|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2015 01:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2015 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules. You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance? lol The rule you put last (it's always first) basically has 'training' written into it in any extended explanation. The point of training is to make it a habit. Meaning one does it without having to think about it. Saying "training yourself in the safety rules doesn't make a difference" would be as ignorant as saying that training to block a jab doesn't make a difference. You're too smart to be this ignorant about gun safety. On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better. How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later). It's not just NYC, it's the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..." I'm not touching the other stuff, as it's way too out there to explain all the parts you are getting wrong. But I thought I edited the other post (before your post) to show I recognized I misread the wiki. I didn't though so I'll say here it's not just NY there are at least 13 states with sketchy laws. Some are worse than others but I don't have a problem calling them what they are. The politicization of gun safety has gotten people so wacked, we can't even see the stupidity of fighting sane laws... A picture from an open carry protest inside the state capitol building in Washington. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5c0VUtv.jpg) Not sure what's so bad about that open carry protest. They aren't aiming their guns at anyone or gunning people down. They all even have good trigger discipline.
You don't think something like that is inviting disaster?
Imagine a Radical Muslim group of open carry advocates walking into the state building armed with AK 47's. Or imagine one of the open carry groups isn't actually an open carry group, but a militia ready to strike at "corrupt politicians" or whoever.
Any idea how stupid we would look to the world if some group that wanted to cause harm was completely allowed to walk right into a capital building with the guns they killed a bunch of innocent people with once they entered the building?
On March 22 2015 03:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 22:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear. People are stupid. The fact that you think that some things are "common sense" means that everyone is going to know them and follow them shows us you are either 1) willfully ignorant or 2) hopelessly sheltered from the real world. People are really that stupid. Combine that with the fact that, at least in this country, owning a gun is a right (and therefore you can't completely prohibit someone from owning one just because they're stupid, but only if they pose a clear danger to others), then it makes sense that people should have to go through gun safety courses. Seriously, it fucking blows my mind that you're actually trying to argue that the average person is smart enough to follow gun safety rules without being educated on them. Just Google or Youtube ANYTHING and you'll find limitless testimonials to the incredible lack of intelligence in our species. Fuck man, people still drink/text/put on makeup/change clothes while driving, which is one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in everyday life, and yet you think that the average person is smart enough to properly handle a gun without education? People are even required to go through education to drive and they still do stupid shit! And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies. i dont need to google or youtube anything, i can just read your post. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help.
You are so obviously wrong on this it hurts.
You must constantly stress safety when handling firearms, especially to children and non-shooters. Beginners, in particular, must be closely supervised when handling firearms with which they may not be acquainted.
Source
I mean every organization that deals with firearms does safety training and such. But let's go with daPhreak's "nah, i think it's dumb so it is"
Give me a break... So unbelievably ignorant.
|
Canada11607 Posts
There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham.
The fundamental problem in creating a system designed to weed out voters lacking in quality is who decides? Because once you have a system that excludes certain voters, then that can very easily become a system that can be stacked by one party or another in order weed out voters from the other side. It wouldn't start like that, but I strongly suspect that it eventually subsume into the partisan machinery to retain power. We don't even need to speculate that much considering literarcy tests were already used for this purpose.
In deeply partisan politics, it's not even such a large mental jump from holding the opposite side in contempt to then think that a large portion of the opposition's electorate are unqualified to vote because of course only intelligent people would vote for your side.
|
On March 22 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 01:39 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2015 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules. You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance? lol The rule you put last (it's always first) basically has 'training' written into it in any extended explanation. The point of training is to make it a habit. Meaning one does it without having to think about it. Saying "training yourself in the safety rules doesn't make a difference" would be as ignorant as saying that training to block a jab doesn't make a difference. You're too smart to be this ignorant about gun safety. On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better. How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later). It's not just NYC, it's the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..." I'm not touching the other stuff, as it's way too out there to explain all the parts you are getting wrong. But I thought I edited the other post (before your post) to show I recognized I misread the wiki. I didn't though so I'll say here it's not just NY there are at least 13 states with sketchy laws. Some are worse than others but I don't have a problem calling them what they are. The politicization of gun safety has gotten people so wacked, we can't even see the stupidity of fighting sane laws... A picture from an open carry protest inside the state capitol building in Washington. Not sure what's so bad about that open carry protest. They aren't aiming their guns at anyone or gunning people down. They all even have good trigger discipline. You don't think something like that is inviting disaster? Imagine a Radical Muslim group of open carry advocates walking into the state building armed with AK 47's. Or imagine one of the open carry groups isn't actually an open carry group, but a militia ready to strike at "corrupt politicians" or whoever. Any idea how stupid we would look to the world if some group that wanted to cause harm was completely allowed to walk right into a capital building with the guns they killed a bunch of innocent people with once they entered the building?
