Politics Princess' Sweet Sixteen

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Cans are bad anyways and if it's less than 40% alcohol by volume you may as well be drinking water.

[smjjames]

Cans are bad anyways and if it's less than 40% alcohol by volume you may as well be drinking water.

 

Bad in what way?

 

Also implying that water has any alcohol in it.

[Bartimaeus]

Also implying that water has any alcohol in it.

That's...an odd inference to draw from KaineParker's statement.

[Blarghagh]

Aside, I wonder what the numbers are for people who pay in their whole live and then have a massive coronary and are dead before they hit the ground (IE: never actually use any of the funds they paid in for their entire lives).

I don't know about numbers but I feel like that's a good indication they SHOULD have used some for checkups at least.

[Gorgon]

Ok, now I'm pissed!

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/canned-beer-pays-price-for-trump-tariff-1520000163

The EU are considering deliberately targeting industries in Trump states to make him feel it. Bush got away with it. If memory serves he did exactly the same thing, trying to protect the US steel industry.  This time the sense is that they will respond in kind. 

[Gorgon]

I'd argue that all pledges are more ceremonial than about any actual technical specifications, but there are some systematic changes they are making to be more responsible as a seller of firearms:

 

- No sales to anyone under 21

- No high capacity magazines

 

In terms of the assault rifle, or what they refer to as a modern sporting rifle, that could very well be a symbolic move rather than a technical one. Still, it positions them as a responsible gun vendor, even if only symbolically. I think that is a good move to make for them. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but over half a million people liked their post, another 200k loved it, and only 34k hated it according to the very scientific facebook like button.

 

I don't think this will suddenly end mass shootings. But it is refreshing to see major gun sellers taking a responsible stance. The NRA does the exact opposite in these situations.

 

 

I'm curious. For those that support an "assault weapon" ban, would you support a bill that bans only new sales and manufacture? One that "grandfathers in" all weapons currently in private hands. 

 

Has anyone voiced support for that? Other than a few of our European folks who just say ban guns altogether.

 

Well, for any of this to be effective you would have to say goodbye to most of your toys. You can still have guns, there are loads of gun owners in europe, but you have to show proof that you have a reason to purchase it. if you want a rifle, you need to produce a hunting license, a pistol a membership in some sports shooting club and so on and the selection will me much smaller, nothing automatic anywhere and 5 shot clips for the most part. 

 

Our resident Austrian and any Belgians can have much more and most of what Americans have currently, but then they have demonstrated that they tend not to have mass shootings. 

 

In other words, take away the toys until you learn how to play safe.

[Gorgon]

Well, you get a ****ty 22 caliber bike instead. 

[Blarghagh]

 

In other words, take away the toys until you learn how to play safe.

Huh? I will take away the bike until you learn how to ride?

 

How can you learn to use the thing if the thing is taken away?

 

 

Yeah, or how about that nonsense of needing a license to drive a car?

[Fiach]

Canned beer is horrible, you should thank The Donald

[Guard Dog]

Gorgon that is why you will not see any kind of gun control here. It's that all-or-nothing approach with no willingness to compromise. It isn't "toys" they are being told they must give up. It's private property. 

 

I only own two semi-auto weapons. Both are pistols. All of my rifles are lever, bolt, or single shot. So I am completely safe from any kind of ban for the moment. But I am 110% opposed to ANY ban that does not exempt what is currently in the hands of Americans who, on the day of the ban, have committed no crime. Because that leads only one place: confiscations. Police kicking down doors in the middle of the night and taking them at gunpoint.  With more than a few police and civilians shot dead in the process.

 

The way I see it the gun grabbers can meet their countrymen half way and respect their rights not just to their arms but to the sanctity of their private homes, and get an assault weapons ban everyone can live with. You they can insist on confiscations and nothing will change. And if it's rammed down out throats it will be bloody.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

In other words, take away the toys until you learn how to play safe.

Huh? I will take away the bike until you learn how to ride?

 

How can you learn to use the thing if the thing is taken away?

Yeah, or how about that nonsense of needing a license to drive a car?

Don't know about where you live, but we actually drive cars to learn and get a license.

Sounds crazy I know...

 

You're splitting hairs here but that is actually true.

