A Call for Consistency

[carpedm9587]

If I have an objection in this current political climate, it is the complete abandonment of consistency by both sides of the political divide. For example:

- Bernie Sanders suggests that an appointee is not fit for office because his Christian point of view that only Christians are "saved" would color his ability to do his job, and the right goes nuts.
- Roy Moore states that an elected offical should not be seated because he is Muslim.... crickets from the right

Both positions defy Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: one by a sitting Senator and the other by a superior court judge who OUGHT to know the law.

Of course, the opposite is true from the left. Sanders is defended, and Moore is condemned.

I look at it and think, "both of these men did the same thing: apply a religious test for a political office when the constitution explicitly forbids this." We are free to hold our personal beliefs as citizens, but we are NOT free to place our personal/religious beliefs ahead of the law of the country as a government official. If your religious beliefs are in contradiction with law, then either do not be a government official, or be a government official and observe the law while simultaneously trying to get the law changed. As a citizen, you are free to say, "the law of my god supercedes the law of the land" and act accordingly. In your capacity as a government official, you are not. Our country is founded (in part) on the principal religious freedom. Our constitution precludes any government-sponsored religion. In your capacity as a government official, you MUST be religiously neutral. Outside of that capacity, or as a free citizen, no such obligation exists.

One of the things we CAN do to bridge the political divide is to ask ourselves, "am I applying different rules for 'my team' than I am for others?" If the answer is yes - something is wrong...

[Terraceth]

If I have an objection in this current political climate, it is the complete abandonment of consistency by both sides of the political divide. For example:

- Bernie Sanders suggests that an appointee is not fit for office because his Christian point of view that only Christians are "saved" would color his ability to do his job, and the right goes nuts.
- Roy Moore states that an elected offical should not be seated because he is Muslim.... crickets from the right

If you are referring to Moore's comment regarding Keith Ellison, he said that back in 2006. Of course there's "crickets" right now because the thing happened 11 years ago, not to mention that I expect most people didn't even know who Roy Moore was until recently. Sanders, on the other hand, made his comment this year when he was one of the best-known Senators in the entire country. I don't see anything particularly inconsistent from conservatives, at least in this particular issue.

[Jedidiah]

I certainly agree that both sides should be treated the same. There another problem, it concerns compromise.

While it is not strictly a matter of party there are issues that are not subject to compromise. Abortion for example. Anti abortion people, like me, actually consider abortion to be legalized murder. How do you compromise on that? Gun control is a similar issue. There is a constitutional right to fire arms for all citizens. Anyone found guilty of a violent crime should loose citizenship and rights, but everyone else should be free to own guns. There is already a great deal of compromise on the side of pro gun side. Where is the compromise on the anti constitution side?

Compromise sounds like a nice thing, but it seems to be only one sided where it is applicable at all.

[Mountain Man]

I look at it and think, "both of these men did the same thing: apply a religious test for a political office..."

I assume you think all religions are on equal footing. They're not.

[carpedm9587]

If you are referring to Moore's comment regarding Keith Ellison, he said that back in 2006. Of course there's "crickets" right now because the thing happened 11 years ago, not to mention that I expect most people didn't even know who Roy Moore was until recently. Sanders, on the other hand, made his comment this year when he was one of the best-known Senators in the entire country. I don't see anything particularly inconsistent from conservatives, at least in this particular issue.

In October, Moore was interviewed by Garrette Haake and was asked if he stood by his position. He referred Haake to his 2006 article and stood by his position - so it has not changed.

But if we give the right the benefit of the doubt - do you believe Moore's position is inappropriate and inconsistent with Aritcle VI?

[Cow Poke]

In October, Moore was interviewed by Garrette Haake and was asked if he stood by his position. He referred Haake to his 2006 article and stood by his position - so it has not changed.

I haven't a clue who Garette Haake is, and know nothing about this interview. I can't comment on things I don't know exist.

[carpedm9587]

I certainly agree that both sides should be treated the same. There another problem, it concerns compromise.

Compromise is not, to me, a dirty word.

While it is not strictly a matter of party there are issues that are not subject to compromise. Abortion for example. Anti abortion people, like me, actually consider abortion to be legalized murder. How do you compromise on that?

You begin by recognizing the two sides to the discussion. I am actually one who believes human life begins when an egg is fertilized and in a womb where it can become a human being. So I abhor abortion except in the specific case where the child cannot be viable and the woman's life is in mortal jeopardy.

But I also take a moment to look at it from the other side. When abortion is outlawed, what is happening is that a woman is being told what she may or may not do with her body for the period of her pregnancy. There is a word for the domination of one person's body by another: slavery. It may be brief (9 months), but it is still the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.

