|
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. |
Well, shooting clubs and the like exists in UK. The difference is gun culture. When people are asking why Americans have guns what they are really asking is "Why is gun control so lax?" "Why is your gun culture is so insecure?" "Why are there so many school shootings?"
It's like asking why people get drunk. We know why you would want to drink, the question is asking" why act like a stereotype of an insecure machismo who gets into fights and beat his wife?" instead of having a relaxing drink in the pub or home.
Anyways, I am not too interested in this line of reasoning; from the gun control thread, I can see that guns are religion, and about as productive as arguing religious doctrine.
|
On February 23 2018 06:21 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 06:13 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
That is a little excessive, but I did use a quarter stick to kill a ground hog once. But that was mostly because it was awesome. Canada is a magic land with animals like moose and large bears that have no natural predators and fear nothing. And the guns that would be sufficient for a human are less that adequate to deal with those things if they try to fuck with you.
|
On February 23 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 06:21 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 06:13 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. That is a little excessive, but I did use a quarter stick to kill a ground hog once. But that was mostly because it was awesome. Canada is a magic land with animals like moose and large bears that have no natural predators and fear nothing. And the guns that would be sufficient for a human are less that adequate to deal with those things if they try to fuck with you.
LMAO please clarify how exactly you kill a hog with dynamite. Do you seriously just light it up and toss it?
|
On February 23 2018 07:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 06:21 iamthedave wrote:On February 23 2018 06:13 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. That is a little excessive, but I did use a quarter stick to kill a ground hog once. But that was mostly because it was awesome. Canada is a magic land with animals like moose and large bears that have no natural predators and fear nothing. And the guns that would be sufficient for a human are less that adequate to deal with those things if they try to fuck with you. LMAO please clarify how exactly you kill a hog with dynamite. Do you seriously just light it up and toss it?
You put it in one end of the hole it dug in the yard and back up. And hope no one calls the cops since M80s/quarter sticks are totally illegal and your friend is an idiot and brought three of them. + Show Spoiler +Also not sure if they are real quarter sticks or just really dangerous firecrackers.
|
On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...?
Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations.
|
On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations.
Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them
|
On February 23 2018 07:46 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations. Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them
No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect.
|
|
|
On February 23 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 07:46 IyMoon wrote:On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations. Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect. That's a load of puerile Federalist nonsense borne straight out of legalistic partisanry; conservatives and/or textualists selectively add depth to their interpretive perspective when it suits them. Conservatives fucking love their qualified immunity, presumptions for or against drafter's intent a la noscitur a sociis, and total ignorance of the 9th Amendment, after all.
|
On February 23 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 07:46 IyMoon wrote:On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations. Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect.
But is it not pretty clear how people could have different interpretations of the second amendment? Now I am not a lawyer but wasn't there some huge case about the comma that is in the second amendment and what it means?
|
“We gotta keep the blood moving,” said union leader Kim Martin as she revved up a picket line of 50 teachers dancing in the freezing rain to Michael Jackson’s Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough.
Teachers in West Virginia, who are the 48th lowest paid in the nation, quit school for a two-day illegal wildcat strike on Thursday, the first time they have taken such action since 1990.
They are demanding that state legislature vote to increase their wages, health care, and stop the proposed elimination of traditional teachers seniority.
With starting salaries set at $31,000 a year, union leaders say that after deducting for health care costs, many teachers in the state make less than $15 an hour.
Now, the Republican lead state legislature is proposing to give teachers only a 2% raise while drastically increasing healthcare costs so high that some teacher’s deductibles would more than triple.
“It’s scary. I worry constantly about how I am going to afford my medicine” says 20-year teaching veteran Jackie Shriner who already pays $500 a month just to afford her insulin.
Despite the state enacting anti-union “right-to-work” legislation in 2016, support for the teachers among the public remains strong in the once union stronghold of West Virginia.
On the picket line outside of Bridge Street Elementary, cars drove by honking and yelling in support of the striking teachers.
“Out of the last three hours, we have only gotten one middle finger,” said Bridge Street Elementary teacher Lindsay Armmirante. “The rest has been all honks, thumbs up, fist bumps, smiles, it’s actually been a lot of fun”
Horns blared as Sub Express shop owner Perry Wade stopped his car to get out and thank the cards. “It’s not much, but it’s more than they are giving you in Charleston,” joked Wade as he hands them cards for free six-inch subs.
However, support for the teachers isn’t nearly as strong with the area’s State senator Ryan Ferns, the Republican majority leader in the state Senate.
