Indeed. Many states are probably paddling along the canoe because of the administration they were under at the time, not understanding or choosing to not have it on their to-do list. My state still conducts a separate check for a handgun sale (but same check). Many of these mini-fiefdoms done at the bidding of the G could go away.

During the recent kerfuffle here over "worker's rights" (ta-da, Fed court has upheld as Constitutional) there was much blathering about throwing away women's right to equal pay, etc. It was nonsense, of course, that's something that's regulated in US law and there is no gain to the state maintaining a separate mechanism "in-house" to manage that. I doubt the G is anxiously waiting for some of the off-loaded state chickens to come home to roost.

Red states, money from Washington and poverty
 

Sigaba:
I am somewhat surprised at your post. In the past, my perception has been that you generally are not supportive of cherry picking" quotes, factoids etc. Your post prompted me to look at the recent census data.
I suspect the information about Alaska and the Red states is correct.
According to the US Census data, 23-25% of Alaska's population is native American. Native Americans receive a fair amount of money from the USG in a variety of forms, cash, tax breaks, cash for each child and tribal member. Between fishing and hunting rights, education medical, these "benefits add up to a fair amount of money. Is the the money given to the tribes part of the quoted statistics? I suspect you will discover that a majority "Native American Reservations" happen to be in Red states. I would be shocked to discover that any poitical party or fiction writer for an activist publication would present such figures for any reason other than push their own agenda. The Fed transfer a lot of money to Native Americans (in wash state, the Fed transfers about $2K per month per child for every child) but, as you know they can make it look like whatever they want through the miracles of creative accounting
Bringing children into while relevant in some aspects is simply an emotional ploy. Right now, Jan. 2013 the public debt is around 16.5 trillion with expectations of a trillion more each year for the next four years. The "Fair Share portion" of that debt for all the children 18 and under is approx. $250K. What will be the impact in terms of intended and un-intended consequences? Will quality healthcare decrease, will there be fewer Cops on the streets? These things are too numerous to count but, the impact on those 18 and younger may be substantial. Will more of them die because medical care is more scarce? Fewer firefighters & EMT's Will there be an upsurge in highway deaths because fewer Cops? You get the picture. The tragedies will not be covered by the Pols or MSM because they cant stir up the folks and get more votes or sell more stuff. I will guess that many more of the children (18 yo and younger) will die, and lead lives with fewer opportunities, more illness, taxes less freedom because of these budget machinations. The Pols, the leftists and the MSM will not cover any of these consequences because, that would be inconvienent.Or maybe, the Red States are full of uneducated Rubes that need the Left to "Convert them" much the same way those Europeans did to all those simple native populations during the Colonization period!;)

Noslack

;)

lol That's the way I look at it. :cool:

Thank you Wiki-Dozer. I'm aware of the background of both the magazine and the person. My comment was meant to imply that finding an "anti-right" article in that magazine is about as challenging as finding a pro-gun article in American Rifleman. I was a bit disappointed in Sigaba for taking the lazy route on that citation, and posted as much. Perhaps I was being too subtle?

Beaufort County, NC
 

Link to story & County Commission meeting video

Two replies and a bit of a rant.
 

I wonder how carefully you read the post with which you're disagreeing and/or any of my recent posts on the political management of the gun control debate and/or any of my posts about the current administration's plans for America.

Since 2008, I have been arguing that the Democratic Party wants to reshape the American political terrain profoundly and permanently.

