|
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 February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 00:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just realized that NRA is the GOP's armed paramilitary...
Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond).
Canada is no different in this respect. (For us it was often coyotes.) I learned to shoot at a young age, went hunting often, and I still like guns. I think our gun control works okay for the environment we live in, but the closer you get to the wilderness the less happy people are about it in general. In my experience, at least.
|
This will enrage CPAC. and trump even further.
|
On February 23 2018 03:28 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Canada is no different in this respect. (For us it was often coyotes.) I learned to shoot at a young age, went hunting often, and I still like guns. I think our gun control works okay for the environment we live in, but the closer you get to the wilderness the less happy people are about it in general. In my experience, at least.
Hunting rifles and shotguns are generally non-issues in the US. The main problems arise with handguns(crime) and military style longarms that can accommodate high capacity magazines(mass shootings). And I feel we will be fighting over them for at least another 30 years.
|
AKA direct confirmation to trump garbage that Obama's shadow government is paying these kids.
|
On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond).
Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains).
It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues?
|
The urban/rural divide is itself a far more appropriate focus than one or the other.
|
On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains).It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues?
Forgive my off-topic'ness, but this made me laugh at work.
|
On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:
It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues?
I think there's a rural aspect to it, politically at least. There was a very concerted effort to politicize gun rights and part of that really seems to be making gun ownership an identity. So I think you have this top down effect where rural gun owners won't budge on gun control because of the efforts to politicize the issue. So then you get things like an unwillingness to enact any gun control, no matter how inconsequential, because it's seen as a infringement of someone's identity.
Even though ultimately a bunch of people just want to shoot guns because it's fun and it really shouldn't be a contentious issue. At least certainly not to the point where the US can't sell smart guns because it's such a political topic.
|
Exclusive: As Trump trashes NAFTA, Mexico turns to Brazilian corn
CHICAGO/MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican buyers imported ten times more corn from Brazil last year amid concern that NAFTA renegotiations could disrupt their U.S. supplies, according to government data and top grains merchants.
Mexico is on track to buy more Brazilian corn in 2018, which would hurt a U.S. agricultural sector already struggling with low grains prices and the rising competitive threat from South America.
U.S. farmers, food processors and grain traders have spent months trying to prevent trade relationships from falling apart if the North American Free Trade Agreement implodes. They are trying to protect more than $19 billion in sales to Mexican buyers of everything from corn and soybeans to dairy and poultry.
Despite their efforts, South American corn shipments to Mexico are surging. Mexican buyers imported a total of more than 583,000 metric tonnes of Brazilian corn last year – a 970 percent jump over 2016, according to data from Mexico’s Agrifood and Fishery Information Service (SIAP).
The purchases all came in the last four months of last year. They followed visits by Mexican government officials and grains buyers to Brazil and Argentina to explore alternative supply options in the months after U.S. President Donald Trump took office and threatened to tear up the trade pact.
Mexico has long been the top importer of U.S. corn, and is the second largest buyer of U.S. soybeans, giving Mexico leverage in corn-belt states that are staunch Trump supporters but also strongly back the trade status quo.
source: www.reuters.com
This whole NAFTA thing has been a complete disaster especially for Trump but probably just about everyone inside NA... idk what Trump is even thinking because I'm pretty sure playing tough still sells among his voterbase. Even if it hurts the US it's getting him votes. I'm also pretty sure he still thinks he's "winning" by hurting both Mexico and Canada which in his mind makes America the winner but clearly it's not working out.
As seen in this case, 970% increase in corn imports from South America as an answer to someone who wants to pull further and further away from everyone.
|
On February 23 2018 04:09 farvacola wrote:
The urban/rural divide is itself a far more appropriate focus than one or the other.
There are 2 dynamics at play and they are related.
Historically, during times when social progress is made, this progress tends to be people in the center slowly migrating left. When these moderates move left, the average level of conservatism in conservative conversations becomes more conservative because there are less moderates who are now somewhat left. This tends to spiral. Factor in the fact that many young people from rural areas are abandoning their shithole communities for better jobs and more enriched lives in urban communities. So as the young and moderate leave, the remainder continues to reaffirm each other's beliefs into something progressively more conservative.
