I like Britney. Fuck you.
If Britney herself is not rebuttal enough, scientists now agree: The old 1948 fruit fly breeding study truism that males want to fuck everything and females are selectively demure was wrong! Man, that shit was in my high school textbook!
Because it made intuitive sense to many people that males would be promiscuous and females choosy, they were “dazzled” (Gowaty et al.’s word) by Bateman’s central conclusion. But now, Gowaty told me, “The most important experimental data for the evolutionary justification for the double standard in humans is in question.â€
Gimme More (It’s Britney, bitch!)
If my fiendishly clever plan to game eBay pans out, in a few days I’ll be worth 100 Trillion Dollars. None of you FKers better outbid me.
Because it turns out I’m not the secret lost heiress to the Carson City gold coin fortune.
Did it again, Sam…
Nonito Donaire is one of my favorite current fighters, and Jorge Arce will take it right to him. Could be a good one. Arce’s a heavy underdog; maybe I’ll borrow against the $100 trillion I’ll have soon to bet on the longshot. The HBO program starts at 6:30 with a re-showing Marquez-Pacquiao, for those of us disinclined to have shelled out big Pay-Per-View bucks last week. One of the most devastating KO punches you’ll ever see.
Given the Vatican’s history in matters astronomical, the case for the Mayan apocalypse just got a little stronger. Which makes me feel a lot better about how far behind I am in my gift shopping.
Love the trappings of the season. Here’s what I imagine the holiday tree looks like at the llama house:
Ok FKers, in need of some help.
Do any of you know if a T-shirt of sweatshirt is still available for the division champ WITH the roster on it? I saw them right around the end of the season, but cannot seem to find anything on-line. Hell, I can barely find anything online with or without roster..
I know Mrs. Aces has not done much shopping for me (we really aren’t doing much shopping for anyone this year with some unexpected expenses playing the Grinch), but if she does any more I would like to drop a big hint in her lap.
Along these lines, are the stores at the Coli open and do they take calls? I would guess if anyone would have them, they would.
Team store at the Coliseum not open during offseason. Unless you want a nice sweatshirt with the 2012 Raiders roster on it.
Id sooner wear a self made mash up Ross/FUUUUUU jersey t-shirt.
And Im a Raiders fan…
Hrm, ask yourself, do you really want anything w/ Brian Fuentes’ name on it?
If it meant having all the other namescat my disposal I would consider it. Of course I would also consider buying some masking tape and just covering his name too.
Namescat? Was that some sort of Freudian slip hinting that individualism is shit?
Fat fingers on a touchscreen.
But I prefer your interpretation..we are all balls of yarn to be knocked around by the cats of the universe.
The one I got doesn’t have Fuentes name on it (since he wasn’t on the team when they won the division). It does have that sweet Jesse Chavez action though.
And sorry Aces, I got my slightly strange fitting one in the parking lot after one of the games. I’m not sure where to get one now.
Scream andshout: one of my friends does estate stuff. She says relatives are typically skeptical when she calls and tells them they have inheirated an unknown fortune.
Such a call would certainly set off the scam alarm in my head.
It’ll be your loss when the barrister representing your great uncle Cecil Upgrade who recently passed away in Nigeria can’t convince you to sign for the $4.3 Million in gold bullion.
I am taking apart the baby clothes/towell holding cart I put together watching the A”s game that was AN day 2006. You can kinda tell what screws I put in in the top of the 9th.
The Ayatollah Komine!
My biochemist sweetie has issue w/ the way its written, its an architecture blog of sorts so I’m giving him some room on the technical side, but the subject is damn impressive.
super cool
Yep.
Britney’s OK, relative to her genre at least. “Hit Me Baby One More Time,” while lyrically appalling, was catchy as all hell.
Hit Me Baby lends itself well to dark covers, like the one by Blink 182. Not so sure she means hit like strike; maybe more like the Donnas’ Do You Want To Hit It?
You’re right, of course. I guess its the juxtaposition of the words with the get up she’s wearing in the video that makes it yucky. Still, good pop song.
I’m rather partial to the Tony Lucca version from The Voice.
I like this one by 10 Masked Men; it sounds like Cookie Monster is singing.
