Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1083350 Posts in 71707 Topics- by 19125 Members - Latest Member: trombone.willy
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 280
1  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Yesterday at 12:11 PM
Why would he ask if it was original if he knew it was a copy?  Don't know
2  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 08:19 AM
This de-certification will make the world wonder if the USA, whose word was once her bond, is now no more trustworthy than it's President. Why would No Korea, or anyone, enter into an agreement with this administration?
Unfortunately the last part seems quite accurate. If we aren't willing to abide by an agreement that we pressed for just because the next person in line thinks it could have been done better...


And we have elections every 4 years...


There is no reason to enter a binding agreement with us.



Per the Trump side, I really have to wonder... what is the possible upside of leaving this?
3  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Oct 13, 2017, 10:29AM
We’re Tracking the Ways Trump Is Scaling Back Obamacare. Here Are 12.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/us/trump-undermine-obamacare.html

Including the advertising budget for Obamacare to create youtube videos saying it is failing and twitter infographics campaigning against it (with full dhhs logo included)...
4  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Oct 13, 2017, 08:14AM
Now I hear he's issued an executive order to squash Obama Care and stop payments to insurance companies.  Where does that level the folks that signed up for it?

screwed, basically.

Trump's plan is to work to disable Obamacare and hurt the people that need it, and if they hurt enough... then maybe the democrats will care enough to come to the table and agree to the GOP plan, just to get SOMETHING other than the failing mess. But the bullying tactic really doesn't make much sense. If he destroys health care with complete republican control of congress AND the republicans fail to pass their own, then they take full ownership of the failure. At the same time, the GOP healthcare plan is not to help people but taxcuts and fulfilling an empty campaign promise. So for the dems, the GOP takes the political fall, and the people won't be helped by acquiescing... so why would they join Trump or the GOP in their healthcare efforts?


That said, it speaks quite loudly how much he actually cares about those impacted if he thinks their suffering is his leverage.
5  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Oct 11, 2017, 11:16AM
Imo, the word 'lady' is being tossed around carelessly when describing Ivana.

So is "president" with Donald, but sometimes titles refer to the most basic of basics....
6  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 10, 2017, 11:35AM

Which states allow concealed carry (or open) w/o a permit or certification of some sort?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Permitting_policies

has a quick breakdown. See "unrestricted"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Unrestricted
7  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 10, 2017, 10:47AM
There is little we can do about illegal guns.
There's an awful lot we can do about illegal guns! First off, maybe have some way to actually check if they are indeed illegal?

For example, in some states, you can buy a handgun privately - no background check - and then carry it concealed with no training or permit. It's actually a current push by the NRA to expand this option.

So you have a gun with no record of purchase, no records run for the user, and carried in a concealed way without any paperwork. Is that legal? Maybe the gun was stolen. Maybe the user is a felon? In some states, that only applies to residents, they could be from out of state. And how would you know if it's illegal?

How can you do something about illegal guns if it's damn hard to tell if they are even illegal to start with?


We do have some common sense measures in place. 
Far less than most any other areas... such as cars. A quick check can tell if the driver is licensed, what their record is, what cars they own and are insured under, and if they have medical issues that may temporarily prevent them from effectively operating a car... such as seizures in the past year. 

you have to have a background check run
Wrong. I have four guns and have never had a background check. And even if a check is run, it's weaker than most checks for employment.

Shoot, I was at a rodeo in Idaho a few days ago where I could have gotten an AR-15 via fairly cheap lottery.

Which is a funny thing about the private sales. We have plenty of things where private seller need to register the sale with the government. Title for a car, for example. We just don't.

you can't buy if you're a convicted felon or mentally ill
On the later, congress reverse that this past year. Per the felon, depends on who you're buying from.

there are a number of prohibited items, not just automatic firing but those with features like short barrels, the dreaded bayonet lug;
Quite few in number. Especially when compared to say the restrictions or safety standards placed on other less hazardous materials or objects.

in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc.  If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires.  If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence.
To be clear, these are state specific. People drive across the state line for cheaper gas and commodities and taxes on a regular basis. A state by state issue with certain aspects are hardly meaningful when you can readily circumvent them. Especially when there is no documentation or records to go along with it.

Can you imagine if new car safety standards were mandated state by state? And not a big state like CA, but different between OK and AR and MO and the like? They'd be useless and confusing as hell!
 

