[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-July-03, 12:30, said:

Blackshoe may justifiably feel the need to own a gun to protect himself, but when too many people do that we end up with more accidents than protection.

I suppose I might, but I don't - at least, not yet. If I did, I'd have a gun (or two, or three) here. I owned a pistol when I was in California, because I enjoyed shooting it (at targets). I enjoyed shooting my father's hunting rifle from time to time. Interesting story, that. It was a custom built job by one of his patients, who was a gunsmith. Built on an 8mm Mauser action. Beautiful weapon. Dad (who gave up hunting when he became a doctor) always said he was going to give the rifle to me one day — but then I joined the Navy, was never around, and didn't hunt myself. So he gave it to my brother in law, who did hunt occasionally. That didn't stop him, though, from selling the rifle when he needed money. I was a bit annoyed, particularly because he didn't offer me the chance to buy it first. As for the pistol, I gave it up when I moved to New York, because NYS law made it entirely too much of a PITA to keep it - plus the fact that it might very well have "disappeared" from the Sherrif's office while I was waiting for my permit - for which I was not allowed to apply until I'd lived here a year.

No, my objection to the "gun control" types is twofold: first, IMO it's not about the guns, it's about the control, and we have enough government control in our lives already, and second, I just don't get why the "gun control" types don't understand that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. Or maybe they do understand, and just don't care.

Ben Franklin said it well: "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". I would add "and in the end, they will have neither".

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 13:34, said:

... don't understand that "well-regulated" means exactly what it says. Or maybe they do understand, and just don't care.

Fixed it for you.

Seriously, that sort of demagoguery may make you feel good and righteous, but it doesn't convince anyone; mostly it communicates that you aren't interested in any views but your own. Which is your right, but why shout it?

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-July-03, 15:58, said:

Fixed it for you.

Seriously, that sort of demagoguery may make you feel good and righteous, but it doesn't convince anyone; mostly it communicates that you aren't interested in any views but your own. Which is your right, but why shout it?

Your prejudices are your business, just as mine are mine, so keep your paws off my posts. And what makes you think you have any idea how I feel? As for demagoguery, call it whatever you like. I've always been willing to discuss the Second Amendment with folks who are willing to actually discuss it, but I don't see many of those here. I certainly don't see you as one such.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 19:42, said:

Your prejudices are your business, just as mine are mine, so keep your paws off my posts. And what makes you think you have any idea how I feel? As for demagoguery, call it whatever you like. I've always been willing to discuss the Second Amendment with folks who are willing to actually discuss it, but I don't see many of those here. I certainly don't see you as one such.

Your post effectively says that "willing to actually discuss it" means "willing to grant my assumptions from the start". I don't engage in discussions on that basis.

[cherdano]

GreenMan, on 2013-July-04, 21:14, said:

Your post effectively says that "willing to actually discuss it" means "willing to grant my assumptions from the start". I don't engage in discussions on that basis.

You misunderstand. Blackshoe is perfectly willing to discuss "gun control" (as long as the discussion is about "gun", not about "control").

[barmar]

Sheesh, I seem to be having really bad luck with this thread. First I sent it off on a tangent about racism, and now it looks like it's going to become really political about gun control. Is it really necessary to turn every analogy into a discussion about that off-topic subject?

I'm putting my moderator hat on: if this thread turns into a flamewar about gun control, I'll lock it. We already have other threads specifically on that subject, let's keep the discussion there (so I can ignore it).

[FM75]

As if the IRS did not have its hands full with the scandal, and the automatic budget reduction, now they have to figure out what to do about homosexual unions with respect to 2012 and 2013, since they now are qualified as married under the regulations. They may be faced with amended claims looking for refunds as well as faced with potentially collecting the "marriage tax" and penalties and interest.

Normally they are guided by the wording of bills passed by Congress - but here they likely will get little help.


Not sure how this relates to racism or gun control though.

[GreenMan]

Well, it was a flame war about HOW to discuss gun control, but that's not a saving grace here.

Back to the meta-topic of where to direct special scrutiny:

barmar, on 2013-July-03, 12:30, said:

I was thinking a little more about this while I was at lunch. In all these situations, what we have is a case where individual actions may be reasonable, but in the aggregate you end up with bad results. So I may be justified in be more on guard if I see a black man in a mostly white neighborhood ...

I'm going back to Bayes here. "Black people must not be trusted as whites are" is, in Bayesian terms, your prior belief; it's the basic message most Americans are socialized with. After considering the evidence on the subject you arrive at your posterior. Ideally, the posterior position is to judge people by their actions over their color.

BUT: that particular prior is EXTREMELY strong, and human nature being what it is, most people never move off of it at all, regardless of the evidence they encounter. And some of those people end up on police forces or in the TSA. Hence the problem.

[awm]

The difference between the racial profiling example and the IRS has to do with the degree of causality in the link. There may be some correlation between race and crime, but race is not a choice and there is no causal link in either direction between race and crime.

On the other hand, naming your group after a political movement ("tea party" or "progressive") is definitely a choice and there is a causal link between intending your group to be active politically (which the IRS is supposed to police for these tax-exempt orgs) and the name.