There was a time in my life where I knew all the words to Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman. I’m not sure I’ll ever forgive her.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=R6pC03WRcE0%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
GOOD GRIEF!!!!
It pleases me to believe that Charlie Brown turned out happier and more well-adjusted than his childhood pals. Although Schroeder seemed to be having fun.
If I could hit on a grown up Charlie Brown kid, I’d choose Schroeder at about age 27, yum.
I want Peppermint Patty on the rebound from dating a much older and more bitter dyke.
Why is it that neither of your comments goes too far, but if I say I’d totally get with a grown-up Sally it sounds creepy?
I just figured all the Peanuts characters grew up to be gay, except for Snoopy who’s always been into humping legs.
That’s not creepy at all. I’d also take a 19-year-old Linus but he’s probably uptight and damaged. Cute tho.
It is a glorious night for grilling, if one’s grill is out of the rain.
My wife and I got our x-mas present in the mail today. Life is good.
Shocking!
Britney Spears is glorious and this grill warms my heart.
Yeah, I’d totally do her.
Thanks, and go As.
I hope they throw the book at him.
Which book? (And yes, they should).
Off to the last Raiders home game of the year. 3-10 Raiders hosting 2-11 Chiefs. That’s some quality professional sports right there.
Hope you took a clothespin for your nose and a brown paper bag.
Nooooooooooooo it’s on TV!
Despite the “sellout” or alleged 85%, I bet there will be bountiful opportunities for Seat Upgrading.
And I hope you upgraded to some fine seats, because I’m sure you will treasure your memories of that outstanding exhibition of National Football League excellence for many years to come.
Stayed in my duly purchased seats in Sec 226…right about the same spot I watched the ALDS Game 4 come back from.
Raiders actually played well, aside from the failure to reach the end zone. Best game I saw this year, at least.
I was surprised they only gave Pryor that one series. When they put him in I thought they were going to give him the whole second quarter.
If Zimbabwe had those $100 Trillion bills 15 years ago, Austin Powers would’ve been a really short movie.
Pass interference seems really arbitrary.
I think a higher proportion of the officiating in Football and basketball seems arbitrary.
Basketball has a little bit of that problem, particularly with the block/charge issue, but it’s not as big a deal because any one call doesn’t influence the outcome that much. The penalty for pass interference can be so ridiculously important to the outcome of a football game, and yet it seems almost impossible to articulate the standard as implemented.
Arrgh… I was on a bus, ready to drive out to the runway to catch my 8 hour flight off of Antarctica, when one of the cargo people came on the bus and said that the flight crew had just told her that they had to cut the passenger weight from 9000 lbs down to 6000 lbs. So then we sat there for 45 minutes while some people picked names and finally they bumped me and 10-15 other people. That means that I miss my flight out of Christchurch (scheduled for tomorrow).
After 30+ minutes on the phone, plane tickets are all rescheduled. It’s not terrible… I’m missing out on roughly a day and a half of my planned holidays but the ticket changes only cost $50. Still, FUUUUUUUCKK Antarctica.
Wait a minute, they bumped you from the flight and then charged you an extra $50 to re-schedule? That’s cold, man.
I’m guessing that the flight to Christchurch (that Colin was bumped from) and the flight from Christchurch (that cost $50 to re-book) are not connected in any way that might lead to a waiver of re-booking fee. I’m also guessing that Colin won’t be personally liable for the re-booking fee anyway (tangentially, what’s the per diem in Antarctica?)
I’m pretty sure the flight from Antarctica is USAF.
Yeah, that’s right. I got bumped from a non-commercial (military) flight, which caused me to miss my commercial flight. And now it looks like they misquoted me over the phone and it’ll really be $150. Except that my credit card is currently showing $313.96 of new charges…
Want me to kill someone?
It might help.
Anyone in particular, or can I indulge myself?
New York Air National Guard, actually.
Sounds socialist to me.
Antarctica is totally socialist, communist even. Your housing, dining, recreation, travel, etc, are all at the whim of a bureaucratic system.
But can you eat the penguins?
That is the real question, innit?
As long as it’s not the one he’s bringing back for me for a pet, I can’t see why that would be a problem.
Sounds like paradise. In triplicate.
