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 June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery.
If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it?
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery.
If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it?
we can start with you shedding your shackles of white guilt
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery.
If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it?
Yes its slavery, grats. you want a cookie? Again, that does not make anyone alive today responsible for slavery or guilty of it...
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
Though I disagree that I am to blame for the issues of the past, I would be a fool to think that the issues facing blacks are gone. And that I have can ever have a true understanding of how it feels to face those issues all the time.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery.
If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it?
we can start with you shedding your shackles of white guilt
SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the Second Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the Second Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
On June 10 2016 05:05 Surth wrote: Oh, and I don't think Bernie necessarily needs to get behind Clinton and the Dems. From the perspective of our (gloriously dysfunction, though in different ways) 5-6 party system here in Germany, it seems to me that the US have two parties which are both center-right. I don't think the "left" has any responsibility to help either of these parties. the Dems are to the left of the republicans mostly on issues like gay marriage etc. But for a committed leftist who, say, might have a problem problems that are much more fundamental, the Democrats are not at all the solution, they are the problem.
Bernie, of course, kind of sold that whole fact short when he tried to be all appeasing in the debates with Clinton, smugly saying that "anyone on this stage is 10 times better than what the republicans have to offer", but still.
You don't understand the two party system. The margins are so small (beacuse the parties need to shift rapidly to capture the middle 20% of the nation) that if Hillary only has 85% of the parties support shes already lost the general.
I understand perfectly well. In a two-party system, politics are falsely reduced to occurring on a single axis (either "conservative-liberal" or "left-right"), and both parties hug each other as closely as they can, placing trust into the fact that everything to their side will fall in line with them. I think this is dangerous for a democracy.
Mind you, it's not working out so fantastically in Germany either, considering we essentially have four neoliberalist parties, and one retarded party to the left and to the far right. Oh well.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
Though I disagree that I am to blame for the issues of the past, I would be a fool to think that the issues facing blacks are gone. And that I have can ever have a true understanding of how it feels to face those issues all the time.
Where did I say their issues are gone? I said the opposite. And where did I say that I get how they feel?
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery.
If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it?
Yes its slavery, grats. you want a cookie? Again, that does not make anyone alive today responsible for slavery or guilty of it...
People today responsible for slavery they're responsible for benefiting from it and not acknowledging it. Its the same as Egypt and the pyramids. Everyone knows slavery is responsible for it so no one credits the Egyptians for building them, but they still get a ton of tourism from it.
You aren't to blame for the issue. You may or may not be a beneficiary of a people who conquered and exploited another people, but you in fact yourself carry 0% of the blame unless you are actively trying to hold progress back for another people.
Can't hate the winners of a conflict. To the victors go the spoils. I don't exactly think African nations treat whites better than we treat blacks. Are you going to argue that African nations treat white people better than White nations treat black people?
Our nations blew the living shit out of the middle east, are we all moving to the middle east to help out personally? Nope. That is something, whether we had no power over it or not, we actually are more complicit in. Because we were at least alive when it happened. And we didn't riot and tear down Washington saying, 'hey dropping bombs on people is bad mmkay?'
SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the Second Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
Maybe a silly question but how does this pertain to open carry? Surely open carry should be easier to qualify for then concealed carry. And while you may not get a permit to hide your gun on your person you can still openly wear it. I am confused Oo
SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the Second Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
Maybe a silly question but how does this pertain to open carry? Surely open carry should be easier to qualify for then concealed carry. And while you may not get a permit to hide your gun on your person you can still openly wear it. I am confused Oo
Open carry and concealed carry go hand in hand bureaucratically. If you have an CC permit you can open carry guns in most states. Like the Poster said its going to fuck up a lot of states laws and have challenges before its enforceable on a federal level.
On June 10 2016 04:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A really, really great endorsement by Obama for Hillary. I think he did a solid job of incorporating Bernie as well, giving us a taste of the "Yes, they were rivals, but in the bigger picture, they are allies". That's something that needs to be made extremely clear by Hillary, and I think the two best ways to do that is for her to continue moving more to the left on some issues and for her to select a running mate who is more non-establishment and comparable to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren.
I think it would be a huge mistake for Hillary not to try to convince Sanders to be her VP.
Maybe she already has and his terms are just too much but I don't see her standing a chance against Trump without Sanders on her ticket.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors.
I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust.
You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing.
If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't.
We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father.
So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago.
Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous.
Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past.
The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago.
Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver.
Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead.
Though I disagree that I am to blame for the issues of the past, I would be a fool to think that the issues facing blacks are gone. And that I have can ever have a true understanding of how it feels to face those issues all the time.
Where did I say their issues are gone? I said the opposite. And where did I say that I get how they feel?
The example wasn’t really for you, but for the 5 other posters who continue to deny that racism is even a big deal or something that they should really be concerned with.
Crooked Hillary must be so proud! Her husband was impeached, and now she has the support of someone who should have been impeached for cramming a bill only a political party wanted down our throats.
On June 10 2016 04:57 SK.Testie wrote: Google being subversive.
wow that is amazing,thanks for showing this.
Been pretty satisfied with google so far I have to admit. It does give much and much better results then yahoo when I try to find something. Like I am from the Netherlands and I want search ing bank. Then google gives me as top link the dutch ing bank website that I can use to login to my account. Yet yahoo gives me the international corporate website that I can not use to acces my account. I have changed my standard search engine to yahoo a while ago for several reasons,but I keep finding myself going back to google. But this information is very interesting and makes you think about things. Google is a far and far worse search engine then it was 5+ years ago,probably because of the monetization. Years ago you could find awesome and interesting links on everything you wanted,now you mostly get commercial crap and the truly interesting links never show up anymore.
But ya, very concerning. I knew the media where subjective and pretty much useless when it comes to gathering independent information but I didn't knew this yet about google.
On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
The economy was also based around the exploitation of white workers... And it is still the case. Your reasoning is akin to considering a miner who happens to be 16 years old to be responsible for slavery. We have a common responsability to help the poor, thz victims of injustices and the weakest in society, we have no responsability over the crime of a minority of our ancestors.
On June 10 2016 05:33 Ravianna26 wrote: Crooked Hillary must be so proud! Her husband was impeached, and now she has the support of someone who should have been impeached for cramming a bill only a political party wanted down our throats.
The ACA is dope as fuck. Super helpful. 10/10 would avoid bankruptcy using it again. Sweet.
On June 10 2016 05:33 Ravianna26 wrote: Crooked Hillary must be so proud! Her husband was impeached, and now she has the support of someone who should have been impeached for cramming a bill only a political party wanted down our throats.
Sure, you can try to impeach a president for getting a bill through the entire democratic vetting process but only if we get to trial Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
EPT