Since 2008, I have been arguing that the GOP and other elements of the American political right have been playing into the POTUS's hands by responding to issues (health care, national security, judicial appointments, gun control) piecemeal by saying "no no no" without also putting comprehensive counter proposals on the table that will appeal to a wider range of Americans, regardless of their political ideology. That is, the GOP et al are not acquitting themselves well in the market place of ideas. (All the neat talk of running .GOV like a business, but where is the innovation? Where are the new products? Where is the continuous improvement? Where is the plan to expand market share? Where is the risk management? Where is the focus on stakeholder satisfaction?:confused:)

MOO, as far as many Americans on the left side of the aisle are concerned, Alaska is the state of Sarah Palin and a bridge to nowhere. As far as many Americans are concerned, regardless of their political leanings, correlation is causation. In this current environment, how difficult will it be for Democrats to make (again) the argument that Republican politicians are unconcerned with poverty in America, that the GOP's public policies do not help the poor, or that conservatives will play brinksmanship at the expense of their constituents?

Dirty pool, you say. Cherry picking, you allege. How about that. My reply is what it was--know your horses before placing a bet and nodding your head in agreement with anyone--especially if you're inclined to agree with what they're saying. And what I'm saying is that if those who don't want more gun control don't do a better job of managing the debate over gun violence, that if they don't bring something to the table other than a list of "nos", that if they continue with the talk of "nullification," the POTUS is going to keep on doing what he's been doing because his opponents are doing what they want to do at the expense of what could be done.Razor--

First, the use of Mother Jones was aimed to contrast to the use of Fox Business to show how both the echo chambers of the left and the right can slice and dice data that will fit into political arguments.

Second, the post fits into my broader point that the POTUS and his supporters are attempting to use the post-Newtown debate over gun violence to back his opponents into a corner <<LINK>>.

Third, does the fact that an argument and supporting evidence appear in an outlet that one doesn't approve automatically mean the argument and the evidence are not valid? Is the piece inaccurate? Do red states not receive more money from the federal government than blue states? Republican politicians in red states that threaten "succession" or "nullification" probably don't read Mother Jones or The Nation, but should those who advocate such measures thumb their noses at information because they don't like the sources? (If one doesn't like Mother Jones's take perhaps the attachment will suffice.)

Now for a rant.

To put it bluntly (albeit politely), I think there's an expanding inconsistency at play in the discussion of policies and politics among the president's opponents. This dynamic is manifesting itself here at PS.COM. This dynamic sees different burdens of proof being applied based upon the perceived political viewpoints of those participating in a conversation over a controversial issue.

Little, if anything, is said if Glenn Beck is used as a source, or if members grossly misread/misunderstand the Federalist papers or other primary source material, or if one is using intellectually unsustainable generalizations, or if unsubstantiated rumors are presented as facts, as long as such information fits within a certain trajectory of POVs.

By contrast, if someone offers what appears to be a diametrically opposed POV, and sources such as the NYT, Mother Jones, and so forth is used, comments about "bias" and intellectual sloth often ensue, if not also a dog pile. As examples, I point to a certain QP and a certain active duty officer are two of the most conservative members of this BB who regularly post. The former has offered reliable forecasts of recent political events. The latter person in particular harbors a hostility towards liberals in general and the president in particular that is breathtaking to behold. Yet, over the past several months, when either offers a POV that clearly comes from a right of center perspective and also attempts to engage positively the "opposition" they get thrashed faster than it takes one to not read what they've posted.

IMO, I think that what is being lost in this dynamic is the concept of "the loyal opposition" in which disagreement, dissent, disappointment, and, at times, disgust, are sublimated in favor of using a controversial issue as an opportunity to generate sustainable counterpoints that will resonate among the "opposition."

It is my considered opinion that this expanding dynamic in which ideological conformity increasingly trumps intellectual clarity as well as any effort to balance the preferable with the possible is a greater threat to right of center political thought in America than anything the left has done, is doing, or can do.

My $0.02.

Everyone has an opinion and they are to be respected unless they are baseless and not factual. Glenn Beck in my opinion is not an authority or mouth piece for conservatives. Documentation like statutes, Senate Reports, USC, etc, goes a long way to support ones conclusion or opinion. Tracking?

How much of what Beck says do you personally believe?

Depends on the subject matter.

Conservative values.