No per diem in Antarctica, because everything is provided for you (or heavily subsidized, in the case of booze).
I am on the hook for the cost of the rebooking, unless I get pretty creative with my travel reimbursement request, because I altered my return flight so that I could stop and visit family on the way home. If you tell them that you just want to get home as fast as possible, then the antarctic program will pay for the plane ticket, regardless of how FKed up your schedule becomes. But once you alter your plans, you’re on your own.
Philosophically speaking, when a flight crew starts discussing the need to lose weight on the plane, I’d be the first person to volunteer to take the next one.
I dunno, 3000 pounds? Colin, I think the USAF is calling you fat
Other observations from a rare morning watching football: Terry Bradshaw and Shannon Sharpe appear to be two of the dumbest people in America.
Rickey
Bruce Jenkins has apparently run out of merely ignorant things to write and so has decided to add Jew-baiting to his repertoire:
Crap. Link.
wow. I don’t know who comes off worse, the Jackson, Can Gundy or jenkins
yes
I’ll go with Jenkins, just cuz I can’t stand that guy.
I was actually feeling peeved that there isn’t a Raider game on Christmas Day.
That’s actually a Christmas gift to us all.
But they *ARE* playing on Festivus.
Raiders fans can look forward to the Airing of Grievances.
That was a fine speech by the President, in fact, the best I’ve heard him give.
Neither Al nor Cris knows the correct pronunciation of the name of the Silver State. The middle syllable rhymes with “Dad”, not with “odd”. Folks get pretty worked up over this.
Cris also said the 49ers use 12 men on defense. And Al said the Patriots average 73.3 yards per play.
Dan Dierdorf can’t even remember the name of the guy he’s been broadcasting with for six years.
I do endorse the shots they’re taking at Ed Hoculi, though.
Welcome to your preview of expanded replay in MLB.
Definitely my fear. Even one delay like that is too many. Ugh.
That happens in baseball without replay. At least they were able to get the call right.
When I first visited Iowa State, I was given a copy of the local paper. I couldn’t figure out why there were stories about people or events in Nevada, which is, after, about 1500 miles west of Ames. Later, after moving there, I found out that Nevada is the county seat of Story County, Iowa. Then, I found out that they pronounced it ‘Ne-VAY-da’.
Iowa has a number of places that are similarly butchered, like Tripoli (emphasis on po, third syllable is LIE), Palo Alto (Pay-lo), Buena Vista (BYOO-nah), and Madrid (emphasis on 1st syllable, which rhymes with yeah).
One reason Gonzaga University calls their sports teams the “Zags” is that nobody will mispronounce that as the “Zogs”.
This is the 11,000th post
That’s it?
Not to, um, burst the balloon, but this is Post #11000, not the 11,000th post. The most recent post before this is #10985. 11,000 posts would have required close to 10 per day since the founding of FK.
So I should cancel the strippers?
FK no, though if the Patriots complete this comeback the witch may be all the naked chick we need.
As the noticer of the 11,000th post, you’ve won an iPed2!! Click here to claim your prize:
This game is KrAZeE
Cue the WaNd aCtIOn!
[pokes head out, looks around]
woof woof
Spring yet? Or six more weeks of winter?
I think I may need a haircut.
Blooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomy!!
Hey Bloomie!
This game is a perfect example of why YOU KEEP FKING SCORING even when it’s 31-1. Screw people who whine about running up the score.
Thanks, and go As.
Especially when it’s only the 3rd quarter. Denver gets that. They were still throwing deep when they had a 4 TD lead in the 3rd quarter.
I’d like every team to try and run the score up on the Ravens all damn day long.
Yeah, I’d be totally ok with that. Same with Dallas.
My feeling about running up the score: If you don’t like it being done to you, don’t suck. If you do suck, tough.
Makes sense to me.
Thanks, and go As.
Also, it’s the Patriots. Let the world rejoice
I never weep when the Pats lose.
Having been on the wrong side of that too many times to count, I agree 100%.
Peppermint white chocolate M&M’s were a good idea.
Amen to that!
Too much peppermint. Needed to be mixed better.
I think I need to move to Australia.
I wonder if they can now fire her for having sex on the job?
While on a business trip? Assuming she wasn’t shirking her duties, why wouldn’t she be allowed to have sexy time?
