|
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. |
An Arkansas judge has halted the executions of eight death row inmates, dealing a blow to the state's efforts to begin putting prisoners to death for the first time in a decade.
Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen's ruling Friday came in a case in which the inmates are challenging a new Arkansas law allowing the state to withhold any information that could publicly identify the manufacturers or sellers of its execution drugs.
A lawyer for the inmates argued that the new secrecy law put them at risk of enduring unconstitutional suffering during their executions because the drugs' safety and effectiveness couldn't be vetted. He also said the state agreed in a prior settlement to reveal the drug information to the inmates before their executions.
Source
|
I still don't understand the death penalty at all. We use weird ways to kill people instead of just letting them slowly pass from nitrogen inhalation and we talk it up as if it is worse than dying in solitary confinement.
|
Probably because of the whole nazi thing. I'm not a dr. but it seems better than injecting all these crazy cocktails that are literally torturing people.
|
Three bills aimed at bringing order and oversight to California’s medical marijuana industry nearly 20 years after the state became the first to legalise the drug for medical use have won Governor Jerry Brown’s signature, his office said on Friday.
The Democratic governor’s endorsement of the 70-page Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act hammered out by lawmakers in the closing hours of the legislative session was expected – because his office crafted many of the exhaustive details.
The bills create the first statewide licensing and operating rules for pot growers, manufacturers of cannabis-infused products and retail weed outlets since California voters legalised medical marijuana in 1996.
A number of groups are trying to qualify voter initiatives for the November 2016 ballot that would legalise recreational marijuana in California.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, who unlike Brown has endorsed the idea of allowing adults to use marijuana for fun, said getting the state’s freewheeling medical marijuana industry under control would ease the transition to a system that also addressed recreational use.
“Given the history and complexity of California’s market, achieving the people’s will and responsibly regulating marijuana will be a process that unfolds over many years, requiring sustained attention to implementation,” Newsom, a candidate for governor in 2018, said after the legislative vote.
The package seeks to manage medical marijuana by requiring individuals or companies engaged in any aspect of the industry to obtain at least one of 17 different licenses. It restricts the number of licenses one company can have.
Source
|
Its not like its hard to kill someone painlessly.
anesthetic + heart stopping drug is the easiest thing in the world but there seems to be some problem with finding people to actually administer it.
Which is in itself weird. They can find people to insert weird (sometimes unreliable) cocktails but they cant find someone to apply the anesthetic? Its not like you can give them to much in this case.
|
I'm pretty sure an armed population with guns did stop Hitler. Admittedly they were Russians but still, the main thing is that an armed population works.
.. eh?
What? You must've learned something entirely different in school than i did then. Because in reality, it wasn't an armed population stopping Hitler in russia, but their winter.
Just as a sidenote though.
|
On October 10 2015 08:37 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure an armed population with guns did stop Hitler. Admittedly they were Russians but still, the main thing is that an armed population works.
.. eh? What? You must've learned something entirely different in school than i did then. Because in reality, it wasn't an armed population stopping Hitler in russia, but their winter. Just as a sidenote though.
Or we could say that the Russians were armed with the cold. Not just guns.
|
This should infuriate everyone.
On Thursday, the most successful land conservation program in U.S. history is set to expire. Despite bipartisan support for the program in both the Senate and House of Representatives, congressional leaders have neglected to include the program in recent budget negotiations and are letting it die.
It’s not like Congress didn’t see this deadline coming. For three years, conservation groups have been warning lawmakers about the expiration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that provides grants to buy up private land and make it available to the public. Since President Johnson signed it into law in 1964, the LWCF has pumped almost $17 billion into federal, state, and local parks. It has protected more than 500 million acres of land, ranging from neighborhood playgrounds to dramatic basalt cliffs in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The program also paid for almost two-thirds of the Appalachian Trail.
The LWCF did all this without costing taxpayers a dime: It’s funded entirely by royalties from the offshore oil and gas industry, a symmetry that conservation advocates have lauded. If the program expires, this funding will be cut off. Congress could vote to reauthorize LWCF at a later date, but advocates think that’s unlikely.
One of the fund’s major contributions has been to smooth out boundaries and patch up holes in parks. Just because a piece of land is a designated park or wilderness area doesn’t mean the government owns every piece of it. Many began as checkerboards, with parcels of public land adjacent to private ones.
