Agreed... amazing, we have managed to come to some sort of consensus on the original topic of the thread, now that we've probably both posted more words on the subject then everyone else in the thread combined did



Well, loosely speaking laws tend not to be very effective when their punishments are less than the other crime you plan to commit by breaking that law. Under the circumstances, people planning to commit murderous acts don't have much to fear from a weapons violation unless we want to start making those capital crimes. I think that's more or less the justification for drug dealers getting higher sentence than drug users. Never bother with a law designed to prevent action which itself is already a more serious offense, that's my take, but I've no objection to local bans, just so long as they aren't setup to through someone to the wolves because they didn't know (and really shouldn't have to know) that the town they stopped for grub driving on their sales route has extreme penalties for concealed use and a total ban. You could probably do a work around by having something along a 3 strikes policy, but that would probably need mandatory minimum sentencing, which is a whole nother can of worms... basically I just think it's easier not to bother at all, but I'm unsurprisingly more comfortable around firearms than the public as a whole I should think.



Well, I actually don't deify him as much as has become popular among most conservatives today, though I of course like him. But just so you know, I do not happen to have an idol to ST. Reagan in my house or anything I don't think he'd have ran again, at least not without such as shift in how the country, especially the GOP, views that restriction. You would hear people support it, but that's fondness and kneejerk, don't forget, besides being in favor of term limits philosophically, most of us have a deeply ingrained hatred of FDR's behavior in office that's probably about as deep and rational as the love of Reagan, take that as you would, and their were a lot more goldwater conservatives then. Ultimnately it wouldn't happen because so many elections are so close that even 10% of your supporters objecting and maybe a quarter of indies and mods being swayed to the other side over it would ensure defeat even for him. Also, the ALzheimer's thing doesn't bother me, that comes into play slowly and we do have a functional government that can and would stop anything nutty, I imagine you remember all the political satire and music videos of that age covering this (personal favorite Genesis's 'Land of Confusion' but those werne't really very realistic, and the proof is in the pudding, everything was fine. Not that I'm espousing we elect Pres's suffering from mental degeneracy, but it's not too big a deal toward the end of the second term. I have, as I imagine many of do, some experience with relatives coming down with those types of illnesses, they take a while to have any major effect along the lines of 'Nuke everyone'.



I don't believe the government is obligated to bill me equal to the cost of services rendered either, as we have been discussing gas taxes and road tolls, I'd say those make pretty good examples. Assuming no cartels or monopolies (and as you know, I am not a laissez-faire capitalist since I don't think lack of gov't intervention even vaguely equates with the concept of free markets) the difference is that you can buy your product elsewhere if the price is cruddy, and I tend to prefer things privatized where possible. Even if we drove taxes up to 50% (and I'm talking gov't revenue as a percent of GDP) I'd still rather the gov't was merely the payer to private suppliers than the supplier itself. Unfortunetly when you only have one 'person' buying the service, you do tend to throw a wrench into a lot of the free market system.



But again I must plead ignorance. I only know of a few cases where this sort of thing goes on, besides the obvious public scandals, and they have all seemed legit or at least marginally so, I am not in a position to confirm or contradict you on this matter.

Although between our discussions and the research I've felt obliged to do bercause of it I'm probably now better informed on this than most Texans So I'm not sure how valid that excuse is at this state.





Yes, in this case I would say freely available but not mandatory, with an effort at a public awareness campaign, would be sufficient. Ironically Merck probably would not be making the profit you might expect, lots of big pharm doesn't like to touch vaccines today, they're not profitable typically, or so I'm told. This is one of those cases cited inside my own wing of politics for tort reform - not to reopen that but it is cited as a reason, take that for what you will.



Well, I can honestly say I use the inverse square laws a lot more
than I have sex, not that my younger days were by any means celibate, I just happen to use that law several dozen times a day, probably more in school. It's just built in to my thinking, but point taken. As I've said, I do not mind my kids being taught sex ed in school, as I'm likely to approach it as I was taught, although not likely exactly the same way, which was basically a note on the fridge from my mother telling me I should consider researching social stigmas around intercourse and STD 'ideally before you hit puberty, I can recommend some texts on the matter if you wish' IIRC. I believe I was 10 or 11 at the time. Ah, the childhood one can have with a distracted hippy for a mom, my sister and I regular joke about how amazing it is we're both borderline draconian thugs with a parent like that




True, but never underestimate the ability of people to get offended on someone else's behalf... although I would be seriously surprised if anyone besides you and I are still reading this posts at this stage



I want to emphasize, by the way, that I am by no means suggesting what the limits should be, just that there should be there and should be at least slightly higher, but not enormously higher, than what the public as a whole views as fair.



I don't want to imply that the right wing is all about the status quo, no more so than the left is about toppling everything, obviously there are those who go that way in a fairly serious fashion, but we're not monolithic, we just are leery of of somethings. We're not even against change, we just don't like social engineering and certain aspects of socialism that we consider to be basically unavoidable no matter the best intentions of those seeking to implement it... of course many of us do not believe they have the best intentions either.