Yup, some folks here lean heavily on obviously biased sources, and some seldom get called on it--except by you, and rightly so. You do a good job of providing well-researched counterpoints and balancing discussions with reasoned discourse. However, given your tendency to point out such inconsistencies, crying foul when the shoe is on the other foot, even if it was in the course of making a broader example, rings a bit hollow.

As for the need to provide counter proposals rather than outright refusals to compromise on gun control, I seem to recall that our more liberal brothers and sisters adopted a "no, won't happen, go pound sand" tack in the discussion on revamping Social Security some years back, and look what that got them--exactly what they wanted, no change.

As for more compromise by the gun supporters, given your background in history I'm surprised you aren't pointing out the many compromises made over the last century (e.g., 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994), with little to no give by the gun control crowd. Pete regularly points out that never ending compromise has a real result of eventually abandoning one's position. We already have to undergo detailed background checks, pay a substantial fee and register to own a short barrel rifle or shotgun or to own an automatic weapon or suppressor. We have to submit to a criminal background check to buy a firearm through a retailer or from a private party in another state. We lose our right to own a firearm if we were ever a convicted felon for any reason, if we were ever considered mentally defective (regardless of our current mental state), if we received a dishonorabe discharge, or if someone accuses us of domestic abuse or files a restaining order on us (whether justified or not). We can't import foreign military surplus rifles (even if they are single-shot, bolt action) that don't have a nebulous "sporting purpose", or foreign handguns with "evil" features. We have to be licensed and keep meticulous records to operate a firearms business, and can be shut down with little to no recourse for any error in those records identified during a no-notice spot check by federal authorities. We can't own automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, thus shrinking the market and driving prices on the limited pool of legal-to-own autos into the thousands of dollars. We can't carry a gun openly within 1000 feet of a school. We can't buy, sell or transport a gun across state lines if we're under indictment for (but not yet convicted of) a misdemeanor that can carry a one year or greater sentence. Depending on our state of residence, we can't own a scary-looking rifle that has certain cosmetic or operational features, or own a magazine capable of holding more than an arbitrarily determined number of rounds, or obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

What are the restrictions on free speech or press? Oh yeah, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, and you can't lie about someone's character (unless you're a prominent public figure that is materially affected by the lie, or you're saying you're a member of the military).

Restrictions on the practice of religion? Well, you can't kill someone or something in the practice of it, and you can't used controlled substances...oh wait, yes you can, never mind.

Quartering troops? Nope, no changes to that at all.

Unreasonable searches? The officer needs probable cause for a warrantless search unless it entails a counterintelligence-related investigation that includes contact with foreign nationals.

Self-incrimination, due process, double jeopardy, eminent domain? Well, if you were directly involved in or directly supporting terrorism, you can be detained for an unspecified period of time.

Trial by jury? See above.

Right to face your accuser? See above, or in sensitive intelligence-related crimes.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Heck no, and let's keep redefining what is considered cruel to narrow that list more and more!

So tell me, which Constitutionally-protected (and Supreme Court reaffirmed) individual right has seen the most compromise--and hence the most restriction--since its inception, and more specifically in the last century? How many more concessions are gun owners expected to make in the name of reasonable compromise? What other component of our right to own and carry a firearm must we sacrifice to "bring something to the table other than a list of no's"?

Shouldn't compromise offer concessions from both sides?

Why is it that only one side is being asked to give existing rights and priviliges?

Was it concession when the Germans passed the Nuremberg Laws?

TR

I will do a better job with my sources in the future.

I believe that you are misreading my posts on this topic. I've been pretty clear that opponents of gun control should flatly refuse to discuss further infringements upon the Second Amendment.

My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.

Like it or not, public policy (good or bad) is the outcome of a political process that centers around discourse, advocacy, and, ultimately, the raw power of who can marshal the most votes. IMO, for Americans to, on the one hand, sing the praises of the framers and then ignore the central reality that they dealt with throughout their public lives is an open invitation to not be taken seriously by anyone with a library card.