Pregnancy is a unique situation in which two human lives are inextricably linked: you cannot prioritize one without compromising the other. No solution is going to be perfect. But I suspect we would make ENORMOUS gains if the two sides would work together to move to a place where abortion is simply not the preferred choice: by doing appropriate sex education, providing guidance on birth control, providing pre-natal support for pregnant mothers so they are more likely to carry to term and place a child for adoption (we adopted both our children), providing tax releif for adoptive parents to help minimize the cost. We will never get to a point of agreement on this - so why not take an approach that makes abortion as rare as possible.

But no - instead both sides entrench - the battle has waged for 50+ years, and in that time frame 51 million babies have died. How many fewer would that have been if people set aside their "my way or the highway" approach and actually worked to implement preventative measures, instead of a legal battle between "shall we kill the kids" or "shall we enslave (temporarily) the woman?"

Gun control is a similar issue. There is a constitutional right to fire arms for all citizens. Anyone found guilty of a violent crime should loose citizenship and rights, but everyone else should be free to own guns. There is already a great deal of compromise on the side of pro gun side. Where is the compromise on the anti constitution side?

I am amazed that you can even ask that question. First of all, your language clearly reveals your entrenched bias. "Anti-constitutional side?" Really? That is right out of the NRA playbook. The people I know who advocate for reasonable gun controls advocate for the following:

1) Remove military-style assualt weapons from circulation. Make them available at gun ranges and in other controlled environment, but take them out of general circulation.
2) Expand background checks to cover all venues
3) Prevent those with known psychiatric issues and on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms
4) Spend what is needed to restructure the background check process and close all of the holes.

No civil right is absolute. There are limits to freedom of speech. There are limits to ownership of firearms (e.g., we can't own a bazooka). We can have reasonable disagreements about #1, but the current status of #2 makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine that the rule for obtaining a driver's license was structured similarly: you need to get a driver's license if you buy your car from a dealership, but if you buy it online, but it from a friend, or buy it at an auto show, the license is not required. Excuse me? What on earth kind of system is that? Anyone who wants to avoid a background check is going to avoid a licensed store and find one of the other venues.

But the gun industry introduced the "slippery slope" argument and that was that. I have lived in many places. I know that a rancher in the midwest is miles away from law, and has to police their own land. Of COURSE they need appropriate firearms. I live in Vermont, which is a state so blue that smurfs come here to vacation. But we also have close to the most open gun policies in the country. But even most of our gun loving Vermonters think the current system is flawed.

And we cannot deny guns to someone on the "no fly list" becaus it might be wrong and that would deprive someone of a constitutional right? What? We have an imperfect legal system that periodically convicts the innocent, including for capital crimes. We have sent people to their deaths, only to discover afterwards that they were innocent. So we can deprive someone of life, knowing we might be wrong, but we can't deprive them of a gun? What on earth?

Compromise sounds like a nice thing, but it seems to be only one sided where it is applicable at all.

Jedidiah - there are people who would like to see all guns prohibited. There are people who would like to see any gun available to anyone. The compromise is guns available to those who pass background checks, have required safety training, and safely house their firearms in approved storage, with additional firearms available in licensed ranges for those who truly love that high-powered, multi-magazine gun. Compromise is not, "don't touch any gun" and it's not "ban all guns."

[Cow Poke]

multi-magazine gun.

Explanation, please.

[carpedm9587]

I haven't a clue who Garette Haake is, and know nothing about this interview. I can't comment on things I don't know exist.

The interview is reported in several sources. It was when Moore visited D.C. at the end of October. His comment to Haake was essentially, read my article, it'll tell you. Then he later moderated his stance, and insisted they could serve IF they swore before the Christian God that the U.S. Constitution would take precendent over Islamic law. Frankly, I agree that the U.S. Constitution takes precendent over Islamic law for an Islamic government representative. But Moore himself defied U.S. law twice, citing his religion as taking precedent over the constitution. So...consistency?

[carpedm9587]

Explanation, please.

Sorry - bad language. I meant high-load, fast-reloading, automatic weapons.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry - bad language. I meant high-load, fast-reloading, automatic weapons.

OK, I thought maybe you knew something I didn't know. You mean high capacity magazines, no? Cause the general public is already prohibited from having automatic weapons.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I thought maybe you knew something I didn't know. You mean high capacity magazines, no? Cause the general public is already prohibited from having automatic weapons.

