What do you think will become of the USA when leftist regain full control?

If the law doesn't have to protect everyone's rights equally, then explain the Obergefell decision to me.

 

Yes. A lot of them are choosing exactly that. There's a new trend of a lot of them choosing to be homeless.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...lts-to-live-at-home-and-for-longer-stretches/

As you can see, the increases are across the board, including those with bachelor's degrees.

You can tell it to Time, who referred to them as the "me me me" generation.

http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/

I'm not arguing gun control. I'm arguing the logical fallacy that an "expanded" background check (which is a misnomer in and of itself) can work when the government and other institutions don't do their jobs.

In the particular case in FL, since you brought that one up, I was merely showing that no increase background checks can ever work when no one was putting anything in his background to check in the first place.

Had the school, law enforcement, the FBI, or mental health practitioners acted, the background checks we have now would have stopped him.

You don't solve a problem by doubling down on ineffective measures.

You also can't legislate morality and competence.

You won't hear me defending Congress very much, but this isn't a congressional problem.

The tools exist to keep dangerous people off the streets. They do no good when they're not used.

 

For "leftists" to have "full control" it would be necessary for most Democrats to be replaced by people like Bernie and Alexandria Cortez, and then for them to occupy 2/3 of the House and Senate and then impeach about 2 SC justices as well as have an agreeable president. Otherwise the status quo still has control and they aren't "leftists".

 

So you actually believe that people with enough ambition to work for and earn a Bachelor's degree are now "choosing" to be poor, jobless, and homeless.

With that kind of judgment (which is typical of you BTW) there is no sense in debating or reasoning with you.

 

Yep.

So does Pew.

 

Wow. You even double-down on what has become a ridiculous and obviously BS argument. Amazing.

 

Maybe you could go show Pew what they got wrong.

 

They didn't. It was YOUR INTERPRETATION that you imparted to the study that was wrong. "Choosing". Remember?

 

Yeah?

Who's forcing these adults to live at home.

 

Are you really telling me you don't see the spin you gave it by declaring people with Bachelor's degrees are "choosing" to remain living at home? Yes or no?

 

I'm asking you who is forcing them to live at home.

If you're saying these adults don't have a choice, then someone must be forcing them to live there.

 

NO ONE is forcing them. Conditions are. And you are pretending it's a free choice with better options available, and they just lost their ambition after earning a Bachelors degree and "choose" a lesser lifestyle of increased poverty. Why can't you admit the bullshit in that position?

 

Aww. Conditions.

Yes. That's what choice is.

Is this upsetting you because you have personal experience here?

 

the Obergefell decision, like many others in the past 50 years or so, was a misapplication of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Justices thought it seemed like a good idea to let same sex couples marry, and state laws, referendums, and judicial rulings mattered not. The Constitution says nothing as such, but the Equal Protection clause was good sounding cover. Actually it was perfect cover as SCOTUS has transformed itself into an unchecked oligarchy and doesn't really need cover. As I said the Equal Protection clause deals with standing in a judicial system and was predominately directed at blacks as they were treated seriously differently by judges and courts. But it did not stop laws that treated blacks differently, ala Jim Crow, segregation, Plessy v. Ferguson, voting laws, for some examples of thousands.

 

The first thing that comes to mind is the environment. People who live on the West Coast, and in Colorado tend to live longer than those who live elsewhere. The latest statistic I've heard, says that a person, who lives most their lives in the aforementioned places has a life expectancy that is 20 years greater than someone who spends their life living in the South. One of the reasons is stringent environmental controls. We breathe cleaner air and drink cleaner water. Republican ideology says we should remove these environmental controls.

The next is our forests. In the west, half the land is in federal hands. That is to say it is public land. I think that life in the West is made even more enjoyable by the wide open spaces, with all its natural beauty, freely accessible to all.

Republican ideology says we should sell off this land to private interests. Loggers are also a danger to our forest. There is a need for lumber. Oregon has more trees than any other state and is one of the top producers of lumber, contributing heavily to our economy. Oregon produces far more Christmas Trees than any other state. The problem is that the industry has become heavily mechanized, leaving many workers without logging jobs.

The forests are heavily regulated, with much of the logging done in strips of land that have been set up to be essentially logging farms. Part of which takes into account that the forests are also a draw for tourists. In many areas, revenue from tourism exceed that from logging. All in all, Oregon has set up a sustainable logging system, while safeguarding Oregon's natural beauty. Yet the Republicans want to open logging, willy nilly, to the unemployed loggers, essentially destroying in a manner of months, so that a few can make a few dollars, while denying the enjoyment of many for generations to come. Not to mention what such a plan would cause a great deal of chaos in the industry.