Tom Cors of the Nature Conservancy says these “doughnut holes” are tough to manage. Planning trails and roads can be challenging, as can fighting forest fires. He says the LWCF’s success in filling in those doughnut holes—providing means for buying the land from private sellers—is why the program has been so potent. “The majority of [conservationists’] work is to complete the vision that we started many years ago in these federal areas,” he says.
The program is about more than land acquisition, says Elizabeth Goldstein of the California State Parks Foundation. Browsing the list of funded projects, she says, “you see walking trails, bridges that make walking trails complete; you see projects that create playgrounds and signage systems in picnic areas.” She points to a pier in the San Francisco Bay that a LWCF project restored and a languishing state beach near Santa Barbara that was reopened after LWCF money fixed its broken sewage system.
Source
|
On October 10 2015 08:37 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure an armed population with guns did stop Hitler. Admittedly they were Russians but still, the main thing is that an armed population works.
.. eh? What? You must've learned something entirely different in school than i did then. Because in reality, it wasn't an armed population stopping Hitler in russia, but their winter. Just as a sidenote though.
it was also hitler being an idiot and constantly attacking stalingrad for no reason
|
President Obama said to be considering executive action on gun background checks
This would be fantastic. Something needs to be done and if the NRA-purchased cowards in Congress won't act, the president just might:
In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.
Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.
Cue the right-wing, gun-loving rage. Of course, this comes on the heels of several notable, mentally unstable mass murderers—mostly young men—who were able to amass multiple weapons and ridiculous amounts of ammunition in short time.
Indeed, something more has to be done. And that's why polls show that the U.S. citizens overwhelming support tighter background checks, gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
He expressed his frustration with current gun laws in a speech after the latest shooting in Oregon, pleading with the public to make it a factor when voting:
At the core of his speech was a call to action. Tightening gun laws, he said, "will require that the American people, individually — whether you are a Democrat or a Republican [or] an independent — when you decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision. If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views."
In other words: Vote for politicians who will vote to change the law.
Until then, it sounds as if the Obama administration is evaluating all available options to act sooner than later.
~ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/09/1429959/-President-Obama-said-to-be-considering-executive-action-on-gun-background-checks?detail=facebook#
So basically, it would require popular gun dealers to perform at least *some* background checks on at least *some* buyers. It really should be all of them, but even some progress would be great. Obviously, Obama still won't *actually* be trying to take anyone's guns away, regardless of what the NRA and the Republican nutjobs think.
The article also includes a link to this article, explaining that "Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University." ~ http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks
|
He's talking about private sellers who sell above a certain amount, which I'm unclear how we would track. Businesses check every purchase. Good stuff, I'd prefer all transfers be checked through a licensed dealer though.
|
On October 10 2015 08:06 Mohdoo wrote:
I still don't understand the death penalty at all. We use weird ways to kill people instead of just letting them slowly pass from nitrogen inhalation and we talk it up as if it is worse than dying in solitary confinement.
The odds are better than ever for dying before the administration of the death penalty, what with our scherotic justice system/appeals process. Slowly passing is quite the reality for the older murderers. You can take some solace in that!
|
So would these background checks have stopped any of the recent murders? All the guns were purchased legally. Talk about mindless reactions. Congress says no, he says yes. So the answer is yes.
|
On October 10 2015 11:33 Introvert wrote:
So would these background checks have stopped any of the recent murders? All the guns were purchased legally. Talk about mindless reactions. Congress says no, he says yes. So the answer is yes.
Actually, in some cases, proper background checks would have prevented plenty of mass shootings. You say "legally", but one of the issues is the huge level of leniency with countless background checks that still allow shifty people to buy guns.
For example, the Charleston, SC church massacre... Dylann Roof bought his .45-caliber Glock at a gun store in Charleston, where he would/ should have been required to pass a thorough background check. He was arrested earlier this year for trespassing and drug possession, yet apparently he was still able to buy a gun. You're not supposed to be able to purchase a gun if the FBI/ NICS database picks up felonies and certain misdemeanors... so when background checks end up equating to waiting 5 minutes for no one to catch anything suspicious about you- regardless of your criminal history- then criminals fall through the (huge) cracks and you get additional mass shootings.