Here's a pretty good summary of what it takes for a citizen to own a fully automatic weapon...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-fo...ifle-in-the-US

1. You need to be eligible to possess firearms in general.
2. You must live in a state where NFA items are permitted and machine guns, specifically, are legal to possess.
3. The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986. That is the cutoff date for entries to be made in the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record), the registry of all NFA items in the United States including machine guns.
4. You must locate a Class III dealer (FFL01+SOT) that sells or can transfer in the machine gun you wish to acquire in your state of residence.
5. You must purchase the machine gun upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.
6. Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.
7. The application will be submitted. Now you wait 8+ months for the full FBI background check and BATFE processing to complete.
8. Once the Form 4 is processed, it will be returned to the dealer along with the tax stamp which is part of your paperwork. You can then take possession of your military grade fully automatic firearm and take it home.
9. The tax stamp must be kept with the firearm it belongs to at all times! The tax stamp is your only affirmative defense to prove you are not in possession of an illegal machine gun. The tax stamp is proof you paid the transfer tax and legally transferred the machine gun. Ranges that allow Class III will want to see the stamp. If you get pulled over and the gun is discovered/inspected, law enforcement will definitely want to see it too. You may be required to present the firearm for inspection on demand by the BATFE.
10. You may not transport the fully automatic firearm across state lines for any purpose without prior consent of the Federal government. You must request this in advance and provide details on where the firearm is going, when you are leaving and when it will return to its registered location of residence.
11. You cannot leave the presence of your fully automatic firearm. If someone else is shooting it, you must be with it, legally speaking. The one exception to this is if you have formed a legal trust for the purpose of possessing the firearm, in which case all beneficiaries of the trust (usually family or employees) may have access to the firearm.

[carpedm9587]

Here's a pretty good summary of what it takes for a citizen to own a fully automatic weapon...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-fo...ifle-in-the-US

1. You need to be eligible to possess firearms in general.
2. You must live in a state where NFA items are permitted and machine guns, specifically, are legal to possess.
3. The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986. That is the cutoff date for entries to be made in the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record), the registry of all NFA items in the United States including machine guns.
4. You must locate a Class III dealer (FFL01+SOT) that sells or can transfer in the machine gun you wish to acquire in your state of residence.
5. You must purchase the machine gun upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.
6. Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.
7. The application will be submitted. Now you wait 8+ months for the full FBI background check and BATFE processing to complete.
8. Once the Form 4 is processed, it will be returned to the dealer along with the tax stamp which is part of your paperwork. You can then take possession of your military grade fully automatic firearm and take it home.
9. The tax stamp must be kept with the firearm it belongs to at all times! The tax stamp is your only affirmative defense to prove you are not in possession of an illegal machine gun. The tax stamp is proof you paid the transfer tax and legally transferred the machine gun. Ranges that allow Class III will want to see the stamp. If you get pulled over and the gun is discovered/inspected, law enforcement will definitely want to see it too. You may be required to present the firearm for inspection on demand by the BATFE.
10. You may not transport the fully automatic firearm across state lines for any purpose without prior consent of the Federal government. You must request this in advance and provide details on where the firearm is going, when you are leaving and when it will return to its registered location of residence.
11. You cannot leave the presence of your fully automatic firearm. If someone else is shooting it, you must be with it, legally speaking. The one exception to this is if you have formed a legal trust for the purpose of possessing the firearm, in which case all beneficiaries of the trust (usually family or employees) may have access to the firearm.

These things I knew. But the fact is that we have over 600,000 of these fully automatic weapons in the U.S. today. And then there are the various loopholes, and lack of legislation to plug them, that make it possible to turn a semi-automatic weapon into an essentially automatic one (though clearly not at the speeds of a fully automatic weapon). (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vegas-shooting).

There are two sides to every discussion. But the ongoing carnage makes no sense to me when we are surrounded by countries with better gun control and checks and a fraction of the carnage we have here in the U.S. It makes no sense to me not to work together to find a solution. Compromise IS possible, if people will simply work together and stop seeing the other side as "the enemy."

[Cow Poke]

These things I knew. But the fact is that we have over 600,000 of these fully automatic weapons in the U.S. today. And then there are the various loopholes, and lack of legislation to plug them, that make it possible to turn a semi-automatic weapon into an essentially automatic one (though clearly not at the speeds of a fully automatic weapon). (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vegas-shooting).

Meh.... that's not nearly as easy as it sounds, and if somebody is up to no good, they are not going to go through a process that brings so much scrutiny on themselves.

There are two sides to every discussion. But the ongoing carnage makes no sense to me when we are surrounded by countries with better gun control and checks and a fraction of the carnage we have here in the U.S. It makes no sense to me not to work together to find a solution. Compromise IS possible, if people will simply work together and stop seeing the other side as "the enemy."

I think there's more going on here than "too many guns" or "not enough laws". The US is unique among the world powers, and I don't really think it makes sense to say "other countries with better gun control" when those other countries have a lot of other factors different than ours. And the type of person who wants to wreak havoc on society has other options if they can't get guns.

[demi-conservative]

The moderate, wailing in wilderness, 'Why can't we all get along!?!?!??!?!?!'