Killing innocent people is the violent act though. Simply carrying guns doesn't hurt anyone. It's a victimless crime.
If some group wanted to shoot up a capital building, a gun-free zone sign is not going to stop them. If they plan on killing people, do you really think an extra criminal charge of "carrying in a gun-free zone" is going to deter them?
On March 22 2015 03:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. The fundamental problem in creating a system designed to weed out voters lacking in quality is who decides? Because once you have a system that excludes certain voters, then that can very easily become a system that can be stacked by one party or another in order weed out voters from the other side. It wouldn't start like that, but I strongly suspect that it eventually subsume into the partisan machinery to retain power. We don't even need to speculate that much considering literarcy tests were already used for this purpose. In deeply partisan politics, it's not even such a large mental jump from holding the opposite side in contempt to then think that a large portion of the opposition's electorate are unqualified to vote because of course only intelligent people would vote for your side.
I lean more towards the other possibility that I suggested. That we're not really a democracy and the whole system is a sham.
Edit: Just saw Falling's comment on the gun rights debate, I'll drop the issue.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Also, I would like to remind everyone that there is a gun right thread on TL specifically so that this thread does not continually loop back to gun right issues every two weeks.
|
On March 22 2015 03:27 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 22 2015 01:39 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2015 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules. You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance? lol The rule you put last (it's always first) basically has 'training' written into it in any extended explanation. The point of training is to make it a habit. Meaning one does it without having to think about it. Saying "training yourself in the safety rules doesn't make a difference" would be as ignorant as saying that training to block a jab doesn't make a difference. You're too smart to be this ignorant about gun safety. On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better. How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later). It's not just NYC, it's the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..." I'm not touching the other stuff, as it's way too out there to explain all the parts you are getting wrong. But I thought I edited the other post (before your post) to show I recognized I misread the wiki. I didn't though so I'll say here it's not just NY there are at least 13 states with sketchy laws. Some are worse than others but I don't have a problem calling them what they are. The politicization of gun safety has gotten people so wacked, we can't even see the stupidity of fighting sane laws... A picture from an open carry protest inside the state capitol building in Washington. Not sure what's so bad about that open carry protest. They aren't aiming their guns at anyone or gunning people down. They all even have good trigger discipline. You don't think something like that is inviting disaster? Imagine a Radical Muslim group of open carry advocates walking into the state building armed with AK 47's. Or imagine one of the open carry groups isn't actually an open carry group, but a militia ready to strike at "corrupt politicians" or whoever. Any idea how stupid we would look to the world if some group that wanted to cause harm was completely allowed to walk right into a capital building with the guns they killed a bunch of innocent people with once they entered the building? Killing innocent people is the violent act though. Simply carrying guns doesn't hurt anyone. It's a victimless crime. If some group wanted to shoot up a capital building, a gun-free zone sign is not going to stop them. If they plan on killing people, do you really think an extra criminal charge of "carrying in a gun-free zone" is going to deter them?
wtf are you talking about?
You have armed police/guards at the door and you don't let weapons into the legislative viewing area or inside the building at all. I don't have a problem with people carrying open or concealed in general, it's just common sense not to allow it some places though. Fighting the reasonable laws doesn't help gun owners at all. Just helps make us all look crazy.
EDIT: I'm done on the rights issue here as per the reminder.
|
|
|
DARE is the reason I didn't smoke cigarettes but other than that it's pretty much crap. It uses dumb scare tactics and avoids having a real conversation about substance use and abuse. Well done drug education does work though. Of course that includes more than just telling people all the negative side effects and stuff in that vein.
|
I'll admit my mistake and acknowledge that the DARE program in particular isn't a good one, but that substance abuse education in general has been shown to be effective.
