Adding any pork to any bill is problematic.
Not just the times when it interferes with something you happen to care about.

Sure, this just happens to be on topic for this discussion. 

The Tiahrt amendment isn't just pork, it's bad business.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/23/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
what if the supreme court rules that the constitution does not cover assault weapons or weapons of mass destruction...therefore making it constitutional to ban and or confiscate assault weapons?  Is that the end of the discussion here?

No.

I realize that no, that won't end the discussion(as Roe Vs. Wade). That was more aimed at Bheid who was talking about forming militias.  If a ban on assault weapons is deemed constitutional,  and militias form in protest of the ban....are those people still within their constitutional rights to form militias?  Or are they law breakers?

Just trying to get a general feel for what people are thinking...remember even though I'm a "liberal", I'm not anti-gun.

It is utterly ludicrous that such amendments can even be put into a bill, much less get passed. Does anyone believe such an amendment would ever pass on its own accord, if it weren't allowed to be hidden in some other bill?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/23/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
It comes from donations. The NRA has a large membership and they have every right to be heard. But, at the same time, we have congressmen inserting language into spending bills requiring things like senate confirmation of the ATF head and preventing the ATF from requiring gun dealers to keep inventory records. That's problematic.

So politics as usual?

Posted by The Taint on 1/23/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/23/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
what if the supreme court rules that the constitution does not cover assault weapons or weapons of mass destruction...therefore making it constitutional to ban and or confiscate assault weapons?  Is that the end of the discussion here?

No.

I realize that no, that won't end the discussion(as Roe Vs. Wade). That was more aimed at Bheid who was talking about forming militias.  If a ban on assault weapons is deemed constitutional,  and militias form in protest of the ban....are those people still within their constitutional rights to form militias?  Or are they law breakers?

Just trying to get a general feel for what people are thinking...remember even though I'm a "liberal", I'm not anti-gun.

Such a ruling would turn them into criminals. 

Let's put it another way.   Cancer kills a lot of people.   Smoking is a factor in lung cancer.   Perhaps, and we know the tobacco lobby is just as big or bigger than the NRA, smoking should be banned.    I don't think that would stop people from smoking.   But, suddenly, we've created a whole new criminal element.

Smoking and guns are not analogous. 

I think they are.  In fact, I'd argue that smoking kills more Americans than those nastyass HCAW.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):
I think they are.  In fact, I'd argue that smoking kills more Americans than those nastyass HCAW.

Of course it does. And if the the problem with HCAW was all the suicides they cause, I'd agree.

Dead is dead.   Are we trying to prevent unnecessary deaths or just ban guns?

And don't get me started with healthcare.   At least people with 50 bullet holes in them have the common courtesy to die. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Dead is dead.   Are we trying to prevent unnecessary deaths or just ban guns?

And don't get me started with healthcare.   At least people with 50 bullet holes in them have the common courtesy to die. 

We're trying to prevent murder.

So shouldn't we ban all weapons?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/23/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):
I think they are.  In fact, I'd argue that smoking kills more Americans than those nastyass HCAW.

Of course it does. And if the the problem with HCAW was all the suicides they cause, I'd agree.

I'd agree with this statement if secondhand smoke didn't still kill more people than assault weapons...  The WHO estimates 600,000 a year worldwide, and that doesn't include birth defects, low birth weight babies, or the fact that there is a significant increase in the probability of a child who grows up around secondhand smoke becoming a smoker himself or herself later in life.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
So shouldn't we ban all weapons?

No.

I'm sorry if the fact that this isn't 100% black and white is causing problems for you.