require firearms to deal with and on top of that, are required by their job to undertake dangerous tasks WRT those threats that are not required of average citizens. Therefore, I have no problem with exempting LEOs from firearms restrictions in a state that chooses to ban "assault weapons" or high-cap magazines. This is not a universally held way to view the Second Amendment. It's a valid POV, just realize not everyone agrees, including some of those who make policy and interpret the Constitution for a living. Good thing that the DC handgun ban was found unconstitutional then. I'd venture that elected officials are not protected specifically to defend against muggings or home invasions. There are some different threats they face not typically faced by ordinary citizens. Food for thought. So would you agree that as an actively serving LEO you would face more frequent threats in the line of duty than you do as an ordinary citizen? My question isn't really related to my position on the debate...I'm not one supporting AWBs or magazine limits (other than maybe 30+ for pistols, the stuipd 100-round drums for ARs, etc.) Limiting the number of rounds in a firearm that was legitimately designed to hold more (i.e. 17 for a 9mm pistol, 30 for a standard AR mag), etc. doesn't make sense to me either. The question though was trying to "prove" the point that if you ARE gonna design a law that limits types of weapons and magazine capacities, it still does make sense to exempt your LEOs from those provisions due to their profession. Doing so doesn't make those people "above the law," there is a legitimate purpose to arm LEOs (and soldiers for that matter) more robustly than you would allow a private citizen to arm himself.

Here's the cliff notes version: 1. You asked if cops faced the same threats as regular folks. I answer the threats can be the same, the frequency and the expected reaction to those threats are not the same. 2. You asked me to prove you wrong. I said my piece, there's no real "bam, you're wrong!" to be had in this kind of debate. You said that the "bodyguards" protecting NY lawmakers were essentially above the law and I find that to be a bit of hyperbole. Agreed, and I'd argue in states that have magazine or assault weapon limits, it's perfectly reasonable to exempt the state's law enforcement officers because of the increased frequency of threats they might face. That's not the path I would pursue in trying to address gun violence, but it's not hard to see the justification for having a different set of rules for LEOs. I don't share your view that the SCOTUS will/would overturn the machine gun ban and since NY and other states have had magazine limits for some time, I'm not sure they would find those to be unconstitutional either. I can see a distinction between banning a certain type of very common firearm with many legitimate hunting, sporting, and personal protection uses (found to be unconstitutional 5-4 in Heller) and putting reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, which the majority opinion in Heller specifically upheld. The view that any and all restrictions on firearm ownership are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment is not one held even by the most conservative justices on the Court. Not surprised at all and I support the right of private citizens to own and use firearms. My specific question to be asked to cops was "Do you face the same threats as ordinary citizens?" I'm betting they would answer that they face more frequent and/or more serious threats in the line of duty and that their expected reaction to those threats is different that what is expected of your average Joe, thus justifying their exemption from AWBs and magazine limits on their duty weapons.

So let me get this straight, unless you out-right own something and/or paid cash for it, you don't actually own it? If you bought a new laptop and paid for it with a credit card (and didn't pay off the balance), you don't actually own that laptop? I would bet if someone stole it you'd argue otherwise to your insurance company...I guess I'm not tracking. Of course he was "playing political games" at the press conference, that's what politicians tend to do. Disagree with the numbers if you'd like, what are the numbers you want to use for the increased revenues and lower spending enacted by the 111th &112th Congresses and signed the President? And on your last point, you say the President tells the American people he's looking to cut spending and you're advice is the GOP shouldn't try to fulfill that wish given their stated desire to do the same? Seems like that's a better situation than trying to work with someone saying debt and deficits aren't problems, that wouldn't sign a single dollar in cuts, etc. Believe it or not, putting the details and negotiating tactics aside, there is not 100% disagreement between the two parties on this (or any) issue. I'm not joking, what did I say that was inaccurate? Can you explain why the Treasury suspending investment in the G fund? What event or looming problem might be causing that accounting move?

Hypothetically, yes, a cop could face the same threats as a person in the next house down who is not a cop. But really, you can't imagine why cops' professions are more dangerous, necessitating more firepower than your average citizen? I'm not a cop, but ask a cop what he thinks about your hypothesis that he faces the same threats you do on a day-to-day basis. Well since you've left me with two outstanding choices! Lol...you hyperbole was in saying all NY lawmakers were guarded by bodyguards and that those bodyguards are exempt from the law. When in fact they are, while on very specific pieces of state property, guarded by police officers who fully comply with the laws as written, who OBTW would protect you if you happened to be on that same very specific piece of state property. That's what I mean by hyperbole. You can say the NY law is overreach and that it will likely be ineffective in stopping the vast majority of gun crimes and I'll 100% agree because even as a liberal, that's what I believe as well. So there's no need to say "Well those guys are above the law! Rabble rabble rabble!!" If the NY legislation does indeed say cops are exempt from the AWB and magazine limits (I'm not that intimately familiar with it sts...), cops aren't above the law, they're perfectly within the law as written. There's a distinct difference between those two concepts.

