[flynmudd]

I already have my gun permit, it's called the 2nd Amendment.

This post has been edited by flynmudd: 05 March 2006 - 07:14 AM

[intotheblackhole]

trance750, on Mar 4 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

Gun Control Laws:

C. Take and successfully complete a Gun Awareness Class

This is gun control for sure. Anytime you have a provision where you have to "successfully complete" a class the government can make it harder and harder to "successfully complete" it so that soon no one will be able to have a gun.

If you want people to have a class there should be no provision to "successfully complete" it.

This is why the NRA fights any classes where you have to be able to pass a test or a competency exam (like hitting a 12 inch pattern 100% of the time with a 4 inch barreled handgun at 100 yards).

The second amendment does not have a provision except that you have to be a citizen. Government can do some reasonable restrictions like prohibit grenade launchers and RPG's or restrict mentally ill people from having a gun but can't have a test or other procedure that requires passing.

[Kiervin]

I listed all these welfare reforms on my "if I were president" thread. I think they would all work as well.

The gun control I don't agree with at all. I can do a background investigation in 48 hours, why can't gun dealers or police? I don't believe in requiring a course that someone must "pass" though I do believe in it being offeref for free by local law enforcement to encourage more responsible gun ownership. And the prior felony concerns me. There are those who make stupid mistakes and truly rehabilitate. My husband for example is a 20 year military servicemember, an all around good guy, great husband, exceptional father, pays his bills on time and would never break the law now. He was however convicted of felony drug possession as a teen. Under your rules this guy who seriously shaped up and got his act together by the time he was 19 and has spent 20 years defending the country could not get a gun permit. Nope, doesn't work for me because I know he isnt the only one out there...

[Crawdaddy550]

trance750, on Mar 4 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

Welfare Reform:
D. A mandetory 7 business day waiting period for background check

Brady already has instant background checks. Waiting periods are unecessary and constitute an infringement on a citizens rights as well as an unfair restraint of trade on legal businesses.

[mjperry51]

trance750, on Mar 5 2006, 10:23 AM, said:

Sorry, I see nothing wrong with being required to take a Gun Education Class before applying for a permit. You can call that an "infringement" on your rights. I call it good ol' common sense.

Why would you want somebody with a gun, if they are not trained how to use it?

You would not want somebody behind the wheel, if they did not know how to drive.

Then the states can issue the permits, as they do driver's licenses.

The 2nd Amendment makes this an issue to be decided at the state level.

Sorry -- you don't get my vote

[Taliesin]

trance750, on Mar 5 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

Sorry, I see nothing wrong with being required to take a Gun Education Class before applying for a permit. You can call that an "infringement" on your rights. I call it good ol' common sense.

Why would you want somebody with a gun, if they are not trained how to use it?

You would not want somebody behind the wheel, if they did not know how to drive.

The problem is it would require a constitutional ammendment to enact.

I understand and agree with you that I want everyone who owns a gun to know how to use it. Unfortunately, the constitution protects you, me, and even stupid people equally. If someone chooses to buy a gun and decides not to learn how to use it, that is their perrogative, and unfortunately they may end up shooting someone accidentally.

Government can regulate driving laws because driving is not a right and they are able to regulate the roads.

[Taliesin]

trance750, on Mar 5 2006, 03:32 AM, said:

Welfare Reform:

1. All welfare recipaints must be making an honest attempt to gain employment and/or training/school in a field of study relevant to their career.

Ok.

Quote

3. If needed, reduced cost (not free) child-care can be provided so the parent(s) can work, un-hindered.

4. Welfare is available to all US Citizens or Legal Immigrants, who have paid taxes during the previous fiscal year (key words being "Legal" and "Citizen")

Sounds good, particularly the citizenship rquirments.

Quote

5. Convictions of drugs, violence (exluding self-defense) and/or theft of any type or nature will result and in immediate suspension of benefits for a period of no less than 2 years. Also a Welfare Case Review Panel can order a percentage or all welfare benefits collected to be returned, either thru monetary means or services.

