Brian Weidy I agree that local governments should be able to put armed guards in their school; however, I do not think it is the federal government's place to fund those endeavors. In New York City, there are dozens of schools with metal detectors and cops in and around the school. This was a decision by the city, and we incur the expense of that; however, we get that added security. In those cases, having the extra security is merited, but I do not think that towns should be required to have armed guards at their schools.
Brian Weidy If I were to be offended by your (or anyone else)'s comments, I don't think I would ever be able to go on the internet again. I appreciate the fact that there are two sides to every story, and in this case, the voice in opposition to my own is rising far above my own.
Brian Weidy Let me set the record straight here. I have taken a lot of heat on this one, some of it deserved, others maybe not so much, but here is my main point. I am anti-gun, that is my opinion. It is a part of the constitution and thus and inalienable right. I am by no means arguing that the government should take away all guns, but rather that certain features to certain guns should be banned. This is an issue that deeply divides our country, and no one, pro-gun or not, is in favor of gun violence. You are all correct when you say that without guns and without that clause in the constitution, we may still be under British rule; however, tougher standards need to be put in place so that way guns do not enter the wrong hands.
Brian Weidy I personally do not feel as if I need to have fired a gun to know that a weapon capable of firing 900 rounds per minute should be banned. Yes, 900. And if it is physically impossible, then explain this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html
Brian Weidy Context is important. If we were under British rule, then yes, guns would take on greater importance; however, the odds are that you are not part of a well regulated militia. If you are, then I apologize.
Brian Weidy What good do guns do in American society? A car can take you from A to B, a gun can only be used to hurt or kill (be it a person or an animal). While I am not saying that we (the government) should regulate everything that can cause harm to someone, I am saying that we should regulate everything that can only harm someone.
Brian Weidy You bring up an interesting point. I would need to adjust for cost of living, not just on a statewide basis, but also on a county by county basis, as living in New York City is considerably more expensive than living in an area outside of Buffalo. With that in mind, to answer your last question, if you are making $100,000, context is needed to determine whether you are being under or overpaid; however, you probably are not being underpaid if you are making six-figures.
Brian Weidy To answer your first question, you are correct, unemployment is higher in non-RTW states than RTW states before Michigan was added as a RTW state. I am not sure what the numbers look like now, but RTW states still probably have a lower unemployment rate. So you now have a more employed people; however, you also have more underpaid people as their wages are significantly lower. Let's look at Michigan for example: The national unemployment rate is 7.8%, and Michigan's is 8.9%. Let's say that Michigan incurs a -0.7% drop in their unemployment rate due to this legislation. They are still at a 8.2% unemployment rate, and their average salary per year, if staying in line with the national averages goes from $48,669 to $47,169, good for 34th.
Brian Weidy Well that is an extremely narrow minded view of this issue. If you don't think stricter gun control laws need to be put in place, then that is your opinion; however, the issue you described and the issue at hand are horses of completely different colors. And I hardly suggested we should "legislate away all possible tools that can be used to kill." I merely suggested that there is absolutely zero need for any sort of automatic weaponry to be possessed by anyone in this country. No one hunts with an Uzi, and you don't need an AR-15 to protect yourself.
Brian Weidy That could be; however, I personally do not believe Obama wants taxmaggedon to happen. Why would he? Who wants to be the pilot of a sinking ship? Sure, his plan is to eliminate the deficit, and it is no secret that his goal is to raise taxes, but to desire giant spending cuts is a bit overreaching, no? Liberals are constantly flamed for wanting to "tax and spend," but in this case, it isn't tax and spend but rather making up for lost time by increasing taxes on the highest earners, and not spending.
Brian Weidy Well, I don't have any sources; however, my gut says that there is something behind these polling numbers. While it looks like a hold here, the sheer number of visits from Biden, Clinton, and Obama within the state means that they either think this state is closer than the polls suggest or they really need these 10 electoral votes.
Brian Weidy Potentially, one must always take polling data with a grain of salt; however, I do believe Obama will take the majority of these states at a minimum: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Even with losing Florida, Ohio, NC, and VA, Obama would still win 272-266.