There are many laws that some argue constitute severe infringements upon the First Amendment and the concept of "free speech." For example, there are vibrant debates emanating from Pr0n Valley about what types of acts can and cannot be depicted in pornographic media. Academics grouse, complain, and rebel against the constraints of USC Code Title XVII. As media become increasingly digital there are also debates about ownership and usage of software, movies, sound recordings, games, books, and libraries.Have you ever been stopped and frisked because you fit a profile? Have you been the focus of a display of overwhelming force because your skin is a different color from everyone else walking in a residential area? Ever have a police helicopter shine a light into your house because you don't look the same as your neighbors? These events happen often to certain groups and some nod their heads in approval. Yet, if there's the least hint that a similar standard may be used on other groups, people say TYRANNY.
In municipalities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the issue of eminent domain is increasingly controversial. Local governments have forced out residents for the sake of the "public good." That is, people are being turned out of houses that their family has owned for decades with all parties understanding that, given the conditions of the housing market, will translate into downward social mobility.
Do we hold ourselves to the spirit and the letter of the BoR when it comes to the presumed innocence of a suspect? How many posts in how many threads on this BB have some suggested that a trial is not necessary? Do such expressions, as understandable as they may be, bolster the conceptualization of the BoR? Or do such comments feed into a wider dynamic in which the jury pool is increasingly compromised by a saturation of information that should not be disclosed until it comes to light as part of the legal process?Again, as noted, I think you're misreading my position. My argument is that in addition to saying "No, the right to bear arms is non negotiable," gun owners could use their expertise to act as consultants rather than as advocates.

For example, gun owners could bring to the discussion insights on how growing up with guns in a home have contributed to a sense of personal responsibility and self confidence. They might also inform gun control advocates of how the presence of fire arms may lead to greater opportunities to non violent conflict resolution (beyond saying "an armed society is a polite society). They could also provide input on the development of technologies that make firearms more secure without unduly compromising the privacy concerns of law abiding gun owners.

Here's an example of the latter. Almost every laptop computer has a "Kensington security slot." Would it be possible to develop similar solutions that could be used on portable personal electronic devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) as well as fire arms? As a lock could be used on a range of everyday products, there would be no way of knowing if a consumer were locking up a ThinkPad or a firearm.

As no lock is perfect, additional security features could be built in--biometric locks, RFF devices to help locate stolen property, ink gel packs that have synthetic DNA that will stain the skin of thieves. Such devices might be activated only after property has been lost or stolen, and up to that point no one would know who owned them or what was being locked up.

If this concept is not technologically feasible, does that mean that one could not find ones that are? Would bringing such solutions to market help bolster the argument that the private sector is more adept, efficient, and responsive than the federal government when it comes to addressing the demands of the market?

One closing point. It is my view that Second Amendement advocates who talk about the original intent of the framers do themselves a profound disservice by decoupling the debate over gun control from other debates centering around the BoR. To me, a political and intellectual line of argumentation that holds the entire BoR as an irreducible whole will allow for broader coalitions that might be more effective politically. Also, this approach will, I believe, prove more sustainable historiographically.

Granted, this idea will require tough choices. It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts can make common cause with a politically conservative heterosexual guy from the Bible Belt.

Yet, as I see it, Hamilton provided for these types of day/night pairings. American political history is filled with examples of cross-matched coalitions working well enough. That is, until one group starts to focus on a single topic, and to make holding the line on that single issue a symbol for everything else.

This is not to say that there is no place for taking a hard line in a political debate. Everyone must decide for themselves the point beyond which they say "No." My concern remains that saying "No" too soon will push the conversation to that point when it may not otherwise reach that line if people were more willing to negotiate from the jump.

My two cents.

I'm sure there are many of those types of gun owners in Detroit and Chicago.

The non-working proletariat who put Obama in office don't swamp gun shows.