Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 make its debut

[JimT]

Yes, we're going to get some type of gun legislation shoved down our throats, probably another ban against "assault weapons", MSR's what ever they decide to call them. Maybe just a universal background check, almost certainly a ban against magazines holding more than 5 rounds. No one knows at this point.

As far as wages go, I guess that if you don't have any kids, you might not be concerned about the next generation earning a livable wage, or owning a home, raising a family, stuff like that.

I'm aged out of the market, but my kids are just staring out, so yes, I want them to be able to make a decent wage, and the minimum wage sets the floor for all wages. Since Republicans have never voted for a minimum wage hike, this would be an opportunity to change that record and maybe blunt the attack on the S.A.

Politics is supposed to be a give and take business. I'd like to think the days of Newt G. are long gone, but we may be about to enter the days of Nancy P.

So yea, if it were up to me, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat! It's a win/win.

I’d be all for your “compromise” as long as it included my 4 kids and their spouses to be able to opt out of paying Social Security taxes and benefits.

 

[JimT]

It seems like quite a few are falling into the trap. I don't know whether they have been "guilted" into it by the incessant progressive rhetoric, or it is simply out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter is that no responsible gun owner has any guilt whatsoever for acts committed by these idiots. None whatsoever.

So let's be very clear about a couple things. First off, minimum wage jobs have never been intended to serve as the sole source of financial support for individuals or families. At the very best they are entry-level positions, held in many cases by part-time workers. The whole argument about a "living wage" is complete BS. These jobs were never meant to support families, period. In fact, it can easily be argued that the very existence of low-paying jobs is a strong incentive to become educated and find a job that pays a better wage; therefore they are of benefit to our society as a whole and it is in our best interest not to increase the minimum wage. Further, it is absolutely clear in cases where the minimum wage has already been raised that the net effect is often elimination of a certain number of those jobs and/or loss of work hours, an effect which totally abrogates the intended purpose of a higher minimum wage. Even Comrade Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate for a $15 per hour minimum wage, was recently discovered to be paying some of his staffers far less than the amount he publicly claimed was a "basic human right". When challenged on that point, his response was to point out that he would bow to public opinion and pay some of his staffers $15 per hour, but would have to cut the hours of others and eliminate what he deemed to be "non-essential" positions. It's simple economics, folks, and it doesn't work.

The second and more important point is that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a guaranteed Constitutional right, not something that can be bartered away, either in part, or in whole. The founders' intentions on this Constitutional Amendment as outlined in numerous writings they made at the time are absolutely crystal clear, regardless of what the mainstream media will tell you. In fact, the founders deemed it necessary to reinforce the importance of the right to keep and bear arms by adding the clause, "shall not be infringed".

Shall not be infringed...let that phrase sink in for just a minute. That doesn't mean you can take a little nibble out of the 2nd Amendment here and there, it doesn't mean you can whittle away at the 2nd Amendment little by little until it's completely gone every time one of these insane shootings happens, or because you simply happen to have an anti-gun bias. It doesn't mean you can make ridiculous legislative trades or compromises, it means exactly what it says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period.

Totally agree with what you have stated. However, before we get to the infringed part we need to define what arms are permissible. I always refer back to Scalia’s opinion in Heller (link below) for guidance. Understanding what he postulates makes for much better and informed discussion.

Pay close attention to Section III.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

[Texas10]

It seems like quite a few are falling into the trap. I don't know whether they have been "guilted" into it by the incessant progressive rhetoric, or it is simply out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter is that no responsible gun owner has any guilt whatsoever for acts committed by these idiots. None whatsoever.