Our SS/CIA sure did..:)
Because in Australia, apparently anything you do while on business trip constitutes work. If the employer has to pay out a workman’s comp claim for her sexy time, they should be able to fire her for it too.
With my luck, if I lived in Australia I’d be sleeping in the next room while my neighbors had sex, and my lamp would fall off the wall and hit me in the face.
…and THEN you would be fired!
And they would get Worker’s Comp for the trauma of having to see my face. Not post-injury, just in general.
It counts for worker’s comp because she had to be in that motel room to whatever she had to do the next day out of town. That doesn’t mean the employer can control everything she does while on the road.
He says knowing nothing about Australian law.
Well sure. But it should also be reasonable that if you’re responsible for the employee’s “health” in this fashion, you should be able to have some reasonable, albeit limited, expectations of what that person does. Sex acts that are strong enough to cause bodily arm for instance.
There are other kinds?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=215pmeoUjcY%3Frel%3D0” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
So good
I’m more concerned about sex acts that involve non-bodily arms.
” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
Then they can fire anyone for sleeping
You have to sleep on your own time!!!
Damn right!!!
Another reason why we should ignore the opinions of Hollywood on everything except movie making.
(Edit: After posting, I realized this is a link from 2009. FAIL.)
True, but it doesn’t change the accuracy of your statement
Wait. Hold on. Wait just a goddamn minute! There’s no cheese on the moon???
But timely nonetheless.
1) If there are other “places of historic interest” other than the Apollo sites on the moon I would be interested in hearing about them.
2) And even if there are, aren’t the odds of these spacecraft damaging any such site in a random crash infinitesimal, especially compared to the odds of such site being obliterated at some point by a meteor hit?
welp!..Its 2:15 on a rainy day… seems like a good time to take a nap…
It’s raining here, too. And we apparently have a tornado watch.
You’re fired!!!
Is THAT all it takes? To think I wasted all those years working, when I could have napped, then collected unemployment!
Hmm… I hate working just as much as the other guy, but the answer isn’t government assistance; The answer is to make someone with low self-esteem fall in love with you, and then you build their self-esteem to astronomical levels while cooking and cleaning for them and being indispensable to their existence.
Then again, I guess not everybody’s able to charm their way into moving in on the second date, either.
Yeah, being shaped like a beached whale hasn’t helped me get that second date….Well, that AND having a wife! ♥
My wife is awesome. We’ve taken to dating other couples lately, which has been pretty darned fun for the most part.
This gives me a great idea for the lab Christmas tree. Thanks FSU!
Better living through Chemistree!
#Win
lol
I’ll be in Vegas for the end of the world. I think that’s appropriate.
Shit goes down, Vegas be crazy. I’d go armed.
I haz a sad.
I would much rather be whooping up the ssolsstice… this’ll be kind of a stressful trip… :\
We would too. But if you need a break from the stress, or the strip, there’s always the Double Down.
Yeah, I think the safest bet in Vegas would be that my mom does not enjoy that.
hAppEEE BirTHdAY!!!!1!!!
what she said
Yeah, happy birthday!
Yeah! Happy birthday!
Ya’ll are a bunch of piggybackers!!!
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
Yeah. Did you want to play some piggyback?
Thank you, and everyone who piggybacked!
Can I still do it?
If you can’t no-one can, and if you can, I can piggyback.
My happy birthday to you is backloaded, belated and postdated. It’s under the table and off the books, too. Keep it on the QT, toots.
Train hopped. Vagabond membership renewed.
Happy Birthday, Poppy.
Johan Santana has two years, 55.5MM left on his contract.
But can he strikeout Vernon Wells?
This song and video kinda fit the nice display the moon put on tonight.
Oral history of Fire Joe Morgan
nuts
BPro on Coco
Uh, Rickey maybe?
How DARE R.J. Anderson accuse Rickey of hubris. This will not stand.
Depressing point about gun control.
I, for one, would love to see the full Aussie solution but for the fact that it would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
worth it.
Yup.
I disagree, unless by less powerful weapons he is suggesting something other than guns.
Thanks, and go As.