Rural communities then continue to suffer economically because people who want to be doing well know rural communities are a lost cause. Young people see no reason to stay in rural communities for a worse life, worse schools, worse job and less opportunity. So the older, conservative folks go on to be more segregated. And the rural communities continue to suffer more and more because more and more companies see the benefit to urban areas.
In short, fundamental societal migration mechanisms are going to continue making this much worse. poop.
|
On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains). It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues?
Not for nothing, but ya’ll live on an island where you spent well over 2000 years killing everything that could harm you and then turned the place into a car park. You folks hate trees. Not to say that you don’t have rural areas, but you all have had more time to make them submit to you. New England got old growth forest moose and black bears all over the place. I live in the far burbs of Boston and a fox hunts under my porch for mice and fucks with the deer that like my black berry bushes. And that is considered “urban”. We need more time to beat this much larger land mass until submission.
|
On February 23 2018 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains).It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Forgive my off-topic'ness, but this made me laugh at work.
To quote her: "They're invincible, vengeful, and they are perfectly confident they can wait you out if you try to hide."
|
On February 23 2018 04:55 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains).It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Forgive my off-topic'ness, but this made me laugh at work. To quote her: "They're invincible, vengeful, and they are perfectly confident they can wait you out if you try to hide."
But their nemesis has kept a low profile for centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachshund
|
|
|
On February 23 2018 03:32 Mohdoo wrote:AKA direct confirmation to trump garbage that Obama's shadow government is paying these kids.
I thought Killary was our shadow president though.
|
LaPierre is just a despicable human being.
|
On February 23 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains). It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Not for nothing, but ya’ll live on an island where you spent well over 2000 years killing everything that could harm you and then turned the place into a car park. You folks hate trees. Not to say that you don’t have rural areas, but you all have had more time to make them submit to you. New England got old growth forest moose and black bears all over the place. I live in the far burbs of Boston and a fox hunts under my porch for mice and fucks with the deer that like my black berry bushes. And that is considered “urban”. We need more time to beat this much larger land mass until submission. There are plenty of Foxes and a few deers in London. Not saying England is not more urban than New England, but foxes are considered part of urban wildlife much the same way mice and pidgeons are. Deer not so much. Sometimes they wander in or get loose from nearby park.
|
On February 23 2018 05:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Wayne's not wrong. At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting. As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems. The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains). It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Not for nothing, but ya’ll live on an island where you spent well over 2000 years killing everything that could harm you and then turned the place into a car park. You folks hate trees. Not to say that you don’t have rural areas, but you all have had more time to make them submit to you. New England got old growth forest moose and black bears all over the place. I live in the far burbs of Boston and a fox hunts under my porch for mice and fucks with the deer that like my black berry bushes. And that is considered “urban”. We need more time to beat this much larger land mass until submission. There are plenty of Foxes and a few deers in London. Not saying England is not more urban than New England, but foxes are considered part of urban wildlife much the same way mice and pidgeons are. Deer not so much. Sometimes they wander in or get loose from nearby park.
I’m being a little more than facetious. I didn’t think it was all sheep and corgis across the pond. I just find it amusing when folks in the EU ask why American want guns. I think a 2 week vacation in northern Maine would answer that question.
|
On February 23 2018 06:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 05:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 23 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
At this point not believing in the constitution is a positive from where I am sitting.
As is not believing in the god hand of capitalism so solve all problems.
The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains). It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Not for nothing, but ya’ll live on an island where you spent well over 2000 years killing everything that could harm you and then turned the place into a car park. You folks hate trees. Not to say that you don’t have rural areas, but you all have had more time to make them submit to you. New England got old growth forest moose and black bears all over the place. I live in the far burbs of Boston and a fox hunts under my porch for mice and fucks with the deer that like my black berry bushes. And that is considered “urban”. We need more time to beat this much larger land mass until submission. There are plenty of Foxes and a few deers in London. Not saying England is not more urban than New England, but foxes are considered part of urban wildlife much the same way mice and pidgeons are. Deer not so much. Sometimes they wander in or get loose from nearby park. I’m being a little more than facetious. I didn’t think it was all sheep and corgis across the pond. I just find it amusing when folks in the EU ask why American want guns. I think a 2 week vacation in northern Maine would answer that question. And people would be fine with them owning a hunting rifle.