So let's be very clear about a couple things. First off, minimum wage jobs have never been intended to serve as the sole source of financial support for individuals or families. At the very best they are entry-level positions, held in many cases by part-time workers. The whole argument about a "living wage" is complete BS. These jobs were never meant to support families, period. In fact, it can easily be argued that the very existence of low-paying jobs is a strong incentive to become educated and find a job that pays a better wage; therefore they are of benefit to our society as a whole and it is in our best interest not to increase the minimum wage. Further, it is absolutely clear in cases where the minimum wage has already been raised that the net effect is often elimination of a certain number of those jobs and/or loss of work hours, an effect which totally abrogates the intended purpose of a higher minimum wage. Even Comrade Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate for a $15 per hour minimum wage, was recently discovered to be paying some of his staffers far less than the amount he publicly claimed was a "basic human right". When challenged on that point, his response was to point out that he would bow to public opinion and pay some of his staffers $15 per hour, but would have to cut the hours of others and eliminate what he deemed to be "non-essential" positions. It's simple economics, folks, and it doesn't work.

The second and more important point is that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a guaranteed Constitutional right, not something that can be bartered away, either in part, or in whole. The founders' intentions on this Constitutional Amendment as outlined in numerous writings they made at the time are absolutely crystal clear, regardless of what the mainstream media will tell you. In fact, the founders deemed it necessary to reinforce the importance of the right to keep and bear arms by adding the clause, "shall not be infringed".

Shall not be infringed...let that phrase sink in for just a minute. That doesn't mean you can take a little nibble out of the 2nd Amendment here and there, it doesn't mean you can whittle away at the 2nd Amendment little by little until it's completely gone every time one of these insane shootings happens, or because you simply happen to have an anti-gun bias. It doesn't mean you can make ridiculous legislative trades or compromises, it means exactly what it says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period.

You are precisely correct about so many falling into the trap. What you may not have read in my post, or failed to grasp is that the minimum wage SETS THE FLOOR ON WAGES.

Perhaps you can explain why anyone would deny the working class a livable wage. The Federal minimum wage of 1970 was $1.75, which inflated to today is about $17.00. For a comparison, McDonalds sold a big Mac, fries and a shake for 99 cents in 1970. Look at what it costs today, and then figure out how much it would cost if their employees were paid an inflation adjusted wage. Now maybe you can see who took the hit in pay.

Contrary to what you write, back then you could actually live on the minimum wage. I did it without any outside financial help as a college kid, drove a car with insurance, and fed myself living in a brand new one bedroom apartment costing $140 per month. This is simply not possible today.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Your reply is non-sensical. While I was growing up in that same time period, no one ever considered a minimum wage job flipping burgers to be something you could actually live well on, let alone support a family. In fact, I knew a few people that tried it for a while out of high school until they wised up and got a higher education. Their lives were miserable, living hand-to-mouth on the ragged edge of financial disaster, with virtually nothing left over for entertainment purposes, investment for retirement, or anything else. According to inflation-based calculators, one dollar in 1970 would be the economic equivalent of only about $6.60 in 2019. Sorry, your argument simply doesn't hold water.

There will always be a certain number of jobs that typically fall into the "minimum wage" category, and they have never been meant to comfortably support an individual or family, even though there will always be those that try to do it. Artificially subsidizing an increase in minimum wage over that which the market will support is yet another economic blunder that progressive politicians are trying to force on the American taxpayers. It might sound good to someone that holds a minimum wage position, but over the long run it will hurt those folks more than help them, as their hours, if not the jobs themselves, will be made to "go away" by the entities forced to pay the higher wages.

 

[Rustytigwire]

Mental illness is not my expertise. Certain individuals have a legal guardian and are closely monitored, medication administered, cared for. Under these conditions they seem to be a reasonable and normal person.
Without the medication fear and paranoa set in and the person withdraws. Court and medical documentation of the individuals condition are sealed from public view to protect the individuals privacy. I support this for many reasons.
Does firearm background check include access this private information??
Surely the laws vary by state.
This may be one area where improvement can be made.

 

[hpshooter]

"Does firearm background check include access this private information??
Surely the laws vary by state."

It is my understanding that Federal health information privacy laws prohibit sharing this info with the data base used for background checks. Unless that changes mental health problems would not show up on background checks. The real desire of antis is to produce a national registration list thru "universal" background checks.

Still remember Metzenbaum and others in 1968 stating "this is all we will ever ask for" upon passage of the 1968 gun control bill and introduction of our favorite federal form, the 4473.