Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Banning cosmetics being idiotic is why the assault weapons ban was idiotic and was pretty obvious feel good legislation.
Fight smart, not fair.If its a feel good legistlation, then why not pass it again?
Also, to the people who say Obama is tied by the Republicans... he didnt vetoed the NDAA... even do he said he was gonna.
And now you can be detained indefinately and you dont have Habbeas Corpus, the most basic and fundamental right of "liberal" democracies, Who I wander, could ever deffend Obama and the House for such a thing as the National Defense Authorization Act.
edited 5th Jan '13 4:25:20 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Representative Thomas Massie proposes repeal of federal gun-free school zones
The logic goes right back to allowing people to carry guns in or near schools for the purpose of self-protection, which some people are adamantly against the idea of. Teachers or other faculty (including security guards) no longer being restrained from doing so by federal law. Concealed Carry Permit holders can carry in schools, etc.
If dangerous criminals think that they will encounter armed resistance, they will generally avoid trying to shoot up the place, and as it's pointed out, something else will be targeted instead.
edited 5th Jan '13 5:10:01 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!You seem to be working on the basis that the deterrent effect of an armed school outweighs the hazard of a school in which a lot of people are armed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
And you're making the assumption that I completely support the idea of arming teachers. I do not.
I'm simply stating the point that knowing that there is an area that is devoid of deterrent is possibly a motivation for why certain areas, such as schools or public malls, etc. are targeted by mass shooters.
edited 5th Jan '13 5:13:14 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I don't want guns near my kids unless they're in the hands of trained professionals. Even then I'd prefer a taser. That's what the officer at my school carries around. His gun is only for emergencies.
The reason for this is that you cannot magically pretend some students won't find out who's carrying. They will and a group of them could easily overpower the teacher. Stealing a bit from the pro-gun side, it's akin to putting up a neon sign that says "Hey kids, you don't have to worry about stealing guns from your parents anymore! Your teachers will kindly provide them for you!"
edit:
Well in that case I'd say place an officer there. I don't think it will do much good but it's better than teachers being armed. Columbine had guards from what I recall.
edited 5th Jan '13 5:17:16 PM by Kostya
I think the discussion for Human Enhancement is another thread, but I'm sure, in the future, police will have an Auto-9 that ejects out of their calf when they encounter armed resistance.
I don't know if placing armed guards, even former police officers or military security, would be appropriate or necessary. Then again, most of the schools I went to had quite a few security measures, and the ones I see here in California (and also some of the ones I saw in Texas) have gates and more guards already.
![]()
Columbine did have an armed guard, who was not at the school itself when the shooting occurred. He (and the other unarmed security officer) was off the school campus, watching a spot where teens were smoking.
edited 5th Jan '13 5:22:35 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!And now you can be detained indefinately and you dont have Habbeas Corpus, the most basic and fundamental right of "liberal" democracies, Who I wander, could ever deffend Obama and the House for such a thing as the National Defense Authorization Act.
If I recall correctly, the NDAA got support from more than three-fourths of the Senate, making it immune to Presidential vetoes.
And the reason for passing it is that the NDAA is the legislation that keeps the U.S. military funded; not passing it is like a miniature version of going past the debt ceiling, except in this case Democrats and Republicans agree that it's a bad idea. Unfortunately, in this case a completely unrelated amendment was added to the bill that would suspend habeas corpus, and there's no simple way to vote against that part of the bill without voting against the whole kitten-caboodle. And even if you think a temporary military shutdown would be worthwhile to keep this legislation from passing, if the Democratic Party is seen defunding the military, regardless of the reason, then a Republican controlled Senate would be all but guaranteed next election cycle.
Also, apparently, that part of the NDAA is largely just reiterating stuff already put into law by another bill
.
edited 5th Jan '13 6:09:36 PM by RavenWilder
![]()
![]()
![]()
No.
Congress can overide a President's veto if two-thirds of the Senate and House vote against it.
The President has to use the veto, before Congress can attempt to override it.
edited 5th Jan '13 6:12:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016But if it's gonna be overriden anyway, what's the point?
Also, there is technically a way to get rid of this troubling legislation without new laws or courtroom challenges: the law only allows indefinite detention while America's military conflict with Al Quaeda is ongoing; if America stops fighting Al Quaeda, the law becomes moot.
The senate specifically added an Amendment that say
"We are not going to suspend Habbeas Corpus for United Sates citizens in the U.S"
And the house voted against it, even if Obama has said he would vetoe it, "he did not".
Furthermore when he first signed the NDAA he did some fancy legal thing in which he said he would not enforce the ability the bill gave him to have the military detain any citizen without due process... Not that it matter much because his succesors could run with it anyways.
This times he did not do such a thing.
Also Habeas Corpues is the Number 1 right in a democracy. The golden standard. The thing the glorious revolution was fight for.
It justified defunding the U.S. It justified everything.
As Benjami Franklin said "Those who sacrifice their liberty for security, will deserve neither and lose both"
Obama is no better than a fascist.
Of course the media did not cover this. And Americans think that they have freedom of the press... is more like freedom to be manipulated and indoctrinated.
edited 5th Jan '13 6:33:00 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Godwin's Law. Good night.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.On December 2011 vote by the United States Senate to reject an NDAA amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, the ACLU has argued that the legitimacy of Habeas Corpus is threatened: "The Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment [that] would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.
Lets see 100-38 = 62. 66 is 2/3rds of the Senate.
So if all the Senators who voted for the NDAA amendment vote against overriding the President's veto, then veto would not be overridden.
Although this was the 112th Senate, so the 113th Senate might have voted differently.
Bush did do it back in 2001. The reaction was mild discomfort. Although I don't think it suspended Habeus Corpus for Americans, just foreigners.
I could be wrong about that.
We fought our Revolution due to lack of representation in British Parliament.
edited 5th Jan '13 7:03:58 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

I used to like Krauthammer. Now...