[Gorgon]

Gorgon that is why you will not see any kind of gun control here. It's that all-or-nothing approach with no willingness to compromise. It isn't "toys" they are being told they must give up. It's private property. 

 

I only own two semi-auto weapons. Both are pistols. All of my rifles are lever, bolt, or single shot. So I am completely safe from any kind of ban for the moment. But I am 110% opposed to ANY ban that does not exempt what is currently in the hands of Americans who, on the day of the ban, have committed no crime. Because that leads only one place: confiscations. Police kicking down doors in the middle of the night and taking them at gunpoint.  With more than a few police and civilians shot dead in the process.

 

The way I see it the gun grabbers can meet their countrymen half way and respect their rights not just to their arms but to the sanctity of their private homes, and get an assault weapons ban everyone can live with. You they can insist on confiscations and nothing will change. And if it's rammed down out throats it will be bloody.

There might come a time when the lastest loss of life from a mass shooting will make all those arguments seem irrelevant. What we are seeing now is the beginning of the marginalisation of the pro gun lobby. The thinking is, I imagine, that since the gun lobby will consider no middle ground because to them it's all a slippery slope, that there is no point in engaging them anymore. 

 

You could stop the open trade of certain firearms. whatever people have in their sheds, well, you are never going to find those anyway so it's not worth the effort. People with the desire for a shootout with the federal government, well, there is no need to grant them that request if the same could be achieved with a fine. Maybe an amnesty or fair market value in compensation.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

 

In other words, take away the toys until you learn how to play safe.

Huh? I will take away the bike until you learn how to ride?

 

How can you learn to use the thing if the thing is taken away?

Yeah, or how about that nonsense of needing a license to drive a car?

Don't know about where you live, but we actually drive cars to learn and get a license.

Sounds crazy I know...

 

 

Yes, which is learning to play safe? And if there's no learner's permit or license and you're caught driving, guess what happens?

[Guard Dog]

@Grogon: I love how "the gun lobby" is characterized is some faceless boogeyman. Like Sauron from his tower in Mordor looking at the west in malice. The villain that is never seen but must be defeated. Do you know who the "Gun Lobby" is? Me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA. And the TFA. The NRA has an estimated 5 million members. Add up the smaller groups like state firearms associations and the like and it's easily north of 20 million. And the gun control talk is having the opposite effect expected to membership: http://time.com/5176471/national-rifle-association-membership-florida-shooting/

 

The "Gun Lobby" is almost every one of the 270 Million gun owners (a low-ball estimate) in this country who want nothing more than to be left alone. That is almost as many people who voted in the last Presidential election. The gun grabbers will never get a thing UNLESS they engage us. So we can compromise or we can do nothing. Take your pick. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Gorgon]

The passing of time will do a lot of things. It might take generations, an 'unthinkable' change can also happen a lot faster than one would imagine, but it probably won't be you they will have to deal with so much as your grandkids. 

[Hurlshort]

Canned beer is horrible, you should thank The Donald

 

This is false. It's like you guys don't even listen to my podcast!

[Guard Dog]

When you get down to it, bourbon is just easier on the body than beer. 1 oz (30 mL) of Kentucky's finest has the same amount of alcohol as 12 oz (350 mL) of good beer (not watered down light crap!). But, the bourbon has only 90 calories vs 150 (give or take) for the beer. The bourbon has 0 carbs. The beer has 12g give or take. So in terms of health effects (in moderation of course) bourbon > beer.

 

Another thing to consider is beer tastes good. Really good. It's effects are slow so you can drink beer while doing other things. Like washing your car for example. That can lead you to drinking many beers with many calories and carbs. Having a drink of whiskey is an activity in an of itself.  No one is sipping highballs while sanding the deck. But a recycle bin of cans and bottles can fill up in a hurry!

 

So you see, forget the beer, drink bourbon. It's better for you! 

 

So endeth the lesson that in terms of health, all comparisons are relative! 

[redneckdevil]

When you get down to it, bourbon is just easier on the body than beer. 1 oz (30 mL) of Kentucky's finest has the same amount of alcohol as 12 oz (350 mL) of good beer (not watered down light crap!). But, the bourbon has only 90 calories vs 150 (give or take) for the beer. The bourbon has 0 carbs. The beer has 12g give or take. So in terms of health effects (in moderation of course) bourbon > beer.

