Still not equivalent... states require persons to minimally have insurance to cover the other guy if you are at fault... you do not have to have insurance to cover repairs to your own vehicle... as you are now with health insurance for your own body.
If we had national driver licence rules and national standards, it would be easier to put something in place like a middle licence, such as a "part time taxi" licence that was somewhere in-between a full one and a private driver.
But with 50 states to work with, it is very hard to get that sort of thing done.
So lets repeal the Constitution and implement a new one with a national (vs federal) governmental system.
Oh right... we rather have that today and not quite through legal means...
All that safety technology is starting to make a difference. People crap and required airbags and antilock brakes, but they do save lives.
Required auto emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, blind zone alert, electronic stability control, traction control, and the like will reduce it even further.
Compared to similar vehicles without... yes... compared to the generation of ultra small vehicles we see more and more of on the road? God no. Physics doesn't care what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle, it does care when you start replacing stronger materials for lighter alternatives and reducing overall size.
As a 6'5" individual, I will never drive many of the new small/economy cars today, not just because I value my life, but also because I also value my knees & head in case of a collapse of ANY of the passenger compartment in a collision.
You know Prop 8 passed, right?
At the state level yes... but was overturned later... what's your point?
Plunging thousands of gay and lesbian couples who had already married into years of legal limbo?
If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that same sex couples who were already married prior to Prop 8 being passed were grandfathered in... so there was no legal limbo, they were married before it passed and married after it passed.
Based on your inability to conduct basic research (while accusing someone else of the same), I shall unfortunately refrain from responding to anymore of your post as it clearly involves similarly misinformed facts.
Because presumably gays do not choose to be gay. Gun owners choose to be gun owners.
Apples & oranges... unless you are citing specific legislation which criminalizes being gay (let alone marrying someone with the same genitalia)... which is not the issue at hand, instead it is the acting upon ones desires... be it for same (or opposite) genitalia... or to lawfully own & use a firearm.
Irrelevant. All of it.
Once again trying to shut down debate, well played!
If anything... same-sex marriage is equivalent to concealed weapons laws.
Assuming we lump 'being' gay, straight or a firearm interested person/enthusiast into a given tier... and put exercising ones non-criminal desires in limited way (fooling around, buying/shooting a firearm)on a higher tier... the final tier is official state sanctioning and recognition of a given activity via a 'license' or 'permit'.
The issue with SSM has long been not just about recognition in a given state, but ubiquitous recognition across all states (though not that full faith & credit applies as it is well misunderstood( unless you want to claim that a search warrant (for instance) which is issued in one state court is valid in another state)... so too has been a battle for CPL carriers not to have to deal with overlapping jurisdictions as to in which locals they are legal and which they are acting unlawfully... vs simply being 'unrecognized' in the case of SSM in a non accepting state.
No it isn't. Gun laws impact all people in the country equally.
Seriously, you like to lie and deceive, don't you?
Aside from the fact that from the start, gun laws only affect purchasers or owners of guns (already a subset of the US population)... gun laws have this odd tendency of singling out firearms based on looks, how they are configured, where they are carried, let alone by who... so you are right in a way, gun laws are more strict!
Prop 8 and similar laws impose an explicit and unjustified inequality on the execution of marriage laws.
Only if you view it through rose colored glasses with ample blinders attached.
Like it or not, 'marriage' in the US has been long understood to be between a 'man' and a 'woman' for quite some time (right or wrong). That 'right' existed, regardless of what sort of genitalia one had or what sort of genitalia one preferred... even one wasn't interested in exercising their 'right'.
Some people opted not to get married because they chose to go into the priesthood/nunhood, or preferred the single life, or just couldn't woo someone they desired, or any number of other reasons... all largely by choice.
The fight against Prop 8 was not about fighting those who sought to 'limit' 'rights', but expanding them to a direction not previously widely recognized in the state.
