smjjames

Pretty sure that happens with every notorious or particularily despicable criminal, someone has to defend them because our justice gives the accused a chance to get a public defender or defense lawyer.

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format. You know I'm surprised this isn't commonplace now. Commonplace for colleges. Though not all classes obviously.

More like Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Good.

Not entirely sure what happened there, two separate groups of thieves/shoplifters? I'd guess the lawful evil is in reference to the other two distracting and then trapping the third guy who came shortly after them?

I don’t think I watched that specific episode though.

I think that’s a water pistol.

I did watch SG-1 but I don’t remember seeing that particular gun used there.

Number 5 and the general idea of proving you’re going to use it for what you want to use it for seem reasonable to me. Speaking of burying gun purchases in red tape, Japan takes it to the extreme. If we are using the Florida shooting as a specific case, it’s hard to tell what could have stopped him from obtaining the gun. Sure, there’s the mental illness angle, but as guarddog said, there are ethical problems with confiscating a firearm due to mental illness. Police officers and FBI agents aren’t psychologists and we shouldn’t necessarily ask them to be one.

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there. I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A... That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear. The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go? Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all. I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

No it isn't, that's just the most extreme position some people claim others are taking (though there are a few who do take that position, but they're in the extreme minority). In what way is the second amendment unclear? I was thinking of the militia bit since partly it's vague enough for people to argue over the semantics and what the founders meant by militia isn't exactly the same as today. Not that it'd happen anyway.

You know, if they're going to put a random car and a flintlock pistol, they should put an old time cannon in there for the lulz.

What's the thing in the far left, lower row? Looks like a gun part than a gun. Also, is the 'high capacity semautomatic handgun' a flintlock pistol? Looks like one.

Only problem with serious research is that the government has actively blocked said research because there are minimal records on guns because people (and the NRA mostly) don't want the government to have records on guns, thus it's impossible or very difficult to do a meaningful and comprehensive research that would actually result in targeted legislation. Not that there isn't some research, but the research that could be done isn't able to be done.

I still say part of the problem is that the Second Amendment makes it that much harder to talk about gun control or gun safety or whatever term you can think of to describe the conversation around guns. I'm not saying that the Second Amendment itself is the problem or that it should be abolished (though clarifying it may be a good idea), just that trying to work around it or with it is an obstacle that other countries don't and didn't have. Anyways, sounds like Trump is starting to display the same kind of frustration Obama had over the school shootings and stuff. Though I have doubts that even Trump will be able to nudge the Republicans in Congress forward on it. They tried the bump stocks thing but even that fell through. Might take a Democrat controlled Congress (majorities in both chambers, possibly a supermajority in the Senate) and a Democrat President in order to make actual progress on guns, unfortunately.

LOL. I posted this months ago. Made by IPN (Institute of National Remembrance). Here is the full video with narration (yes it is Sean Bean): ah wow... I actually forgot that. Anyway, at least it wasn’t an ad on YT back then. Also, regarding to the “fake news glorifying the hellspawn”, BBC is British As is The Guardian, though they do have an US based branch.

Same here with filling in on Nova and the insano bits. Haven't watched it for years, since I was a kid. No idea how the heck a political agenda would be pushed into an episode about black holes.

It's not privately controlled, it's publicly funded, focuses on educational broadcasting. Killing PBS seems far more nefarious to me than wanting to kill off NPR, because NPR is actually liberal leaning where is PBS is very moderate. But even NPR is an important American staple. Isn't PBS pretty much in the same boat as Planned Parenthood where they want to kill federal funding, but there is no federal funding to kill in the first place? You can't defund something that you already aren't funding.

'better than the bastille day parade' would be NK and former Soviet Russia tier displays of 'military might'.

Did you equaled an epidemic in prison with Nazi death camps? You did, didn't you?Is that something you picked in school or read some low quality website? no, I pointed out the issues with making “polish death camp” a legal term. I don’t seem to deny, dismiss or relativise the Holocaust. But we are in a discussion about a law. And if we are doing that, I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider just how much history can or could be denied when forbidding the term “polish death camp”. Essentially, I was talking about terminology. Granted though, I should’ve made that clearer. I’m sorry if I confused anyone. Well the term isn't specifically mentioned in the law. It's just an example used by the media and legislators. The law is penalizing false statements that Poland was collaborating with Nazi Germany and was involved in Holocaust. There were certainly people who did collaborate or cooperate willingly, but I suppose the law is aimed at statements saying that the government at the time was?

So Tekehu IS an Ondra godlike, just a different aspect of her. Also, WERESHARK!

Most likely there are republicans who are happy about this turn of the events, but members of GOP in congress and Trump have parroted narrative about how stock market growth shows what economy growing under their leadership and for said narrative big stock market drops isn't best turn of the events. Maybe, but the opposition cannot say that stock drop is Trumps fault without acknowledging that the stock rise was his success Nobody's even blaming him in the first place.

A crash would be something more akin to the 22% drop that happened in the 1980's, this one as a percentage was only like 4%. Certainly looks dramatic compared to the constant upwards movement that the stocks have been going in for a while.

If there was a dislike button, I'd use it on your post

Actually, he probably did Google as about half of the first page of results are in reference to the Japanese Emperor. The rest are to China and one to Castro. Last one is somewhat laughable, you'd think Cuba is so beneath the US there's no need to act hard with them. Oh right, Miami voters. The one with appearing to bow to the Saudi King was one of the main ones. Plus the whole 'apology tour' meme.

I don't know if he is more or less active than he seems to have been recently, but I just quoted a post he made last night, so, he's around.