StrangeSox

But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget.

Effective tax rates used to be higher than they are now, but this is all a distraction from how absurd kap's claim is. The Republicans of the 70's enacted the EPA, for christ's sake.

Why? Do you have any historical evidence to the contrary? They've always opposed entitlement programs and taxes, at least since 1980.

Well, this being a discussion board and all, feel free to point out the parts you take issue with and why. Otherwise I'm left shrugging my shoulders as to what you actually disagree with. For instance, I have an issue with how he references to a "Republican Congress," as if it means the same thing in 1947 and 2012, that they're the same people or the same philosophy, static throughout the decades. It's an ahistorical argument.

15-20 years ago? Newt Gingrich's Congress? No, they weren't actually interested in balancing the budget any more than Boehner or McConnell is now. Then as now, it was used as an excuse to slash entitlement programs they've always imposed while also arguing that any tax increases would lead to economic disaster. Or did you mean the Reagan era? When budget deficits first massively exploded, thanks largely to tax cuts and huge defense spending? Concerns about a balanced budget are used by the opposition minority to oppose policies they never support when they're not in power. As soon as they get back in power, suddenly "deficits don't matter."

besides, this is the explicitly partisan democrat thread.

Nah, what he said in there is factually accurate. Unions are required to represent non-union members equally, which is why they always allowed an agency fee.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 06:50 PM) That's pretty blatently false. What's funny, though, is Republicans of 2012 are pretty much Democrats from the 70s and 80s. Are you saying that the Republican party has moved to the left?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 04:08 AM) Damn HH, you and your family are in my thoughts.

Right to work laws explained, debunked and demystified http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012...ed-demystified/

Twinkie CEO Admits Company Took Employees Pensions and Put It Toward Executive Pay

the context was also barrel-loaded black powder rifles and handguns that were less lethal than crossbows

AFAIK there's no realistic challenge to the NFA or the FOPA, which severely restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Did they control for the situations that the carriers and non-carriers found themselves in? People living in and around gang areas are going to have a higher likelihood of being shot. This is unsurprising. If Posner's correct that the largest group of CC holders are middle-aged, middle-class, suburban white men, then statistics of shootings that don't control for CC and are centered in a dense urban area don't tell me too much about the effects of CC on society as a whole.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) It's really not hard to find examples of the probability of the person being shot in an incident skyrocketing when that person is holding a gun. You can find similar numbers on risks skyrocketing when you have a gun in your home as well, but this isn't a debate that involves data, it's all about how having the gun produces the emotional response, makes you feel more secure. But if you're approaching it pragmatically, that needs to be counter-balanced against the effects of self-defense.

Carrying a gun can turn somebody who may have otherwise backed down into a "big man," escalating a situation substantially. I'm not sure if there's a statistical examination of this or not, but as I said earlier most gun stats are questionable from either side.

I disagree with the notion that the GOP ever actually tried to balance the budget beyond using it as an excuse to cut programs they don't like while also advocating for tax cuts.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) The judge on your court date is going to be bound by whatever law is in effect at the time of that judgment. So if your court date is 200 days from now and the legislature enacts a law in response to this 7th circuit ruling, your judge will be bound by his interpretation of that new law and the prior decisions made about gun rights. But then I appeal the ruling, presumably to the 7th. How could my conviction possibly stand at that point? I understand and agree with the intent of staying the ruling, I just wonder what would actually happen if you were to violate current law that will undoubtedly be unconstitutional in the near future. Maybe that hassle of still having to go through the courts would be enough of a deterrent for all but the most hard-headed bozos.

But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction?

But what happens if I appeal my fine/charge as an unconstitutional violation of my rights?

question for the lawyers: the opinion is stayed 180 days to give the legislature time to craft some alternative, Constitution-complying restrictions. What would happen to somebody who violated the current law in the next 180 days? It's already been ruled unconstitutional.

The repercussions for ignoring posted "no guns" signs at private businesses are minimal anyway and a lot of the nutty GRA's advocate ignoring the signs. e.g. this crazy thread where a bunch of SEAL Team 6 members (lol) describe how they would have completely prevented the Aurora, CO theater shooting. This is the hypocrisy that Balta was talking about earlier. These same guys are staunch conservatives opposed to the Socialist Marxist Nobama, yet they frequently violate others' private property rights.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc. Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference. Most guns-rights arguments are absolutely terrible. Wayne Lapierre argued that Kasandra Perkins would have been saved if only she had her own gun! Of course, Kasandra did have access to a gun and was a recreational shooter herself. Of course this means that we should all be carrying at all times, ready for a shoot-out even in our own homes!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends. This assumes a self-defense motive for the 2nd which wasn't really law until Heller.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) But you both have made a leap of interpretation that you particularly like. That is where this case is...it's taking a particular leap of interpretation. Posner can't overrule Heller, though. I don't think he's making a leap if you start at Heller.