I have never been there but I doubt the wildlife is so bad you need an AR-15 with multiple drum mags.
|
On February 23 2018 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 06:10 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 05:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 23 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 04:05 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:43 Tachion wrote:On February 23 2018 01:23 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The constitution is pretty good. The whole conservative argument around the constitution is that socialism runs counter to the basic tenets of the constitution and is therefore un-American. Of course, they are also pretty flexible on what “socialism” means. I'd agree with that assessment. The problem is the same problem I have with biblical literalists. Just because some dude had a good idea a while ago doesn't mean that good idea is an immutably perfect ideal. The basics of the constitution are good. But it needs to evolve. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln or the founding fathers in general were thinking that American children would use guns to murder each other, and if they were alive today, writing the constitution today, they'd be thinking the 2nd Amendment needed revisions to take that into account. For a nation that's best known for thinking ahead and being innovative, it's weird to see how culturally enslaved you are to the ideals of a few decent, intelligent, but imperfect dead men. What do you say to conservatives who think that they need the appropriate weaponry to fight back against a tyrannical government as they believe the 2nd amendment was intended? When it comes to the militia types It feels like the gun control conversation is entirely fruitless. What do I say? "You're gonna need a bigger gun." Non-sardonically, I think deep down they know it, too; why else stockpile so MANY guns? But it depends on your reading, and the context. Did the founders think that the normal man needed to be safe from their own government, or was it a preparation against invasion from aggressive powers, such as the British Empire (you damn colonials! *shakes fist*), to ensure America never fell under anyone else's sway? I'm 100% certain they never intended the main use of the 2nd amendment would be for American citizens to kill other innocent American citizens over, basically, nothing, except seemingly the freedom for school children to murder each other while politicians tut, shake their heads, and lament at how there's nothing they can do about it in the one country in the developed world where it's an actual problem. Most of our county is rural and have wild animals, some of which can be dangerous. The tradition of gun ownership comes from that. It doesn’t mean semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips make sense. But owning a shotgun where I grew up made perfect sense. My parent’s home is next to a ridge where black bears like to raise their cubs. It is like 300 yards away(across a pond). Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. But a lot of England is rural as well. I know people who a) own guns b) use guns and c) enthusiastically wish for all foxes to die because they keep fucking with their chickens. Oh and d) have hilarious stories about what happens if you either run over or catch a badger in a rabbit snare (for those not in the know; the badger survives and the car does not, and the badger will simply sit and wait for the fucker who put that trap down and then try to murder them when they release them from it; a friend from university compared badgers to supervillains). It doesn't seem like rural America is where the problem is, though. Or do you think it is or is equal to the urban issues? Not for nothing, but ya’ll live on an island where you spent well over 2000 years killing everything that could harm you and then turned the place into a car park. You folks hate trees. Not to say that you don’t have rural areas, but you all have had more time to make them submit to you. New England got old growth forest moose and black bears all over the place. I live in the far burbs of Boston and a fox hunts under my porch for mice and fucks with the deer that like my black berry bushes. And that is considered “urban”. We need more time to beat this much larger land mass until submission. There are plenty of Foxes and a few deers in London. Not saying England is not more urban than New England, but foxes are considered part of urban wildlife much the same way mice and pidgeons are. Deer not so much. Sometimes they wander in or get loose from nearby park. I’m being a little more than facetious. I didn’t think it was all sheep and corgis across the pond. I just find it amusing when folks in the EU ask why American want guns. I think a 2 week vacation in northern Maine would answer that question. And people would be fine with them owning a hunting rifle. I have never been there but I doubt the wildlife is so bad you need an AR-15 with multiple drum mags.
My house mate is from Canada and considers dynamite to be standard camping supplies, for the bears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