I'm not going to get into the polygamy, incest, juvenile or bestiality arguments regarding marriage other than to say that the anti-prop 8 folks sought to move a line a little ways in a given direction and no further... purposely excluding those may think the 'right' to marriage should be extended to their desires as well.
Well... I'll add one... do you support laws which prohibit me from having a line marriage? Discrimination!!!
Reprehensible? Like what? Most of what I've seen in terms of gun legislation is idiotic and poorly thought out, but hardly "reprehensible" on the level of Prop 8.
Again we see your reading comprehension/attention span issue at work.
How many states do you know of which require a license to engage in 'opposite-sex sex'? What about those that require 'gay' registration?
I don't even have to take off my socks to get to that #... as the answer is ZERO... yet in 9 states + DC (based on last look at Wikipedia) you are required to have a license of some kind to simply to purchase certain basic firearms... while a slightly different set of 9 states + DC (based on last look at Wikipedia) require some form of registration... and that in addition to the federal tax/registration requirements with regards to NFA items.
Spot the difference yet?
We are already seeing this in Connecticut (a state I have no specific interest nor have never set foot within) with regards to so called 'assault weapons' which by statute were required to be registered with the state a lil while back.
Have they (or any other state) similarly required that those interested in the same sex similarly register?
Even less of it has been implemented, compared to Prop 8 style laws and DOMA.
So are you suggesting that 'married' couples who happen to have the same genitalia are prohibited by (another) state law from entering certain bars and restaurants or any other locations? No? Gun laws can apply to gun owners in those places.
DOMA though remains a canard... if you seek to push the idea that a "_____ license" that is granted in one state is valid in the other 49 + DC... why not law licenses? Hunting license? Medical license? Professional Engineer Licenses? The list goes on quite far. What do your want to allow in or out?
It's neither arbitrary or ill defined.
If you can craft specific legislation that does not create an undue burden on law abiding owners and can actually be shown to be effective at preventing gun violence... I'd be open to hearing of it, alas so far virtually proposals we see are simply knee-jerk feel good moves which do nothing to increase safety or reduce 'gun violence.'
Wanting to reduce gun deaths by making guns illegal or very difficult to obtain is a perfectly rational response.
Then do so in a rational way. Don't target guns because of how they look or their shape or their size... target them outright... repeal the Second Amendment... because without doing so, four words at the end will continually get in way "shall not be infringed."
Less guns = less gun violence.
What a simplistic view... there are 300 million some privately owned firearms in this country... the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of which are used safely and lawfully... rather than blaming a piece of metal & plastic... target those who use them irresponsibly?
Should we ban alcohol because some people can't hold their liquor and may drive drunk?
Should we ban cars because some people can't be arsed to pay attention to the road?
Should be ban cell phones because some may not be able to walk down the road and stay out of traffic?
Should we ban marriage because some people happen to cheat and/or get divorced?
You know... if we banned humans (and exterminated them)... we wouldn't have to worry about any of these things anymore as no one could possibly commit a crime after the total extinction of the race.
Most of us act in a responsible way, why are you so focused on the wrong group?
A gun owner does so optionally.
And that differs from same-sex marriage... how?
I'll tell you a little secret... not all heterosexuals want to get married... nor do all marry... ditto for homosexuals.
While being straight or gay may not be a choice... marrying is... ditto for firearm ownership... or are you implying that cracking down on one ok... but not permitting the other the other a denial of a right?
Because he made no argument. He just spouted off "gun owners" as if it was in any way equivalent.
Clearly you've an reading comprehension issue or lack a sufficient attention span, if you read the thread, you'd see he was responding to someone who asked:
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
'Gun owners' is a answer to that question... you know, the fact that Democrats support 'reprehensible' legislation that places certain segments of society (gun owners) beneath others (non gun owners) for arbitrarily and ill defined reasons... it's been in the papers for quite some time.