It's not like there haven't been some attempts.  But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths.  It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario.

That's our approach though.  Ignore gang drivebys, convenience store holdups, resisting arrest, suicide, but react emotionally to the rare but highly publicized mass shooting.  Then enact something, anything, don't care if it works but it makes us feel better.
 
The last part is actually important. Not for what it is, but what it is not. It is not specific or intelligent. It is lumping all gun crimes together as one. And in that case, no answer will impact the broad crimes, just one specific area. As such, these different areas need to be looked at an addressed specifically.

A drive by gang shooting is remarkably different than the type of mass shooting that just occurred.

Mass shootings are an issue unto themselves. And they have some very strong commonalities across them. Take a subset of that... "rampage" shootings. Basically shootings of four or more where the actual targets don't matter... such as Las Vegas. He was shooting to kill people, didn't matter who.

In that case, the shooters are almost entirely white, Christian, and male. And their targets are almost entirely "safe places". Churches, schools, large peaceful public gatherings like concerts or movie theaters... Very different demographic doing the shooting, with very different motivations, and different targets.

Tim mentions "the dreaded bayonet lug" sarcastically, but that actually quite important to the mass shooter crowd. There, it's the image of the gun more than the functionality. A bayonet lug is useless. But it gives that illusion of a more military weapon, more waging war, more rage/travesty.

And remember who this group is again... The AR-15 crowd? A gun that's looks and little civilian purpose other than "target shooting"? NRA members. GOP members. Heavily white men, and not exactly youthful. The same group that has quite a high suicide rate because they feel like they should be powerful socially but instead feels impotent. Image is everything. And unfortunately, the image that is sold with an AR-15 is far from responsible.
8  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:22PM
If the NRA has its way, the entire USA society will evolve into episodes of Gunsmoke. I am sure they'd have no problem with guns being allowed ANYWHERE, included bars.

This country is going crazy.
Bars, churches, preschools, school campuses... some of the NRA stronghold states recently passed laws to allow these.
9  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:19PM
Just amend the 2nd amendment.
Its not hard.
The constitution was amended before, so just amend it again.



The short answer is that one of the main failings of our constitution is that the bar to amend was set a bit too high. Later adaptations often learned and made it a bit easier. And in truth, our later growth probably contributes to a great deal of that difficulty and they couldn't have seen that coming.

But it is what it is... and that is almost impossible to amend it, and anything with the level of agreement needed to amend it... well, those items aren't often issue to begin with. So we are stuck with a powerful lobbying group using an obselete amendment to turn fear into profit.
10  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:10PM
I'm not a second amendment scholar and don't pretend to know all the reasons.  Or much care.

But it seems to me another concept has been inserted that confuses the issue.

US courts have consistently upheld the right to exercise self defense, have they not? Even in some rather dubious circumstances.   That would seem to generate gun ownership as an implied secondary right, because clearly disabled or small or female people who would have no other option can't be denied the right to self defense.

We take that "right" for granted in the US but it is by no means universal across the world. 
Actually the biggest confusion there is recent and written directly by NRA lobbyists. Self defense has been around yes, but with strong caveats. Prior to the NRA's initial legislation in FL that they then pushed to other states, there was a duty to retreat first. If you weren't trying to get away you couldn't claim defense.

Comes back to the NRA and normalizing owning and using guns where we get the stand you ground type, no retreat self defense bs.

Or bs laws like in Texas where a bystander can stop a commission of a crime with a gun legally. Even minor ones. Thus allowing the gun owner bystander more individual power than the entire judiciary.
11  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:33AM
I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  They appear to be orthogonal.
Only if you consider it all or nothing, and such reasoning does not survive reality anyhow.


Quote
Our country is based on the latter, is it not? 
Our country was based on the notion that government was concerned with and participated in by a minority of rich white men. Hence why the only federal election that even landowning men could vote is was the house.

A board policy of freedom isn't exactly a strong underpinning by those who owned other people and allowed their women no voice.

Reality is that they contradicted or compromised their principles in numerous ways from the very beginning. There one way or the other, but a murky middle grounded often decided on money and popular opinion.
12  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:27AM
The reality of the second amendment debate is that it attempts to make something over nothing.

The second amendment was one of the least debated amendments and remains one of the least judicially interpreted ones. The reason is simple: at writing, the founded distrusted standing armies with good reason. A militia just beat the strongest army on the globe so they wanted that approach to continue. The second amendment secured that.

