|
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 25 2015 23:18 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote:
You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today. The mystical land of europe, where cops don't put full clip into suspects, don't neglegt injured people, and where it is the law that you have to administer first aid. - how does it work?
That only works in Europe because not everyone has access to guns.
It's a trade-off, really. American cities are less safe, but at least they're not entirely at the mercy of their government or outside forces.
You can talk about how great gun control is all you want, but a government is far less likely to fuck with a society that is full of armed quasi-soldiers.
|
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation?
|
On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation?
Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will.
I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed.
|
On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation?
Well, one could argue that police brutality is a matter of escalation. If you have to assume that a perp is armed, you#re probably more inclined to shoot first and make it count.
On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed.
Exactly.
|
On March 26 2015 01:57 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Well, one could argue that police brutality is a matter of escalation. If you have to assume that a perp is armed, you#re probably more inclined to shoot first and make it count.
Even if the perp isn't armed, that doesn't mean they can't kill you. Fists kill more people in the US than rifles.
|
On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed.
yes, an armed population surley would have made the progroms against the jews that much better
thank you for this great insight
|
On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed.
The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on.
|
On March 26 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed. The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on.
No, but it goes to show how quickly a government can go from bad to horrible.
|
On March 26 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed. The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on.
The Jews were totally disarmed though. Had they been armed, they could've fought back. Sure, many still would've died but it wouldn't have been as many. And the war would've ended quicker because Germany would've had an internal resistance to deal with alongside the external wars.
Even without guns, there were a few attempts to fight back that weren't totally unsuccessful. Imagine if they had been properly armed.
|
dont discuss guns with americans, just dont. Its just absolutely pointless, the position of the average european is just too far away... you might also try to argue for communism.
do some searches for these discussions and you can see for yourself.
|
On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed.
Oh please stop trotting out bullship gunrights activists memes. You have no fucking clue about arms rights in Germany, past and present.
There was no widespread disarming because Jews already had low gun ownership rates before, when they were denied more and more rights. Arming themselfes would have achived nothing because of the small minority they were, and how bad public sentiment was levied against them.
The general populance on the other hand had no problems owning and bearing arms in the usual bureocratic limits. My family owned several rifles and revolvers before, during and after the war, because as foresters/rangers/hunters that was totally normal and not limited.
@ SixStrings:
How is not administering first aid to gunshot victims ever excusable for a police officer? because that was the topic i answered to.
@millitron
The Jews were totally disarmed though. Had they been armed, they could've fought back. Sure, many still would've died but it wouldn't have been as many. And the war would've ended quicker because Germany would've had an internal resistance to deal with alongside the external wars.
your armchairing is beyond ridiculous at this point.
|
On March 26 2015 01:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Supreme Court hears a challenge Wednesday to Obama Administration rules aimed at limiting the amount of mercury and other hazardous pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired utility plants. The regulations are being challenged by major industry groups like the National Mining Association, and more than 20 states.
The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton Administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush Administration, and then revived and adopted in the Obama Administration.
The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year.
They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.
Mercury is considered one of the most toxic pollutants because studies show when it falls from the atmosphere, it readily passes from fish and other sources to a pregnant woman's unborn fetus and fetal brain, causing neurological abnormalities and delays in children. The EPA estimated that seven percent of American women of childbearing age — millions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts.
The process for establishing limits, however, is multi-stage. First, the EPA must complete studies to determine whether regulation of these plant emissions is "appropriate and necessary." And only after that does the agency set limits on the pollutant amounts that can be emitted.
Both sides in Wednesday's case agree that cost should be considered in setting pollutant limits. The question is when and how much of a factor cost should be. Source
Cost doesn't play any role in the EPA setting rules. Only human health matters. That was already upheld in EPA vs. Union Pacific. I guess it's nice for SCOTUS to get some easy cases now and then?
|
[QUOTE]On March 26 2015 02:10 puerk wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
@ SixStrings:
How is not administering first aid to gunshot victims ever excusable for a police officer? because that was the topic i answered to.
[/QUOTE]
It's not. I wasn't disagreeing with your point.
|
On March 26 2015 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Supreme Court hears a challenge Wednesday to Obama Administration rules aimed at limiting the amount of mercury and other hazardous pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired utility plants. The regulations are being challenged by major industry groups like the National Mining Association, and more than 20 states.
The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton Administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush Administration, and then revived and adopted in the Obama Administration.
The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year.
They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.
Mercury is considered one of the most toxic pollutants because studies show when it falls from the atmosphere, it readily passes from fish and other sources to a pregnant woman's unborn fetus and fetal brain, causing neurological abnormalities and delays in children. The EPA estimated that seven percent of American women of childbearing age — millions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts.
The process for establishing limits, however, is multi-stage. First, the EPA must complete studies to determine whether regulation of these plant emissions is "appropriate and necessary." And only after that does the agency set limits on the pollutant amounts that can be emitted.
Both sides in Wednesday's case agree that cost should be considered in setting pollutant limits. The question is when and how much of a factor cost should be. Source Cost doesn't play any role in the EPA setting rules. Only human health matters. That was already upheld in EPA vs. Union Pacific. I guess it's nice for SCOTUS to get some easy cases now and then?