As for the rest of it, it's amusing to see you cherry-picking my posts while refusing to address other points I've made, like the fact that you are required to go through education to use a car or that sex ed classes has proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies.
But go ahead, continue to be an arrogant, condescending prick. I'm oh so sure that'll make your points that much stronger and will hide your intellectual laziness...
|
On March 22 2015 03:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:I'll admit my mistake and acknowledge that the DARE program in particular isn't a good one, but that substance abuse education in general has been shown to be effective. As for the rest of it, it's amusing to see you cherry-picking my posts while refusing to address other points I've made, like the fact that you are required to go through education to use a car or that sex ed classes has proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies. But go ahead, continue to be an arrogant, condescending prick. I'm oh so sure that'll make your points that much stronger and will hide your intellectual laziness...
now who is willfully ignorant.
|
WASHINGTON -- Days after touring the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark). introduced legislation that would likely ensure the prison remains open for future lawmakers to visit as well.
Cotton, apparently unbowed by the outcry over his recent open letter to Iranian leaders, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would cut U.S. funding to countries that receive former Guantanamo detainees who are later suspected of terrorism. He toured the prison March 13 with three other senators.
Cotton's Guantanamo Bay Recidivism Prevention Act of 2015 comes after his unsuccessful effort to slip similar language into a different bill during a closed-door Senate Armed Services Committee meeting last month. As The Huffington Post reported, Cotton suggested an amendment to a bill aimed at restricting detainee transfers out of Guantanamo. The amendment would have cut funds to any country that accepted detainee transfers.
Since November, 27 detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo, leaving 122. Of those, 54 have been cleared for transfer.
Cotton, along with several other Republican lawmakers, is determined to stop the releases. “Until President Obama stops releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees, Congress must do everything in its power to stop recidivism,” Cotton declared when he introduced his bill.
Source
|
On March 22 2015 03:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 03:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 22 2015 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 22:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear. And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies. i'll stop with the gun stuff at falling's request, but i just wanted to point out that you are blowing smoke. DARE is routinely considered shit and actually counterproductive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/dare/effectiveness.htmlhttp://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.htmlthat last one says that it would be better for people to do nothing than have DARE. stop blowing smoke up our asses. I'll admit my mistake and acknowledge that the DARE program in particular isn't a good one, but that substance abuse education in general has been shown to be effective. As for the rest of it, it's amusing to see you cherry-picking my posts while refusing to address other points I've made, like the fact that you are required to go through education to use a car or that sex ed classes has proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies. But go ahead, continue to be an arrogant, condescending prick. I'm oh so sure that'll make your points that much stronger and will hide your intellectual laziness... now who is willfully ignorant.
Still you. You could just admit you were wrong and move on though?
|
On March 22 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 03:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2015 03:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 22 2015 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 22:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear. And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies. i'll stop with the gun stuff at falling's request, but i just wanted to point out that you are blowing smoke. DARE is routinely considered shit and actually counterproductive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/dare/effectiveness.htmlhttp://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.htmlthat last one says that it would be better for people to do nothing than have DARE. stop blowing smoke up our asses. I'll admit my mistake and acknowledge that the DARE program in particular isn't a good one, but that substance abuse education in general has been shown to be effective. As for the rest of it, it's amusing to see you cherry-picking my posts while refusing to address other points I've made, like the fact that you are required to go through education to use a car or that sex ed classes has proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies. But go ahead, continue to be an arrogant, condescending prick. I'm oh so sure that'll make your points that much stronger and will hide your intellectual laziness... now who is willfully ignorant. Still you. You could just admit you were wrong and move on though?
statements of opinion are neither wrong nor right. why are you still bringing up the gun issue after falling said to stop. move on.
|
Interesting.....
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is attaching himself to an unlikely bedfellow in his growing efforts to take down President Barack Obama’s climate plan.
Liberal legal lion Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor who taught constitutional law to President Barack Obama, is the new GOP darling in the fight against the Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming climate regulations for power plants. Tribe handed Republicans a ready-made talking point during a House hearing this week, when he accused his former student of “burning the Constitution” in the effort to combat global warming. And two days later, McConnell pointed to Tribe in a letter Thursday to the governors of all 50 states, urging them to refuse to comply with EPA’s climate rules.