Fast forward 150 years and we find that militias don't work over the long run, and have had de facto standing armies ever since.

At that time, the second amendment lost any real relevance.


The issue today is that the NRA has gone from an organization made of and for sport gun users to a mouthpiece for the gun industry.  They have set on an approach to sell as many guns and possible and to do that, they need to normalize them as much as possible. To that end, they deploy fear and distrust of everyone-government, fellow people- and sell a message that only you can protect you. So get a gun and stay alive. And the legally justify this they ally tighty with the Republican Party and regularly spout abuses of the second amendment even their own people called utterly ridiculous a few decades ago.

Constitutional rights don't protect bs like target shooting any more than they protect practicing knife throwing or sword juggling.
13  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 06, 2017, 10:43AM
Okay, I know I'm a broken record on this issue, but there's a good bit of rhetoric out there on not needing various things, and that's the wrong direction.

In a totalitarian society an individual is only allowed to have property or rights that he can prove he needs.

In a free society, the government is only allowed to take away property or rights that they prove is sufficiently harmful overall.

I think both approaches end up banning the bump stock, full auto weapons, grenade launchers
Both approaches are valid and needed. In this case, something has obvious harm. Does it have any benefit? If not, why is it still legal?

You need to question BOTH in a pro vs con understanding.

Like the question of military styled rifles. Why? Oh so that men with small penises have something to play with in their "me" time. So they're legal now...
14  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 05, 2017, 12:28PM
This guy is probably doing this for the first time, and like me, probably wouldn't have been able or have the know how, to do this. You stated it, like it was shooting a pistol, who anyone can do. If this wasn't his first experience shooting these kinds of rounds, we should have witnesses from the local firing ranges acknowledging that he was at one. He obviously spent a lot of time meticulously planning all this out, with the location, hotel room, high dollar weapons, getting the weapons and ammo up to the 32 floor without being noticed as unusual activity for a hotel guest. So, with this high level of planning, he thought that he didn't need to do any training on the weapons themselves? he thought that he could just do it on the fly for the first time?
Dude... you don't need a firing range to shoot a gun. Just a wide open space. And that's pretty much Nevada in a nutshell. There's a small population in las vegas, a small population in reno/carson city... and a heck of a wide open space in between and all around.

So, that is why I'm saying it is my opinion, not stating it as fact.
And what is the opinion of someone with no knowledge of the situation with no knowledge of the items in play... what is that opinion worth?


You keep holding up your opinion as if it means something or has merit.

If you really want to know or learn... listening is more important than speaking, and asking is more important than saying.
15  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 05, 2017, 05:40AM
So far, there has been no mention of the stock of guns and explosives they found at their joint house and in the motel room he used. It is difficult to imagine that she could have not been aware of such a large amount of weaponry or not wondered why it was there.

Saw something saying he bought a massive load of semi-automatics, something like 33, in just the past month. which yes, is unfortunately legal here.

In which case, if he got this itch in his head, sent her off, and planned for two weeks... it's unfortunately yet entirely possible.
16  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Las Vegas shooting on: Oct 04, 2017, 10:26AM
Yes! Finally the truth! ISIS did it to show us exactly how absurd our gun laws were and how vulnerable the public is to those absurd laws... They want to terrorize us with ourselves!
17  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 03, 2017, 05:44PM
What kind of people do you have down there?

The call themselves capitalists....
18  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 03, 2017, 04:05PM
If throwing random links out there...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/articles/2017-10-02/moral-problem-gun-stocks-rallying-after-mass-shootings
19  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:49PM
Wrong on this one B0B.  Abortion is a derived right.  It's not specifically mentioned in the constitution nor in any of the amendments to the constitution.  If I remember correctly, it was derived from the right to privacy, which is also a derived right from the 4th amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure.  So, constitutionally, the right to bear arms is a more fundamental right than the right to an abortion.

From a practical standard... not at all. The right for a person to have control over their body and personal health decisions is far more fundamental than what objects they can lawfully have access to.

Interpretation wise, maybe... but then historically the second amendment has been satisfied with simply having a government armory that locals could access as part of signing up for and training with the militia. The modern extension of self defense or personal use or personal collection that we know today is no more rooted than the right to abortion.
20  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:34PM
It is confirmed.... the weapons used were not fully automatic, the shooter used a bump stock. And apparently not only are those legal, some cost as little as $100.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 280