Cost must play at least some role, or else the EPA could just ban coal outright.
|
On March 26 2015 02:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed. The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on. The Jews were totally disarmed though. Had they been armed, they could've fought back. Sure, many still would've died but it wouldn't have been as many. And the war would've ended quicker because Germany would've had an internal resistance to deal with alongside the external wars. Even without guns, there were a few attempts to fight back that weren't totally unsuccessful. Imagine if they had been properly armed.
nvm, no reason to have this discussion
|
On March 26 2015 02:07 Velr wrote:
dont discuss guns with americans, just dont. Its just absolutely pointless, the position of the average european is just too far away... you might also try to argue for communism.
do some searches for these discussions and you can see for yourself.
realize that if @millitron was more conscious about which part of the populace needs to arm itself to defend against fascists, then, for all practical purposes, he'd be preaching the gospel as far as trotsky was concerned. it's a pity that this is alien to the average european.
THE WORKERS' MILITIA AND ITS OPPONENTS
From Whither France?, 1934
...
But what is this "mass self-defense" without combat organizations, without specialized cadres, without arms? To give over the defense against fascism to unorganized and unprepared masses left to themselves would be to play a role incomparably lower than the role of Pontius Pilate. To deny the role of the militia is to deny the role of the vanguard. Then why a party? Without the support of the masses, the militia is nothing. But without organized combat detachments, the most heroic masses will be smashed bit by bit by the fascist gangs. It is nonsense to counterpose the militia to self-defense. The militia is an organ of self-defense.
... src
|
The Supreme Court sided with black challengers Wednesday and told a lower court to reconsider whether a redistricting plan drawn by Alabama’s Republican legislature packed minority voters into districts to dilute their influence.
The court voted 5 to 4 to send the plan back for further judicial review. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals to make up the majority.
The challenge was brought by black officeholders and Democrats who argued that the state’s Republican leadership packed minority voters into districts that allowed the election of African American officials but reduced their influence elsewhere.
Breyer said a lower court panel should have looked at individual districts rather than statewide in order to decide whether there was racial gerrymandering. And he said the legislators and the reviewing court did not use the proper test in deciding whether the redistricting was in line with the Voting Rights Act.
The act forbids “retrogression” in districts that favor minority candidates. But that doesn’t mean that the districts must retain a previous percentage of minority voters to meet the standard, Breyer wrote.
What’s important instead is looking at what percentages are necessary to preserve the minority’s ability to elect the candidate of its choice, he said.
“Asking the wrong question may well have led to the wrong answer,” Breyer wrote.
The court’s jurisprudence on when race can be used in drawing legislative districts is complex and at times contradictory. And more than one justice pointed out during oral arguments that minority voters used to come to the court to demand that legislatures specifically use race to ensure that blacks and Hispanics be represented in government.
The court’s four most consistent conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the decision could have implications far beyond the limited ruling the majority professed.
“The court issues a sweeping holding that will have profound implications for the constitutional ideal of one person, one vote, for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and for the primacy of the state in managing its own elections,” Scalia wrote in a dissent that all joined.
Thomas, the court’s only African American member, wrote separately to say that the intent of the VRA has been “hijacked” by the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Source
|
On March 26 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed. The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on.
I don't exactly agree with the logic that an armed population would stop Nazi Germany from happening... but saying the German population supported the dictatorship is one hell of an overgeneralization of a layered topic
Do you think dissenters were welcomed with open arms or something?
is there a more detailed look at the redistricting thing?? Because I know up by me both sides have attempted to do redistricting several times, and both sides absolutely look at race, income levels, votership bases, etc when doing so.
|
On March 26 2015 03:31 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 26 2015 01:55 Millitron wrote:On March 26 2015 01:45 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, I can already see the tanks rolling through London, what a shame the population wasn't armed. Where exactly in the first world exists any observable relation between government brutality and the number of weapons in circulation? Just because you don't need them now doesn't mean you never will. I'd think a poster from Germany would be more aware of what can happen when the populace is disarmed. The German population supported the dictatorship. They didn't hold a gun to their heads. It was not the evil oppressive government vs the people who can't possibly be anything but brave and good, which is exactly the mindset this whole gun logic is build up on. I don't exactly agree with the logic that an armed population would stop Nazi Germany from happening... but saying the German population supported the dictatorship is one hell of an overgeneralization of a layered topic Do you think dissenters were welcomed with open arms or something?
Pretty much the only form of dissent originated from underground like movements, some Catholics, although even the church supported the NS regime locally in the beginning(think about how ridiculous this is). The overwhelming majority of the population was supportive or indifferent, there is no other way to explain how things could have happened on the scale they did. Jews were dragged to the streets,people were proclaimed to be race-traitors, lynched by hundreds of others. The gist of it is that yes, whole nations can go completely insane. Guns wouldn't have changed a thing. The 'armed population' logic relies on the assumption that this can actually never happen and that the majority of people is always at least decently reasonable.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
armed rebellions were put down early in u.s. history by the militia and merely being a citizen with a gun does not a militia make.
the sort of militia the 2nd amendment had in mind was certainly not neutral. in the nazi situation they would be the nazi youth group rather than rebellion jews. the right in question was basically the nazi citizenry's right to armed suppression of jews, rather than the other way around.
On January 25, 1787, Daniel Shays and his insurrectionists confronted a Massachusetts state militia force outside the Springfield armory. Shays’ Rebellion had begun in the summer of 1786, when Shays, a former Continental Army captain, and other western Massachusetts veterans and farmers formed an insurrection against the government for failing to address their economic grievances. Upon the confrontation at the Springfield armory, the state militia forced Shays and his followers to retreat to Worcester County, where they would be dispersed on February 4, leading to the end of the rebellion. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/george-washington-discusses-shays%E2%80%99-rebellion-and-up
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