“The teachers and their unions are threatening to strike and are making a threat to lock schools down and leave students in the cold,” Ferns told the Wheeling News-Register last Friday. “As a Legislature, we are not willing to respond to that,”
The comment outraged many of Wheeling’s teachers.
“I have taught girls that were pregnant that were raped by their fathers,” said Lindsay Armmirante. “We have paid electric bills, we have paid water bills, we have taken kids shopping for clothes. There is nothing that we don’t do for our kids here if they need. So to insult us that we don’t care about our kids its way over the line”.
As the state’s board of education weighs bringing legal charges against the state’s teachers unions for engaging in an illegal strike, teachers out on the picket line at Bridge Street Elementary said they were undeterred as the public rallies to support them.
“It’s been really neat to see a state come together with the way like we have because there are so many areas that we are divided as a state, but this seems like one thing where we have a lot of support,” says Armmirante.
Source
|
The originalist fiction of a Constitutional and post-Constitutional state is one of my favorite forms of marketing. It creates this unearned authority to their view of the Constitution as “unchanging” and how it supports their values; while also framing any alternative viewpoint as moving beyond the scope of the Constitution and an assault on it's values. That their specific view of the Constitution was the original intent of the founding fathers, who are all super dead and were always in conflict about the scope of the Constitution’s power. It both deifies the Founding Fathers while also completely ignoring the facets of history that do not support the originalist Constitutional theory. It sets the originalist up as stalwart defenders of this Constitutional state that never truly existed, even when all the authors of Constitution were alive.
And who do they defend this Constitutional state from? The Constitutional vandals, more commonly known as the liberals, socialists, non-Europeans, Non-Christians and whoever else might have values that may alter values of the tomb like Constitutional state. The siege is never ending and amazing marketing to impressionable minds. I can see why Xdaunt finds it so appealing.
|
On February 23 2018 07:56 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 07:46 IyMoon wrote:On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations. Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect. But is it not pretty clear how people could have different interpretations of the second amendment? Now I am not a lawyer but wasn't there some huge case about the comma that is in the second amendment and what it means?
Yeah and it was decided in 2008 on a 5/4 decision that stands as a fragile tentpole holding up an imaginary set of "strong 2nd Amendment rights" precedent, the last direct 2nd Amendment case being 1938.
|
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.
I'd like to repeat that. People who are for gun control are usually not completely against guns. Owning reasonable guns for a reasonable reason is not something people are against. Wild animal problems? Have a shotgun or a hunting rifle. You are a hunter? Have a hunting rifle. You are shooting targets for fun? Have some bolt-action low caliber thingy. Those things are all legal throughout most of europe, too.
|
On February 23 2018 07:56 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 07:46 IyMoon wrote:On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 01:27 hunts wrote:On February 23 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Wayne's not wrong. Are you going to elaborate or just say something dumb and play your usual xdaunt game of "that's not what I said" "that's not what I meant" etc...? Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations. Wouldn't the amendments to it show proof of it as a living document? If it was perfect from the start we wouldn't need any of them No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect. But is it not pretty clear how people could have different interpretations of the second amendment? Now I am not a lawyer but wasn't there some huge case about the comma that is in the second amendment and what it means?
Yes, that would be the Heller case, and it provides a nice dichotomy between the progressive and originalist approaches to the Second Amendment. There, originalism prevailed.
|
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH.
|
On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH.
I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him.
|
In response to last week’s deadly shooting in Florida, two prominent gun safety groups are joining with Tom Steyer, the Democratic billionaire activist, in a push ahead of the midterm elections to register high school students to vote around gun issues.
Steyer’s NextGen America group is working with Giffords — the group founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, after she was shot in 2011 — and Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The effort is kicking off with a $1 million donation from Steyer.
“In the wake of this shooting in Parkland, what we saw was [that] the difference between this shooting and other shootings is these were older kids, and they had a voice that was incredibly powerful on a topic where elected officials had been paid for years — or decades — to look the other way,” Steyer told POLITICO, referring to surviving students who have spoken out in favor of stricter gun laws.
The push will expand the footprint of NextGen America beyond the college campuses where it maintains a significant presence across the country.
“We’ve always said the millennials are the biggest and least politically represented group in the U.S. This is exactly why we’re doing what we’re doing,” said Steyer, the hedge fund manager turned environmentalist turned megadonor.
The effort, which will include a national voter registration drive, will focus on states and districts represented by incumbent Republican lawmakers who have taken money from the National Rifle Association and voted against gun control measures.
The campaign is set to launch on March 25, the day after planned protests for gun safety spurred by the Parkland shooting.
Source
|
On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him.
When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