Marihuana has become legal on the West Coast, by voter initiative. Conservstives, like Jeff Sessions, would like to take it away from us by executive action. It is kind of the same with abortion. 70% of the population thinks that abortion should be legal and accessible. Republicans seem intent on ignoring the will of the majority of the
people. In Oregon, any woman who wants an abortion can get one, regardless of her ability to pay for it. There are even free services to drive her to and from the clinic. Republicans want to stop this practice.

Then there is the art thing. In conservative parts of the country art is banned and artists prosecuted. Art thrives in liberal oases.

Our coast is completely publicly owned. Oil platforms and drilling are forbidden. Republicans want to remove the restrictions so that Oregon too, can have the oil spills that make places like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida such great place to be.

 

They live at home for economic reasons, not because they are lazy and want someone to give them something. From your own link….

A variety of factors may influence young adults’ decisions to live at home, including their success in the labor market, the cost of living independently, and their debt obligations. The fact that less-educated young adults are much less likely to live independently than their more educated counterparts comports with the basic patterns of employment success in the U.S. labor market. Wages and employment have declined for less-educated young adults since the 1970s, whereas young college-educated workers have experienced improving outcomes in the job market, especially for those with advanced degrees. Young adults with higher wages are less likely to be living at home.
​

My point about background checks is this: 90% of Americans, including gun owners, want NICs fixed, yet Congress doesn't move on it. When 90% of Americans want legislation, and what they want doesn't violate Constitutional rights, then their elected representatives should provide them the legislation. It doesn't matter if it is background checks, limits to campaign spending, giving Dreamers legal permanent legal status, or something else. When the public overwhelmingly is in favor, and there is no Constitutional objection, the people should get the laws they want. That's what living in a Democratic Republic is all about. When large campaign donors want a tax cut, and the majority of the country is opposed to it, but the campaign donors get the tax cut anyway, we have a problem with our democratic institutions. Congress is no longer representing their voting constituents, and instead are representing their large-dollar donors, who may or may not even live in the same state. This is absolutely a Congressional problem.

Don't confuse my argument against Congress with criticism of responsible gun owners. I am a gun owner.

The tools do not exist to keep potential mass murderers off the streets and out of schools, until they do something violent. Then it's too late, and someone else's rights have been violated.

The tools do exist to keep them from possessing deadly weapons, but we don't bother to keep a data base up to date. When the police have been called to violent young man's house 39 times over his middle and high school years, who thinks it is a good idea to allow him to purchase guns at 18? That kind of data could be part of NICS and should be. Thirty-nine police calls in 7 years is a very accurate predictor of future problems, like mass school shootings, yet we don't bother to put that information in the data base. When other people no longer feel safe going to school, church, a movie, a concert, a party, a dance club, and the vast majority of Americans want NICS fixed, it should be a slam dunk politically, to make that happen, yet Congress does nothing. We don't let kids learn to drive a car without someone supervising them until they are competent, yet we allow violent teens, with a massive history of psychological issues and multiple police reports, buy deadly weapons at 18, with no supervision whatsoever and can't get Congress to do anything about it, when they are the only ones that can.

 

Yes. However, as you pointed out in your indention with those lovely colors:

whereas young college-educated workers have experienced improving outcomes in the job market, especially for those with advanced degrees.

The number of those living at home are also increasing, not decreasing, despite the improved economic opportunities they have.

Ah, well saying you want NICs fixed is different.

Still not the problem though, especially in the FL example you gave.

The problem wasn't NIC's in FL, either.

If you look at the list of mass shooters we have had, only one of them that I can think of did not have (or should have had) backgrounds that precluded them purchasing a firearm.

The reason the data was not put into NICs is that the FL shooter was never arrested. Not only was he never arrested, it was an intentional decision not to do so because of the schools concern over their "image".

Congress can't make people use the tools they already have to make sure that violent or mentally ill people have entries placed in NICs.

That's up to individual communities and police departments.

 

It is your opinion that Obergefell is a misapplication of due process. In this country, when we have disputes on the law, there is a remedy to go through the judicial system all the way to the Supreme Court. They didn't just think it was a good idea. The Supreme Court looked at the Constitution and saw that if these two people can marry, then those two people can marry, just as they did in Loving v Virginia. Otherwise it is discrimination/unequal treatment under the law. If states never issued marriage licenses, or recognized married people as a legal status, the government wouldn't have any reason to be involved.