Since submitting scathing comments on the rule in December on behalf of Peabody Energy — the world’s largest private sector coal company – Tribe, who had represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, has gone from green hero to Republican talking point.
Tribe, appearing on Tuesday before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee along with prominent Hunton & Williams partner Allison Wood, laid out one legal argument after another that opponents can use in the upcoming court battles to prevent EPA from implementing the greenhouse gas rules it plans to finish this summer.
“You know, I’ve cared about the environment ever since I was a kid. And you know, I taught the first environmental course in this country, and I’ve won major victories for environmental causes. But I’m committed to doing it within the law,” Tribe said.
Laurence Tribe, Obama's legal mentor, attacks EPA power plant rule
|
On March 22 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 22 2015 03:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2015 03:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 22 2015 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 22:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear. And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies. i'll stop with the gun stuff at falling's request, but i just wanted to point out that you are blowing smoke. DARE is routinely considered shit and actually counterproductive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/dare/effectiveness.htmlhttp://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.htmlthat last one says that it would be better for people to do nothing than have DARE. stop blowing smoke up our asses. I'll admit my mistake and acknowledge that the DARE program in particular isn't a good one, but that substance abuse education in general has been shown to be effective. As for the rest of it, it's amusing to see you cherry-picking my posts while refusing to address other points I've made, like the fact that you are required to go through education to use a car or that sex ed classes has proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies. But go ahead, continue to be an arrogant, condescending prick. I'm oh so sure that'll make your points that much stronger and will hide your intellectual laziness... now who is willfully ignorant. Still you. You could just admit you were wrong and move on though? statements of opinion are neither wrong nor right. why are you still bringing up the gun issue after falling said to stop. move on.
Whatever lol.
(Reuters) - A federal judge rejected Bank of America Corp's request to dismiss a lawsuit in which Cook County, Illinois, accused the lender of targeting black and Hispanic borrowers in the Chicago area with subprime mortgages.
In a decision dated Thursday, U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo in Chicago said Cook County could pursue allegations that the bank steered minority borrowers into an outsized number of high-cost home loans, resulting in more foreclosures, lower property taxes and greater urban blight.
"The county has asserted an adequate injury-in-fact that is plausibly connected to defendants' alleged discriminatory lending," Bucklo wrote. She did not rule on the case's merits.
Cook County, the nation's second most populous county after Los Angeles, had accused Bank of America of "reverse redlining," in which credit is often extended on unfair terms in specific geographic areas based on borrowers' race, ethnicity or income.
The county said Bank of America made about 95,000 home loans to minority borrowers on less favorable terms than loans to similar white borrowers, and that about 60 percent of the loans in question were or could prove at risk of default.
Source
|
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled as unconstitutional on Friday a state law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.
Shortly after Republican Governor Scott Walker signed it into law in August 2013, U.S. District Judge William Conley temporarily blocked the law, which requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of his or her practice.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, the state's two abortion providers, challenged the measure in court, saying it could force abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee to close.
On Friday, Conley ordered a permanent injunction against the law, saying in his 91-page order and opinion that the law violated women's 14th amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.
"The marginal benefit to women's health of requiring hospital admitting privileges, if any, is substantially outweighed by the burden this requirement will have on women's health outcomes due to restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin," Conley wrote.
"While the court agrees with the State that sometimes it is necessary to reduce access to insure safety, this is decidedly not one of those instances," he said.
Walker's office could not be reached immediately for comment on Friday night.
Source
|
Ted Cruz is set to announce his candidacy for the presidency on Monday. Let the games begin :D
|
Is Ted Cruz really viable? He so far makes every effort to look to the general world population like a really really terrible choice foreign policy wise. The word that comes to mind is actually "simpleton", talk tough, project force, no nuance. I can kind of understand how that appeals to war-strategy-game enthusiasts, but in the real world it just wont work. (As kwizach explained so well with regard to the chinese asian investment bank: the republican confrontational approach is not able to persuade other countries to act against their national self interest because of some weird principalistic "us vs them"
So far the only thing i saw from Cruz was threats threats threats and antagonization. Who falls for that, and most importantly who would ever want a Tea Party shut the government down type at the red button, when he has to back up his empty threats, when russia will provoke?
|
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
another motivation for AIIB was more immediate. finance fossil fuel energy projects.
|
On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either.
To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east.
It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