 

Another thing to consider is beer tastes good. Really good. It's effects are slow so you can drink beer while doing other things. Like washing your car for example. That can lead you to drinking many beers with many calories and carbs. Having a drink of whiskey is an activity in an of itself. No one is sipping highballs while sanding the deck. But a recycle bin of cans and bottles can fill up in a hurry!

 

So you see, forget the beer, drink bourbon. It's better for you!

 

So endeth the lesson that in terms of health, all comparisons are relative!

My dad in a drunken stuper when I was a child explained the difference between beer and liquor drinkers.

"Beer drinkers will get fat and liquor drinkers will get drunk.". Wise words because u can tell what people mainly drink at bars when they are older by their girth.

[Malcador]

@Grogon: I love how "the gun lobby" is characterized is some faceless boogeyman. Like Sauron from his tower in Mordor looking at the west in malice. The villain that is never seen but must be defeated. Do you know who the "Gun Lobby" is? Me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA. And the TFA. The NRA has an estimated 5 million members. Add up the smaller groups like state firearms associations and the like and it's easily north of 20 million. And the gun control talk is having the opposite effect expected to membership: http://time.com/5176471/national-rifle-association-membership-florida-shooting/

 

The "Gun Lobby" is almost every one of the 270 Million gun owners (a low-ball estimate) in this country who want nothing more than to be left alone. That is almost as many people who voted in the last Presidential election. The gun grabbers will never get a thing UNLESS they engage us. So we can compromise or we can do nothing. Take your pick.

270 million guns, not owners. Otherwise that is effectively universal armament and yet you still don't have a polite society.

[Bartimaeus]

(and there's no way that the issue would be nearly so equally split politically if literally almost the entire adult population had guns)

[Malcador]

Cans are bad anyways and if it's less than 40% alcohol by volume you may as well be drinking water.

People should just drink water, it is superior to booze

[Gorgon]

@Grogon: I love how "the gun lobby" is characterized is some faceless boogeyman. Like Sauron from his tower in Mordor looking at the west in malice. The villain that is never seen but must be defeated. Do you know who the "Gun Lobby" is? Me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA. And the TFA. The NRA has an estimated 5 million members. Add up the smaller groups like state firearms associations and the like and it's easily north of 20 million. And the gun control talk is having the opposite effect expected to membership: http://time.com/5176471/national-rifle-association-membership-florida-shooting/

 

The "Gun Lobby" is almost every one of the 270 Million gun owners (a low-ball estimate) in this country who want nothing more than to be left alone. That is almost as many people who voted in the last Presidential election. The gun grabbers will never get a thing UNLESS they engage us. So we can compromise or we can do nothing. Take your pick. 

I guess the alien concept is this : if my freedom is making people unsafe then maybe I can't have it. Not because I pose a danger, but because we aren't smart enough to know in advance who is going to be. That's not going to be easy to get an individualist to wrap his head around. 

 

Also society needs to be safe enough for people not to feel that they must have guns for their protection come what may.

 

Also, it's not surprising at all that membership goes up every time the issue is raised. 

[Guard Dog]

Gorgon MY freedom makes no one unsafe. MY firearms (with one exception) almost never leave my property. Don't assault me, don't invade my home and you will never have to fear any of my firearms. I have violated no law nor committed any crime. No one can demand my property from me. I am not responsible for the actions of anyone other than me. I WILL NOT suffer punishment for the actions of others. I do not exist to serve the whims of the state. I am a free sovereign citizen. If a right I am born with can be taken from me by the caprice of others then I have no rights at all. If that is the case just send armed cops to take my weapons now. I'd rather live my last day free than see the day after when I'm not. And I will take as many with me as I can. 

[Volourn]

" if my freedom is making people unsafe then maybe I can't have it."

 

If Guard Dog having guns make you unsafe then you re stating that he will use the guns on you. Why do you besmirch his name like that? That is character assassination. And, I also thought this board didn't allow one to attack other board members and I believing claiming another board member is going to kill you is definitely an attack.

 

The fact that Guard Dog has guns makes NOBODY unsafe except  any crooks who enter his house uninvited.

[HoonDing]

"270 Million gun owners"

 

kids and babies own guns too?