So, the person must either come up with the money (sounds like they better deal even more drugs then) or be forced into slave labor?

Quote

6. All welfare benefits will cease after 6 months. If an extenion is needed, cases of severe hardship must be verified on a case-by-case basis by a Welfare Case Review Panel. If severe hardship cannot be determined, the recepiant may re-apply for benefits no sooner than 18 months after expiration.

So, if they can't get the money or an exception, they are on the street? What would this do to the crime rate?

Quote

7. Only 1 person per house-hold can claim welfare (this is to stop switching back-and-forth between recipants should benefits be denied, declined, or expired)

Per household or per family? Personally, I'd prever people on welfare to live together to reduce their expenses and thus the burdeon on the state.

Quote

8. Pregnacy after benefits start, are grounds for suspension of benefits, subject to review by a Welfare Case Review Panel. If you can afford to have a kid, you don't need to be on Welfare.

Wouldn't this increase abortions dramatically?



Not trying to nitpick, just asking some questions.

IMO, I'd rather see welfare replaced with a subsidy program. Allow those on welfare who can work (most of them) to work in agriculture and possibly some other careers that "Americans won't do". Then, supplament their income with a smaller ammount of government cash. This would be cheaper than paying welfare to people not working, it would ensure employment, and it would also fix much of our illegal immigration problem.

[Taliesin]

trance750, on Mar 5 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

Since gun ownership is a right and since the Constitution protects each of us equally and without bias, then would you think it was OK for a 10 yr old to get a gun?

Not trying to be a smart-ass, just wanted to know what you though

The Supreme Court has upheld that juveniles under a certain age are not competent to make decisions on their own. This is reflected in laws such as statutory rape laws. We already forbid the mentally disabled from gun ownership. The lack of competency of a child is annalogous to that.

Note, I'm moving this topic. We have an entire forum dedicated to fun threads like this!

[random_stuff]

trance750, on Mar 5 2006, 10:23 AM, said:

Sorry, I see nothing wrong with being required to take a Gun Education Class before applying for a permit. You can call that an "infringement" on your rights. I call it good ol' common sense.

Why would you want somebody with a gun, if they are not trained how to use it?

You would not want somebody behind the wheel, if they did not know how to drive.

Requiring completion of a (unspecified) class should not be required to own a weapon. To carry one off your own private property and into society is an entirely different situation. I most certainly want all those carrying firearms to know the safe way to do so. Most of it is based on common sense and personal responsibility, and since both seem to be in short supply with a large percentage of our population, a weapons safety class is probably a good idea.

[UNREPENTANT]

[/left][left]

If I am understanding IMO's position on welfare correctly, the current system would be replaced by a SUBSIDY program? At least this is IMO's preferred position, Isn't that a poor choice in as much as it still does not address the incentive to transition a welfare recipient from user of our tax dollars to contributor of our tax dollars.

Ok.
Sounds good, particularly the citizenship rquirments.
So, the person must either come up with the money (sounds like they better deal even more drugs then) or be forced into slave labor?
So, if they can't get the money or an exception, they are on the street? What would this do to the crime rate?
Per household or per family? Personally, I'd prever people on welfare to live together to reduce their expenses and thus the burdeon on the state.
Wouldn't this increase abortions dramatically?
Not trying to nitpick, just asking some questions.

IMO, I'd rather see welfare replaced with a subsidy program. Allow those on welfare who can work (most of them) to work in agriculture and possibly some other careers that "Americans won't do". Then, supplament their income with a smaller ammount of government cash. This would be cheaper than paying welfare to people not working, it would ensure employment, and it would also fix much of our illegal immigration problem.

[Danelady]

The NUMBER ONE thing I'd do:

End of birthright citizenship. Just because an illegal alien's baby is born here does NOT make it a citizen and the whole family gets shipped back to where it came from.

[Ignatius J. Reilly]

First priority for the new president: stop spending so much money!

[American Avenger]

First priority for the new president: stop spending so much money!

i second that , im a 15 year old kid and i am tired of thinking about the burden of debt my generation is going to have to deal with