sees_all1

Use? Or Sale? Or Possession? There are federal laws on firearms. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

It takes one idiot in the government or one hacktivist to publish the names and addresses of EVERYONE in the registry. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/26/outrage-after-new-york-paper-posts-map-of-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/ Then you put these law abiding citizens at risk by letting all the criminals out there - the one's that aren't allowed to buy guns - targets to steal from. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/weapons-stolen-from-ny-home-gun-owner-named-on-journal-news-website/ All of a sudden you've created a much bigger problem. The law abiding citizens comply, the criminals don't and you've done nothing to curb violence but you've endangered an entire class of legal citizens. I think the Federal Government would do much better to enforce the laws they have already, as well as stop arming the Mexican drug cartels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

I think we need to create a federal knife registry, ban all knives longer than 14 inches or weighing more than 7 ounces. We need to ban all knives made with ceramic blades, and those having holes in the handle for lanyards. We also need to ban pocket knives with more than 12 functions. We should also limit knife holders to 7 spaces, I can't think of anyone who needs more than 7 knives unless they have a nefarious purpose, in which case we need to jail them. This won't prevent stabbings like the recent one in Texas, but it will assuage our collective guilt and make it seem like we care. It'll also allow us to demonize our political opponents. Just remember, if we can save just one finger it'll have been worth it.

I disagree. 3 day rule. The Next Post Will describe their favorite book.

Fat Princess 2. Not sure if it'll get made, but I'm looking forward to it.

I'm going to laugh at you system builders when Intel decides to scrap their socket designs and moves to a ball grid array. Then your arguments about customization and cheap upgrades will be bunk.

Thanks TNPW do the same.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future. I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through. I think we shall see in 30-50 years who is bigoted. The same argument was made by the racists during the Civil Rights era. Yeah, but you'd think that with the number of times the words "racist," "bigot," "homophobe," and "misogynist" are thrown around, I'd have lynched a black lesbian about every other week. I don't hate people that disagree with me, and I don't think they're evil. Wrong or misguided? Maybe. I don't think it's wise to show contempt in a discussion.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future. I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through.

APRIL FOOLS would've been funny.

First two are nearly spot on. The government shouldn't be giving tax benefits to married people, or more broadly people in a civil union. Either behavior should be legal or illegal, but not "encouraged" or "discouraged." The government should recognize civil unions for other legal purposes (i.e. who can visit you in a hospital, who receives your estate by default on death, and who shouldn't have to testify against you in court) but not discriminate between traditionally defined marriage or otherwise. I'd argue marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament and celebration, and churches should be allowed to define it as they see fit.

Yes, I don't think the government should have behavioral incentives/punishments.

And in other news, Russia doesn't want its children adopted by homosexuals. http://rt.com/politics/gay-couples-report-foreign-973/

You're making my point for me.

Traditional marriage is for procreation, government's interest in marriage is children which is why government has incentives for married couples to stick together.

The government is not interested in if two people are in love or are committed, it's not a requirement to be married. The government's only interest in recognizing marriage as a legal institution is children. I'd be willing to listen to the argument about how homosexuals want to express their "total commitment" through marriage if the median length of a marriage in the U.S. wasn't 11 years. Marriage is no longer viewed by society as "til death do us part," more like, "til we can't stand each other or the next best thing comes along." Seems to me they have the opportunity to form a new institution to show heterosexuals how it's done.

Are heterosexuals so insecure that they can't contemplate redefining the common language? nope, and that isn't the arguement being made.

Racism and sexism still exists. People like to argue that you can't legislate morality, but I think it's even crazier to try to legislate respect.

I can't imagine a movement spending so much time, effort, and money on something so frivolous as the definition of a single word. Are homosexuals so insecure they need their deepest relationships validated by common language? :rolleyes:

If there were no government benefits associated with marriage, there wouldn't be an issue of "equality" and I believe there wouldn't be a debate.

Nope, and there doesn't need to be. Just because a heterosexual married couple cannot procreate at a single instance in time doesn't mean they'll be unable to procreate in the future, unlike homosexuals which by definition cannot procreate. I'm reasonably sure that a heterosexual woman who's had a bilateral oophorectomy or a hysterectomy will fall under the definition of "cannot procreate" equally as much as a homosexual couple will. Perhaps more so, even, than a lesbian couple where one spouse is bisexual. Alright, sterile people shouldn't get married because they'd be missing the point of marriage. Should the government screen for sterility? No. It's not in the government's interest nor the people's interest to have the government thoroughly and invasively examine their genitals before issuing marriage licenses. Reserving marriage for heterosexual couples doesn't require the government to screen for sterility.

Nope, and there doesn't need to be. Just because a heterosexual married couple cannot procreate at a single instance in time doesn't mean they'll be unable to procreate in the future, unlike homosexuals which by definition cannot procreate. Here's another interesting article I found. http://www.businessi...arriage-2012-11

If I quote the Family Research Counsel, you would have the exact same concerns. And I would agree the concerns would be justified.As far as emotions in politics, pretty much every public agenda is pushed through emotion. When do we have gun control debates? Only after school shootings.

Is a purely speculative argument which holds zero weight in a logical discussion. Actually, it's a very good concern to have in a logical discussion. But I wouldn't call this a logical discussion. It's more of an emotional discussion, and it has been for the past 50 years.