We are not a perfect union, but we should continually strive to make it more perfect, and doing so requires that everyone have equal opportunity and equal treatment. Otherwise, we aren't equal, are we?

 

There is no doubt that there are different, and more difficult, economic conditions facing young people now than before. It's disingenuous to attribute more adult kids living at home to laziness. I'm not saying every kid living at home is the Energizer Bunny, but all of them aren't simply lazy. The better educated with graduate degrees command a higher salary. Of course not as many of them live at home. They don't have the economic constraints the less economically viable do.

As far as Congress goes...The problem is we know many of the indicators of mass shooters and we don't have NICS addressing those indicators. We don't even have NICS giving local police a heads-up. There is no reason that NICS shouldn't be addressing those issues, except we can't get Congress to move on it. Congress can make any law the people want them to make, as long as it doesn't violate Constitutional rights. They can also add strong accountability measures and consequences. We put a man on the moon. Surely we can figure out how to keep kids from being murdered in classrooms.

We put people on lists that don't let them fly on airplanes because of some suspicion. There's no reason that if the cops are called to someone's house 39 times, that those names can't be put in NICS. The Vegas shooter had purchased 55 guns in one year. How does buying 55 guns in one year, without being an FFL, not wave a red flag? He purchased 29 guns from 1982 to 2016, and then, in one year, bought 55 more plus 100 other related things, like bump stocks, and no one thought he was selling guns without a license, or planning something nefarious? How many people buy 55 guns in one calendar year, and aren't FFLs? I know some strong gun enthusiasts, but they don't buy a gun a week.

 

I'm not sure you understand what NICs is.

NIC's is simply a database where law enforcement and possibly mental health folks put things into your history that precludes purchasing a firearm.

All NIC's does is list a persons criminal history.

If they don't have a criminal history, or if that criminal history is not correctly entered into the database, then it doesn't work.

NIC's doesn't "give local police a heads up".

The local police are supposed to be giving NICs the "heads up".

So you'd like to expand the unconstitutional "lists" of unacceptables? The lists that you can be put on without even knowing? The lists that have zero due process?

Buying 55 guns in a year does raise a red flag and will get you a visit from the ATF.

The Vegas shooting has a lot more unanswered questions than that though, and is the one mass shooting case that makes zero sense. A case no one seems to want to investigate or report on, either.

 

While I agree Congress needs to do more, it’s a complex issue dealing with Constitutional rights and Doctor-Patient privilege.

I’m leery of putting a limit on guns. Not just guns per se, but the precedent of limiting a person to things covered by the First Amendment like computers, typewriters, cars, etc. More often than not, a lot our problems are caused by “Good Intentions” and unintended consequences.

 

Complete BS. Indoctrination has been going on since I was a college student in the late 70's. You are spreading poppycock.

 

When I went to college, late 70's, early 80's, I was stuck by how little social programming went on compared to K-12.

When, in K-12 I could have my grade reduced for, "poor citizenship". In college, my grades were based on my ability to demonstrate my knowledge and skills by successfully passkng tests. Not on my ability to please others, as if had been in K-12.

 

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, and marriage is not one of the enumerated powers the Constitution gives the federal government. You said the same thing I did, but believe the rationalization the court gave for same sex marriage. Loving v. Virginia was probably proper because the 14th amendment specifically addressed equal protection for blacks, though it was not so clear cut..

 

These comments seem mostly incoherent. There isn't a shortage of clean air and water in the south, and I'm unclear what mechanized logging has to do with you being threatened by conservatives.

Pot and abortion at least make sense as issues that you could feel threatened by. With pot, the truth is that it is illegal in all 50 states. The fact that you can smoke a joint in front of your local sheriff doesn't mean that a DEA agent couldn't arrest you for violating federal law. So the real issue with pot is that you don't want federal law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law. It would be easier to simply remove marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. That's something Congress can do. But in the meantime, Sessions isn't doing anything wrong in enforcing Federal law. By violating federal law, you are however.

As for abortion, it seems you guys worst case scenario is the Supreme Court yanking the rug under Roe v Wade. If that were to happen, nothing would happen in your state. Your blue state would be able to continue vacuuming up babies all you want. So as an issue, it's a red herring.

Huh? Sorry I don't get that.

Removing those restrictions doesn't stop the state from prohibiting those activities with it's own legislation.

"New Jersey recently passed the nation’s most significant state ban on offshore drilling. What makes New Jersey’s ban so effective is a provision that prohibits building infrastructure such as pipelines in state waters that would be used to transport oil and gas. Without the infrastructure to bring oil and gas to shore, offshore drilling becomes prohibitively expensive for fossil fuel companies."