They didn't buy anything? Sorry, you must not have seen all those airplanes, social security checks, national parks, etc. etc. etc. The government provides (or more like pays for) good and services used by the people. Those are real things with real value. The people and companies the government buys those things from deserve to be paid. The fact that the government borrowed the money to pay for things doesn't make the need to repay any less. Agreed that it's dangerous but maybe not on degree. I'm arguing it's extremely dangerous and should not be done by either party, ever. Nor should it even exist in the first place. Saying that it's a good incentive does not outweigh, in my mind at least, the fact that it's a dangerous incentive. Shutting down the government is something entirely different than failing to raise the debt ceiling. It's not good but it's much better. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would also have the effect of shutting down the government as Congress directed or Treasury likely started prioritizing spending to prevent an actual, no-shit default to our creditors. If the GOP said "We're gonna raise the debt ceiling, but the spending has got to stop so we're not doing a CR or a new appropriations bill to fund government operations until we pass a budget/cut spending/whatever" then great, do that if that's what you think you need to do as a party to get what you're looking for in terms of policy. The effects would be bad, but our creditors would get paid and the markets and credit rating agencies wouldn't have near as much of a reason to sh*t on us all collectively. Government shutdowns happen from time to time, defaults on sovereign debt do not, at least not in America. There can be plenty of inventives that are not so collectively dangerous. The President in his press conference said he's looking for 1.5T in deficit reduction, seems like there should be some room for the GOP to work with that and get something agreeable to both sides. Despite the caricatures there is a desire on the part of most Democrats to curtail government spending and reduce the deficit and debt. Even if you don't believe that, I still argue the threat of financial suicide is not worth the benefit of squeezing the administration for additional spending cuts. This is supposed to be governing, not a kamikaze mission. Not f-ing good, but ya know what causes Treasury to do this? NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING! We've already "hit" the debt ceiling, Treasury has just gotten real good at shifting things around between different accounts to buy Congress a couple more weeks/months because we play this stupid "are we gonna raise it" game so often. If you're concerned about these slight-of-hand accounting tactics that potentially affect your TSP account, tell Congress to raise the debt ceiling immediately and Treasury will stop taking these "extraordinary measures."

No, obviously not. I'm of the belief that even if you disagree with past spending, you still need to pay for it. Your Congress and your country "bought" whatever they bought (goods, services, whatever) and you have to pay for the things you buy. Bottom line. Pay our bills, change the course of future spending/revenue equations, and give our children a better situation than was given to us by our parents.

That is the only redeeming quality of the debt ceiling that the surveyed economists found, that it has the potential to bring about better behavior from Congress WRT have sound economic spending and taxation policies. That's valid. My argument, which is plain to see and I bet most conservatives would agree, is that the debt ceiling is absolutely no barrier to Congress spending more! It has the potential to do so, but when you allow a group of people to spend money and then give the same group of people the ability to determine what the "limit" of their spending can be, the "limit" isn't really doing a lot of good if those people decide to spend more. The debt ceiling is intended to limit Congress but is fully controlled by Congress, and as a side effect the consequences of not raising it are monumental; great policy! I agree with joe that I'm 100% sick of dumbed-down analogies. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much debt Treasury can incur in doing the business of paying America's bills. Congressional appropriations are what govern the spending that results in those bills. If you want to stop spending, don't stop our ability to pay bills, just stop spending i.e. stop appropriating money! It's not so f-ing complicated that you even need an analogy or Christ's sake. Anyone who at anytime advocated for not raising the debt ceiling, regardless of their party or current position in government, was wrong to do so. Shame on them for playing politics with America's credit. The debt ceiling is such a dangerous point of leverage to even threaten to use and it shouldn't even exist. If you, as a Congressman, want to reign in spending, don't appropriate the money in the first place! If you, as a citizen want Congress to stop spending, only elect Congressmen who promise to do so. It doesn't take a box-checking AAD to figure that out.