It's like the difference between police stopping and questioning black people walking through a public park (not legit) versus stopping and questioning people carrying a semi-automatic rifle through the same park (very legit).

But I guess the latter infringes on my right to bear arms (whatever, wherever, and for any reason) whereas the former in no way infringes my right to be free of unreasonable search (since I'm a white guy).

[mike777]

I think awm hit a really hot button..

there is no casual link between ...I better stop.

fwiw stop and frisk....people forget stop and question is step two....or so I understand.

you cannot frisk without step one or two.

in any case in NYC it seems less white more black, brown, etc.....

My bet is in my old Chicago area of roseland/Pullman.,.,....more black .less white...

I was not stopped and I was walking around weird.....alleys..etc.....my old area

[ArtK78]

FM75, on 2013-July-05, 18:11, said:

As if the IRS did not have its hands full with the scandal, and the automatic budget reduction, now they have to figure out what to do about homosexual unions with respect to 2012 and 2013, since they now are qualified as married under the regulations. They may be faced with amended claims looking for refunds as well as faced with potentially collecting the "marriage tax" and penalties and interest.

Not really.

Until DOMA was declared invalid, it was a valid federal law. Therefore, even if a same-sex couple was married under local law, the couple could not file a joint federal income tax return. Now they can. But the ruling is not retroactive.

The only one who gains retroactive relief is the plaintiff in Windsor v. U.S. She is allowed to gain the benefit from the marital deduction under the federal estate tax since she prevailed in her refund suit in the estate tax case.

[GreenMan]

The main burden may be on the tax filers. I've been hearing that same-sex couples who live in states that don't recognize their marriage will have to file federal returns as married and state returns as single, and since state forms generally just use the federal AGI as a starting point they'll have to calculate their federal taxes both ways.

But I don't know if it was the other way around for these couples who lived in states that *did* recognize their unions. Maybe the problem just moved from one set of states to another. Anyone have some insight here?

[awm]

GreenMan, on 2013-July-06, 10:55, said:

The main burden may be on the tax filers. I've been hearing that same-sex couples who live in states that don't recognize their marriage will have to file federal returns as married and state returns as single, and since state forms generally just use the federal AGI as a starting point they'll have to calculate their federal taxes both ways.

But I don't know if it was the other way around for these couples who lived in states that *did* recognize their unions. Maybe the problem just moved from one set of states to another. Anyone have some insight here?

One of my wife's friends had this status in California (same-sex marriage in CA law from before prop 8 passed, but unmarried in federal law because of DOMA). She and her wife had to file as single for federal taxes and married for state taxes, which was very complicated. Fortunately she won't have this problem any more!

[PassedOut]

awm, on 2013-July-06, 11:48, said:

One of my wife's friends had this status in California (same-sex marriage in CA law from before prop 8 passed, but unmarried in federal law because of DOMA). She and her wife had to file as single for federal taxes and married for state taxes, which was very complicated. Fortunately she won't have this problem any more!

One of my nieces lives in Iowa and had the same situation, now resolved.

[ArtK78]

You have to have a valid marriage under state law to file a joint return for federal income tax purposes.

If the state that you reside in does not recognize same-sex marriages, then a same-sex couple is not married for federal purposes.

However, and this is a question that is not resolved, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages moves to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, the issue of whether that couple loses its status as married for federal purposes is not known at present.

[GreenMan]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-06, 18:21, said:

You have to have a valid marriage under state law to file a joint return for federal income tax purposes.

If the state that you reside in does not recognize same-sex marriages, then a same-sex couple is not married for federal purposes.

However, and this is a question that is not resolved, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages moves to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, the issue of whether that couple loses its status as married for federal purposes is not known at present.

According to the LAT, some federal agencies use the "place of celebration" -- where you got married -- and others use your current residence. Federal employees and their families get full benefits regardless of where they live. The president could resolve most of the confusion by ordering the agencies to go one way or the other, and he's expressed sympathy for the "celebration" camp.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-06, 18:21, said:

However, and this is a question that is not resolved, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages moves to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, the issue of whether that couple loses its status as married for federal purposes is not known at present.

There's been a recent thread on misc.taxes.moderated wondering about this situation. It seems to hinge on the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 1 said:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-06, 10:27, said:

Until DOMA was declared invalid, it was a valid federal law. Therefore, even if a same-sex couple was married under local law, the couple could not file a joint federal income tax return. Now they can. But the ruling is not retroactive.

Hmm, last week someone being interviewed on NPR indicated that it was, and people could amend their returns from the past couple of years.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure exactly what the ruling said, but it seems to me if a law is ruled unConstitutional, then it should never have applied in the first place, and the right to submit corrected tax returns should go back to whichever of the law or the same sex marriage (or whatever) came last.

[kenberg]

Yes, so it seems to me also. The Law is, perhaps, based on logic. But very peculiar logic. There was a piece in the Post today about gay divorce. The (hypothetical but probably there are or will be real examples) example that they gave is of a smae sex couple, married in New York, living in Pennsylvania, not getting along and deciding to divorce. Pennsylvania does not recognize their marriage, so they could not divorce there. New York has no residency requirements for marriage, but for divorce there is a one year residency requirement. Uh huh.Logical. And nuts.

I suppose that this will all get sorted out sometime.