Now if you wish to disagree with his view, you are free to do so and maybe craft a counter argument, but instead you do so in a rather dismissive and condescending way.
Well sure - you reap what you sow, after all. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
Wow, someone has admitted that there is intolerance afoot in the response to Eich... now the big question... when will that intolerance be met with comparable intolerance?
No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it,
Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?
Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.
So yes, that makes you a bigot.
I wonder what else you and Mr Eich have in common?
Intolerance of what, exactly? A bad argument? Am I supposed to simply accept your argument without question, and any attempt to rebuttal it is simply "intolerance?"
By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it... so yes, you are acting in a rather intolerant way.
Really? You're going to try and argue that people are being bigots because *blah blah blah*
You can attempt to justify their reasons all you want, that does not change the fact that they acted in a mob fashion to punish someone for a view that they found reprehensible... which is actually a step beyond bigotry.
they're opposed to the appointment as CEO of a man who is known to have supported politicians and campaigns centered around denying equal rights being made CEO of an organization whose philosophies are antithetical to such a stance?
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
Is not Bill Clinton equally unworthy of any praise as he was the one who signed DOMA in the first place?
Do you really want to go down that road?
You're not presenting a convincing argument here.
I'm sorry you aren't open to a discussion then.
The appointment of Eich to CEO was hypocrisy, as it put someone known to support intolerant views in charge of an organization defined by its tolerance and acceptance.
If anything... his appointment was an act of tolerance as it showed that even they could handle someone with a differing view running it... so long as he didn't run the company based on his differing views.
It could also be argued that Eich was a hypocrite for accepting the position,
Come back with an argument, not a "could be argued" weasiliness.
there's no way he could claim ignorance of how opposite his beliefs and those of Mozilla as an organization are.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...? Yup... nothing like that is happening from the left today or in past.
Condescending and insulting. A masterful attempt at shutting down debate.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
Don't talk to be about trying to shut down debate when you try to engage in the exact same kind of rhetoric you accuse me of.
Actually, it's quite sad that you are rejecting his rather correct response.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
Today it is primarily politicians who are aligned with the Democrat party who from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.
What exactly is your issue with that?
That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly."
Up until rather recently, it was not lawful for such couples to do so at the federal level... and while I cannot say if they would be charged with 'tax evasion' (a specific crime), or if their return would just be rejected or 'corrected' by the IRS.
Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital.
And where there is such a risk... one should prepare, not only by having a specific PoA, but a lawyer on speed dial.
Nothing stops a hospital from kicking a husband out of a room where his wife lies ill... knowing that is always a risk, I've taken steps to ensure my time away would be minimal.
Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.
I wonder how many times you were as a child dropped on your head... as it's the only explanation for some of your rantings... as a properly crafted PoA would handle such a thing... or do you want to make up some more unsupported (by you) potential circumstances?
Also, regarding intolerance, since "you guys" never seem to understand this:
Which guys? Don't try to lump me into groups and assume that their views are my own... by doing so once again you demonstrate your own baseless intolerance.
Still the republicans. Sorry. Your subjective complaints about minor consequences of a particular piece of legislation do not stand up to the kinda shit republicans do, and I'll go so as far as to say that if you think that's injustice, you haven't seen even the tiniest scraps of the real world.
Says you... I could go down the list, but why bother to waste so much time with a person whose views are clearly so intolerant of the other?
This case is a good demonstration as to why anonymous contributions should be allowed.
Nyeh! Then we'll have billionaires making massive donations unknown & unchecked! Nyeh!
While I agree that there is a benefit of allowing anonymous contributions... largely to try to prevent the sort of chilling effects we see here where there is now a risk that a previous donation could come back and haunt you later... the question remains, especially after this weeks SCOTUS ruling...if we are going to allow contributions large or small to an issue or candidate... how do we minimize the likelihood of abuse from those with the means to abuse it (Soros vs Koch), while protecting privacy... if either are deemed important in such a case.