Economists: Don’t mess around with the debt ceiling! From the article:

I don't think many cops would agree with you on that one. So all NY state legislators are protected by body guards and those guards are somehow exempt from the law? Man, those guys really do run things differently up there...may need to check your hyperbole on that one. Your overall criticism is right-on in my opinion, but don't let being right rob you of the need to also be correct.

That's all true, it's all part of the system and for better or worse the system takes a long time to make things right sometimes. There have been far graver injustices than a few less bullets upheld in the law for decades until they were changed/overturned by the Court. I think the precedent is pretty clear that there can be limits to the kinds of weapons and ammunition that the public is allowed to possess, so once (most) everyone agrees on that it just matters where you draw the line. I would personally draw the line much more liberally (in the literal sense) than the NY law does, i.e. less restrictive, but I'm not really sure what the SCOTUS would rule on high-capacity magazine limits based on the case law and based on the fact that it would likely take some time for such a case to reach them. Perhaps we'll find out, however I'm pretty skeptical that there will be a federal high-cap magazine ban due to the makeup of Congress and the fact that I'm fairly confident that such a ban can't be done by EO.

?? Laws don't need SCOTUS precedent. They can be challenged in the appropriate court after they are enacted and that's been done many times recently WRT gun rights. Saying what you said is a little back-aswards way to think about how our process works. Keep in mind that once again, I don't support all the new NY laws, but if you're gonna critique the process try to get it right.

I've been over this with you via PM but just to reiterate to the world: I am able to support a person (and a party) politically even when I do not 100% agree with their policies or viewpoints. This is a quality seemingly lacking in many conservatives (and maybe a few hard-left liberals) today who continually seek new levels of ideological purity over meaningful electoral victory. There's no additional explanation necessary. In addition, it's tiring and in my view pointless to try to psychoanalyze other board members and/or really give two sh*ts what they think. In the end, none of us are in Congress (well, one member is), none of us are the President, we each get one vote and the same number of hours in the day to lobby our representatives to vote in our interest. If you want to know what a person thinks on an issue, ask them, and if they care to respond they will. Since you're dying to know my views WRT the renewed gun control debate, I don't support a new AWB, I'm skeptical a high-cap magazine ban would really have any effect, I do support universal background checks, stricter sentencing for crimes committed with illegal guns, and support most efforts to boost mental health services and security in schools. I'm also fairly confient that combination of actions is what is likely to be implemented by Congress and/or Executive action based on the current political scene in D.C. There you have it, for all the non-HeloDude folks who were holding their breath on where I stood... /sarcasm Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Biden talks to House Dems about his recommended Executive actions for Obama. For those fearing the worst:

SOS Course 20 is now officially closed to new applicants. "SOS DL Program MSOS003 opened to new enrollments in January 2013. At that time, SOS DL Course 20 will be closed to new enrollments."

Dudes, look beyond the people (and some legislators) who legitimately are "gun grabbers" who want to outlaw all firearms. They exist, I won't deny it, and I'm sorry that they are helping ruin what should be an adult conversation about the law and keeping people safe yet free. There are people out there who wear the uniform, enjoy shooting guns, believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, think the recent tragedies were horrible, and support figuring out how we can prevent them in the future. One of the main characteristics of such people are that they aren't bat sh*t crazy like many of the Oath Keepers appear to be WRT fearing the government. I implore everyone here, whether you don't really like guns or are a self-described "rabid gun nut," to be a member of the former group of reasonable people and to stay away from the latter group mostly made up of conspiracy theorists. Out (of this thread at least), unless someone posts more links for good discounts and/or new range reviews.

Let's call the Oath Keepers, I'm sure they have an opinion on your "hypothetical question."

Read the article. It's pretty much spot on with what I believe. Re-attack with your question then if you're asking me. If you wanna ask politicians those questions go for it, they're good questions aimed at those advocating for a new AWB. What I'm talking about is a rational middle ground that's getting drowned out by radical gun advocates on the right and radical gun haters on the left. No-shit, on these forums, people have advocated for civilian ownership of RPGs, attack helicopters, etc (just as long as there's not classified technology, gotta protect our secrets!). There's also been pushback against mental health professionals even being legally permitted to inquire about firearms in the home when studies have shown that easy access to firearms is a HUGE factor in whether or not people on the edge are successful at committing suicide or not. If one of your friends came to you and confessed he's been thinking about suicide as a way to escape the seemingly-unending pain in his life, do you think he should be able to get a hold of a gun? Are you kidding me? We're mostly rational, smart people around here. There IS a middle ground between ill-informed massive gun grabbing and purchasing RPGs to defend against the Black Helicopters when they come for you and yours...