I'm not particularly surprised that background checks are frequently bullshit, because rigorous processing would be a conflict of interest for that gun shop... people would be less likely to buy products there if they were more likely to be turned away. So the solution is to not waste additional time and money on a proper background check, and not risk losing sales. And the customers get their guns. Everyone wins... except for the eventual victims to that eventual shooter.
And this doesn't even account for the multitude of gun shows that occur nearly every weekend all over the country, which explicitly don't require you to have a background check anyway. It'd be nice if background checks were always required, and always thorough.
|
On October 10 2015 11:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 11:33 Introvert wrote:
So would these background checks have stopped any of the recent murders? All the guns were purchased legally. Talk about mindless reactions. Congress says no, he says yes. So the answer is yes. Actually, in some cases, proper background checks would have prevented plenty of mass shootings. You say "legally", but one of the issues is the huge level of leniency with countless background checks that still allow shifty people to buy guns. For example, the Charleston, SC church massacre... Dylann Roof bought his .45-caliber Glock at a gun store in Charleston, where he would/ should have been required to pass a thorough background check. He was arrested earlier this year for trespassing and drug possession, yet apparently he was still able to buy a gun. You're not supposed to be able to purchase a gun if the FBI/ NICS database picks up felonies and certain misdemeanors... so when background checks end up equating to waiting 5 minutes for no one to catch anything suspicious about you- regardless of your criminal history- then criminals fall through the (huge) cracks and you get additional mass shootings. I'm not particularly surprised that background checks are frequently bullshit, because rigorous processing would be a conflict of interest for that gun shop... people would be less likely to buy products there if they were more likely to be turned away. So the solution is to not waste additional time and money on a proper background check, and not risk losing sales. And the customers get their guns. Everyone wins... except for the eventual victims to that eventual shooter. And this doesn't even account for the multitude of gun shows that occur nearly every weekend all over the country, which explicitly don't require you to have a background check anyway. It'd be nice if background checks were always required, and always thorough.
Didn't Roof pass a test, it just didn't catch him? From what I know, most gun crime wouldn't be stopped by more background checks. Either you get it legally or you don't, but you get it.
For instance, the catalyst for this "executive action" was supposed to be the Oregon shooting. But background checks would have been passed, and were, in most cases.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
On October 10 2015 12:04 heliusx wrote:
Roof got his gun because his check wasn't processed within 72 hours which is the law, which is stupid af.
That was someone else.
I just remembered there is a thread for this, which I purposely avoid.
|
Roof got his gun because his check wasn't processed within 72 hours which is the law, which is stupid af.
|
No it was not someone else. His background check wasn't completed within 72 hours therefore he was legally sold a gun.
p.s. I don't want to take your guns. I want sick people to be prevented from purchasing guns.
|
On October 10 2015 08:37 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure an armed population with guns did stop Hitler. Admittedly they were Russians but still, the main thing is that an armed population works.
.. eh? What? You must've learned something entirely different in school than i did then. Because in reality, it wasn't an armed population stopping Hitler in russia, but their winter. Just as a sidenote though.
There was a communications cut off where 40 armed men were given the order to hold their ground and did not receive the order to fall back, In doing so they held back the German army so well that when they were eventually taken prisoners the Germans asked where was the rest of the army. Though they technically did not stop the army, simply delayed it. I thought it was the Polish army that brought the army to a halt.
|
On October 10 2015 12:23 heliusx wrote:
No it was not someone else. His background check wasn't completed within 72 hours therefore he was legally sold a gun.
p.s. I don't want to take your guns. I want sick people to be prevented from purchasing guns.
I was just reading the NYT article, which didn't mention it. Regardless, that was hardly the point.
|
On October 10 2015 12:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 12:23 heliusx wrote:
No it was not someone else. His background check wasn't completed within 72 hours therefore he was legally sold a gun.
p.s. I don't want to take your guns. I want sick people to be prevented from purchasing guns. I was just reading the NYT article, which didn't mention it. Regardless, that was hardly the point.
I thought the point was that the gun purchasing rules/ background checks are clearly too lenient and need to be more serious, or else criminals like Roof pass through easily, undetected?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
