Gun control debate (merged)

#1,828
#1,828
ClearwaterVol said:
My clients like me. I got no problem except from the ignorant know nothing crowd. Lawyers are a tool. If you know how to use them they can make you money.
Click to expand...
There was a reason that the State of Franklin chose to prohibit lawyers and preachers from running for their state legislature over 200 years ago.
 
#1,830
#1,830
ClearwaterVol said:
Lawyers are a tool.
Click to expand...

obama-thumbsx-large.jpg


Why yes, they are tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,831
#1,831
1972 Grad said:
There was a reason that the State of Franklin chose to prohibit lawyers and preachers from running for their state legislature over 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

It would seem a good idea, but i can spot laws that were written without enough input from attorneys. They are usually poorly drafted and subject to multiple interpretations.
 
#1,835
#1,835
ClearwaterVol said:
It would seem a good idea, but i can spot laws that were written without enough input from attorneys. They are usually poorly drafted and subject to multiple interpretations.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

By the Numbers: the jobs of the First Congress vs. the 112th Congress

112th Congress (2011–2012)
539 total members*
435 representatives
100 senators
6 non-voting members

209 businessmen and women
208 public servants
200 lawyers
81 educators
34 agricultural professionals (including two almond orchard owners)
32 medical professionals (including doctors, veterinarians, ophthalmologists, dentists, a psychiatrist, psychologists, an optometrist, and nurses)
17 journalists
9 accountants
9 scientists
9 social workers
9 military reserves
7 law enforcement officers (including FBI and Border Patrol)
5 ministers
4 pilots
4 Peace Corps volunteers
2 professional football players
2 screenwriters
1 firefighter
1 astronaut
1 documentary filmmaker
1 comedian
Click to expand...

Info is a little dated, but as you can see, 200 lawyers make up a good bulk of Congress. Along with "public servants" which is a nice way of saying "been in politics practically my whole life."

You were saying something about poorly crafted laws?
 
#1,836
#1,836
tumscalcium said:
And up to interpretation 200+ years later..............


Also, which law did they study?

Curiosity.
Click to expand...

Are you calling them poorly drafted? They will always have different interpretations because times change, but I'm speaking about laws that are written and interact with other laws in manner that creates mass confusion.

They probably studied primarily English law and then whatever opinions were published here.
 
#1,837
#1,837
ClearwaterVol said:
Are you calling them poorly drafted? They will always have different interpretations because times change, but I'm speaking about laws that are written and interact with other laws in manner that creates mass confusion.

They probably studied primarily English law and then whatever opinions were published here.
Click to expand...

Easy cowboy. I was referring to your last two words in that post.
 
#1,838
#1,838
Grand Vol said:
Well, honestly I really didn't care if you replied, but you did, so I suppose I'll need to retort...



As they also did during Heller as the Second Amendment could have "reasonable" restrictions placed on it. Yet found the DC handgun ban as well as the McDonald decision. It specifically stated an entire class of weapons could not be banned. And applied the individual right to own firearms across the board with McDonald.

Now, if the Founding Fathers were so concerned with a collective right of the militia to be armed, why is it the other Amendments specifically have the same verbiage as the Second? "The right of the people." if it was their intent to only have militia armed, why in fact did they even include the term "right of the people" when they framed it?

You should give your law degree back.



lol at you using Mother Jones as well as a known anti-gunner as a source. Just straight lolololol

But I'll address what he said to say this. His definition of the 2A is in direct contravention to the SCOTUS. Just like LG likes to say "they got it wrong" well, until you or he sit on the SCOTUS and get to decide such things, the interpretation is how the government will have to abide by.

And you ignored the original question asked. Where does it say the Right restricts how much I can own?



You ignored the other definition:

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Don't leave things out of your answers, it won't help since I'm not a simpleton that won't back check your answers.



Perhaps I wasn't clear on my original question. First off, the concept and definition of "mass shooting" tends to skew the data significantly as it's any time three or more are involved. Which also includes a lot of gang activity that involves three or more. With the exception of notable incidents such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc, most "mass shootings" never make the news. And I'd dare say in a great many of those cases the weapons are illegal and/or the people could not have obtained them. Even pointing to San Bernandino as they did (Mother Jones at it again) said the firearms were purchased legally, but that's a stretch. Those firearms were purchased out of state by a completely different person and did NOT have the require "California Compliance" items on them. And neither of the two purchased them with a background check. Same goes for Sandy Hook as that little turd murdered his mother, stole the firearms and did that hateful deed. You're talking third hand ownership here and what could potentially be a straw purchase.

So that 80% is a lie. And more to the point, how often do gun nuts, those that collect and keep firearms, go on rampages in public?

So sad you replied. You should have let sleeping dogs lie.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,841
#1,841
Grand Vol said:
Interesting...

By the Numbers: the jobs of the First Congress vs. the 112th Congress



Info is a little dated, but as you can see, 200 lawyers make up a good bulk of Congress. Along with "public servants" which is a nice way of saying "been in politics practically my whole life."

You were saying something about poorly crafted laws?
Click to expand...

Less than half, but what i was referring to was some state laws. Federal laws pass through too many hands. They really should only allow one purpose for each law. Deals would still happen, but at least each law would be judged on its own merits.
 
#1,842
#1,842
Let's see here. In the U.S. there is approximately one lawyer for every 300 people........actually 0.36% (1/3 of 1 percent) of the population. In the Senate and House, lawyers make up 36%. So lawyers appear to be a tad over-represented . If they had 0.36% of the Congress, there would be 2 of them, not 200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,843
#1,843
1972 Grad said:
Let's see here. In the U.S. there is approximately one lawyer for every 300 people........actually 0.36% (1/3 of 1 percent) of the population. In the Senate and House, lawyers make up 36%. So lawyers appear to be a tad over-represented . If they had 0.36% of the Congress, there would be 2 of them, not 200.
Click to expand...

It's a surprise that lawyers gravitate towards politics with opportunities to influence the law? Restaurant workers make up 8% of the population would you like the taco bell late night drive thru guy to represent your district?
 
#1,844
#1,844
ClearwaterVol said:
It's a surprise that lawyers gravitate towards politics with opportunities to influence the law? Restaurant workers make up 8% of the population would you like the taco bell late night drive thru guy to represent your district?
Click to expand...

Probably would do less damage than an ambulance chaser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,845
#1,845
ClearwaterVol said:
It's a surprise that lawyers gravitate towards politics with opportunities to influence the law? Restaurant workers make up 8% of the population would you like the taco bell late night drive thru guy to represent your district?
Click to expand...
He might understand that he can't spend more than he takes in forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,846
#1,846
ClearwaterVol said:
It's a surprise that lawyers gravitate towards politics with opportunities to influence the law? Restaurant workers make up 8% of the population would you like the taco bell late night drive thru guy to represent your district?
Click to expand...

Do you think the late night Taco Bell drive through guy would write so many laws and put riders unrelated to the main bill?
 
#1,850
#1,850
ClearwaterVol said:
How is public servant defined?
Click to expand...

It's not. However, with the remainder of the list being pretty detailed in profession, I'd hazard a guess as it's someone who's been in government service in some form or fashion. The list would be pretty long if it listed "Congressional Aide" or "County Commissioner" so on and so forth for each "public servant" on the list. So the catchall being public servant.

You'll likely argue against my reasoning here, but I don't believe you could come up with a better explanation since it already lists LEO, military and firefighters as separate jobs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top