Define "these efforts." AWB, high-cap mag bans, etc.? If you're instead refering to efforts to allow medical personnel and chaplains to ask military personnel seeking mental health counceling whether or not they have guns at home and giving them the option of making suggestions on how to keep those guns safe and potentially out of the service member's own hands if they're having suicidal thoughts, yes, I fully support those efforts. No, I don't think that's what's being proposed by almost anyone in a position to matter. Taking away all privately owned firearms in America will never happen, hell, look at the resistance to ANY new restrictions of ANY kind whatsoever. This article is long but really well written. Pretty much nails my views.

"Rational discussion on firearms, departing from gate number #69, all passagers please make their way to the gate." We can't talk about guns and their role in suicides by active duty troops without devolving into gun-snatching fear. We can't talk about guns and their role in the murder of 20+ first-graders without devolving into gun-snatching fear. Can we actually talk about guns without resorting to fear? Believe it or not, not every discussion about guns or gun policy is aimed at taking away everyone's firearms and instituting a V for Vendetta-style regime. If so-called "rabid" gun owners and gun-rights advocates like the NRA refuse to actually participate in any kind of dialogue whatsoever it only makes the end result worse for everyone.

I say we have a spending problem relative to our level of taxation, absolutely. Hard to argue with that. When you cut taxes for a decade and then all agree to make 99% of those cuts permanent you can't continue to offer the same or a higher level of government services. I voted for a combination of discretionary cuts where they make sense, reforms to big programs to bend the cost curves, and higher taxes in some cases. I hope that's what we get when all those ideals go through the D.C. sausage-making machine known as Congress.

So...taxes/debt/deficit?

Been posted already either earlier in this thread or elsewhere. Good article and infographic here on some problems with Social Security.

Might add this to my list of books to read this year.

Hagel will get the nod for Defense.

The last poll I saw on Obamacare had something like 49% supported expanding or maintaining it, 33% supported repeal & replace or just straight repeal. Not saying it's terribly popular but the point stands. And WRT gun control measures, you know full well that there's a pretty sizable chunk of the Democratic party that doesn't support radical new restrictions. Some like Feinstein do, but there are 11 Democrats in the Senate with at least a B (and 10 with at least a qualified A) rating from the NRA, including the Majority Leader. That's a solid fifth of the entire caucus plus the 1 key player at the top that can be rated generally as pro-gun rights. Saying what the Dems want to pass then is a little complicated and I'm not really sure what would pass the Democratic Senate in terms of new gun laws. People that look at Feinstein's bill thinking it's gonna be a reality tomorrow are doing so out of fear rather than rational analysis of the political situation in Washington. The even bigger point I think is where the bulk of each party is in the overall ideological spectrum. My view is that the very liberal wing of the Democratic party is relatively weak. How often do you see arguments in the Dem primaries arguing who is more liberal? On the other hand the very conservative wing of the GOP is much stronger, as evidenced by the 2010 midterms but a little less so recently. How many Republicans are more worried about a tea-party inspired primary challenge from the right than a general election challenge from a Democrat? I'd argue a lot. The 2012 GOP Presidential primary, and in part the 2008 primary, was a pissing contest over who was more "severely conservative" and who loved Reagan more. Obviously colored by my own views, but I find it hard to argue that radical liberals hold more sway among Democrats than radical conservatives do among Republicans, that's the BL. Furthermore, the Democratic party has evolved since the 1980s whoopings and even since the Clinton years and is literally proposing some of the exact same policies advocated by Republicans 10-15 years ago. Cap & trade, the individual mandate, signing legislation allowing CCW in national parks and on Amtrak, indefinite detention of terror suspects, unaccountable drone strikes on American citizens, making 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts on income, low rates on estate taxes and keeping the AMT to a minimum permanent, Jesus, if anyone should be arguing that the parties are really the same it should be the far-left liberals, not the far-right conservatives! I'm actually for all those things more or less but then again I'm not a far-left liberal. As times change the discourse changes and I'd argue today we're in a political age where the mean political ideology being discussed is so far to the right of center that even relatively conservative Republicans are lambasted as RINOs and moderate Democrats are made out to be card-carrying Communists. Both parties are extreme in their own ways, for sure, you can't get rid of idiocy in your ranks no matter what you believe. But the argue that both sides are equally responsible for gridlock in Washington or to argue that both sides are proposing extreme policies by historical standards, that's just BS.