Volourn Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 TRIGGERED. CongressMEN? That is sexist. LITERAL NAZIS. We here, in the Amerikas, like to use the word congressperson. 1 DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Orogun01 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Taliban addresses "the American people" In a rambling nearly 3,000-word letter issued Wednesday, the Taliban urged the "American people" to press their government to withdraw from Afghanistan, reminding them that the Afghan war is the longest conflict in which they have been embroiled -- and at a cost of "trillions of dollars." The letter was addressed to "the American people, officials of independent non-governmental organizations and the peace loving Congressmen." I do love how subtle they are with their priming, saying that its "rambling". Bet if it was a Democrat speech would be comprehensive instead. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Katphood Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 More shootings...sad. There used to be a signature here, a really cool one...and now it's gone.
Raithe Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 1 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Malcador Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 More shootings...sad. I think it's time for USA to change 2nd amendment from the right to bear arms to obligation to bear arms at all times. Road rage deaths will reach worrying levels. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 A lot of people are down on the FBI & local police because they were aware of threats this guy had made. But what could they do? You can't arrest someone BEFORE they commit a crime. It would make a decent sci-fi story if they could. One other thought. In most states the minimum age to buy a pistol is 21 but 18 for rifles. Perhaps that should change. Perhaps 21 should be the age of full legal majority for everything. It would not ave stopped everything because weapons can be had by other than legal means. But he did buy his weapon legally so it's worth considering. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Malcador Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Isn't making threats illegal, though ? Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Isn't making threats illegal, though ? Specific threats yes/ "I'm going to kill you Malcador". That will get you arrested. Generalized threats "I'm going to kill someone" not so much. It will get them looking at you, but until you actually DO something what can they do? "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Hurlshort Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 This is a pretty interesting opinion piece. Pretty much mirrors my feelings of futility with the whole gun control political trap: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.424972d13ac9 1
Malcador Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Isn't making threats illegal, though ?Specific threats yes/ "I'm going to kill you Malcador". That will get you arrested. Generalized threats "I'm going to kill someone" not so much. It will get them looking at you, but until you actually DO something what can they do? Haven't bothered to take a look but it seems like the threats were slightly specific from reports I heard. But yeah, they can't necessarily do anything worse than talk to him - that might put a scare on him but also might provoke him. Does seem like something one should lose their firearms for though, but I forget that's a right meant to have no restrictions down there Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Chilloutman Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 A lot of people are down on the FBI & local police because they were aware of threats this guy had made. But what could they do? You can't arrest someone BEFORE they commit a crime. It would make a decent sci-fi story if they could. One other thought. In most states the minimum age to buy a pistol is 21 but 18 for rifles. Perhaps that should change. Perhaps 21 should be the age of full legal majority for everything. It would not ave stopped everything because weapons can be had by other than legal means. But he did buy his weapon legally so it's worth considering. I think you still have to go through psychologival exam before they gave you gun permit no? I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"
Gfted1 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 I think you still have to go through psychologival exam before they gave you gun permit no? Regular civilians? Not that I'm aware of. A felonious criminal record will block legal purchases though. 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Chilloutman Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 thats.. dumb we really have probably best gun laws on the world.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"
Malcador Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 thats.. dumb we really have probably best gun laws on the world.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic Brilliant choice of image for that article 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Pidesco Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 This is a pretty interesting opinion piece. Pretty much mirrors my feelings of futility with the whole gun control political trap: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.424972d13ac9 The thing is, quite simply, that Americans love guns too much. It's just your gun culture. If a high enough number of people likes guns, wants guns and owns guns, there will always be some people who will get and use guns inappropriately. Those people may be unbalanced individuals that go on shooting sprees, people who don't store guns away from children, people who lose their guns, people who don't maintain their guns regularly, people who sell their guns on the black market, or whatever else you can think of. These people will be a very small percentage of the overall group, but as that group is huge, they will still be significant enough to cause stuff like that happens almost everyday in the States. And forget about changing this. Outside of some sort of catastrophe, a society's basic cultural trait usually changes only over decades, at the very least. If something like Sandy Hook didn't change perspectives towards guns, then nothing will. 1 "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend.
smjjames Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 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.
Hurlshort Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 The people that want to ban guns, or put harsh gun control restrictions in effect, are basically simplifying a very complex issue. It's actually the same line of thinking that gets us a big wall on the border to deal with illegal immigration. These solutions ignore the cultural and economic realities of the United States. It would be nice if we could really get serious research done on both these issues without constant political bickering and see actual targeted reform put into effect. But I suppose would also be unrealistic.
smjjames Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 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.
injurai Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Surely universities track those sorts of numbers.
Ethics Gradient Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) Surely universities track those sorts of numbers. Yes-ish, but in some circumstances federal agencies are better positioned to gather the data and provide direct input to legislators regarding policy proposals. The big thing that smjjames is pointing out is the existence of the Dickey Amendment. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has proposed studying firearm deaths like any other human disease. Identify the base causes, mechanisms of dispersion, second- and third-order effects, lethality factors, etc... But because of that amendment from 1996, the CDC is barred from doing research which may conclude that any forms of gun control may lead to a decrease in fatalities. The guy who actually sponsored that amendment, Jay Dickey, has actually been on the record for years saying that he's regretted the effect of the law he wrote. There's just no political will to go back and fix it, because #reasons, or something,. Edited February 15, 2018 by Ethics Gradient
Raithe Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Raithe Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Guard Dog Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Gun control is all about, and only about seizing the private property of people who have done no wrong, committed no crime. And there is no such thing as "limited" restrictions.Each restriction is a segue into another, and another, and another. And the people who advocate most strongly for it don't have to worry about being the victim of a crime. Or the forbearance of wildlife. And they don't lose a moment of sleep over the deaths of children that are not theirs except in how they can be exploited. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling the livestock. And they will never have complete control over an armed population. My firearms killed no one yesterday. And absent some attack on y home or person never, ever will. no one has any standing to demand I give them up. Or any other thing I own. Not my home, my dog, my computer, book, none of it. The rights of the citizen are no subordinate to the will of the state. They day they are we no longer live in a free country. If they want them, they will have to come and take them. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 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. In what way is the second amendment unclear? "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gfted1 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 What Can SNAP Buy? So apparently, canned - but no fresh - fruits and vegetables, are the difference? Some articles seem to be referring to the inefficiency of the Trump proposal but I don't see much information on a mass die off due to lack of uncanned products: Trump Administration Wants To Decide What Food SNAP Recipients Will Get. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Recommended Posts