I don’t. A single shot bolt-action hunting rifle sure wouldn’t have killed 26 people. Probably also true of a pistol with a 13 bullet clip.
OK.
Thanks, and go As.
sure, but no law we have/are talking about would have achieved that result.
What’s the Aussie solution?
Ban on private sales + requiring a reason to issue permits + massive buyback of outstanding supply.
Huh. Not bad. The requiring a reason part would likely be the kiss of death, I guess. Though it’s not actively saying “you can’t have a gun” so much as “prove you’re part of the well trained militia.”
Almost certainly unconstitutional though.
He has good points.
In Germany, you are obliged to store the weapon in an approved weapon safe if you have it at home. Failure to do so was changed from a misdemeanor to a felony after the last shooting in 2009, carrying a maximum three-year penalty. If you are a weapon owner, you can be subject of storage control without being suspected of the criminal intent, which I’m pretty sure would never be accepted in USA. The father of the kid who did that school shooting here was charged with negligent homicide, because he kept his gun unlocked and big amount of ammunition easily accessible.
Question for the constitutionally adept legal folks. Have courts ruled in any way that ammo for weapons is covered by the second amendment?
I believe ammo is required for it to be a firearm. Otherwise, its a hunk of metal
One thing I do wonder about is ammo tracking. Seems like you could stamp bullets with tracking info that would (at least sometimes) survive use.
To what purpose? That is only necessary in unsolved shootings. We know who shot whom here.
Unsolved shootings plus a preventative effect generally.
Believe it or not, murder suicides are not my sole (or primary) focus. 26 people is a lot, and it’s awful, but it’s also a few minutes worth of nation-wide gun related deaths.
Well, ammo is certainly required to fire it, sure. But in arm by any other name is still an arm. In fact, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t even specify firearms. Just arms. So a sword could constitute armament for that purpose. But in the eyes of the law, you’re probably right that it would be covered. Which leads to my next question, why not tax the living hell out of both?
Because the US SC ruled that unconstitutional. Would you also agree to “taxing the hell” out of the right to an abortion? Or, the right to private property? Or food? If you want to outlaw guns, then CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you can.
I found this little tidbit illuminating.
Yes, No, & No. In your first case and mine, we’re talking about things that essentially are meant to end life. The later two to help maintain life. Anything wrt to ending life shouldn’t be easily obtained. Doesn’t mean unavailable, just not easy. But I’m not particularly serious either way.
But yeah, the constitution should be changed, not to ban outright firearms, simply to remove the guarantee and then allow legislation to do their thing either at a local level, state level, or national level as necessary. I see no sense in attempting firearm prohibition, but there definitely needs to be more control over it’s legislation that second amendment doesn’t currently allow for.
Actually, it does. Just not at the Federal level. States DO have the constitutional right to restrict arms. Or, not restrict them. The SC only said that the restrictions cannot make it unreasonably restrictive. That is why the San Diego Sheriff is being sued over the right to carry. California allows the individual county sheriff to issue the permits, and he has refused to issue any under any circumstances. That is unreasonable.
Isn’t he the one that refused to issue without a $1000 political contribution or some shit?
Thanks, and go As.
I think so.
And yet we still end up with contentious debates over laws that get unturned as a result of the 2nd Amendment by judges who think otherwise. The reality is, you’re never going to agree over what is unreasonably restrictive and the 2nd Amendment unnaturally weights in favor of one side over the other. If the popularly legislated people want to pass laws one way or the other, they should have the freedom to do so without restraint. In the case of that sheriff, he’s fked anyway because he doesn’t have legislative power to begin with.
I don’t think it’s even necessary to change the constitution (though it may be desirable).
First, a lot of what has been discussed in these threads is unambiguously permitted even within the courts’ current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment – stricter licensing and registration requirements, bans on certain kinds of weapons (like the ones that expired in 2004), tracking ammunition, tracking dealers who funnel guns to criminals through straw buyers, in general better enforcement of current laws.
Second, the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution is constantly changing, and in the specific case of the Second Amendment has changed radically in the last 40 years or so. Those precedents won’t be thrown out overnight, but they could certainly change back the other way over time. Antonin Scalia won’t live forever.
Scalia won’t, but he will almost certainly try to go out during a GOP administration.
The first half of that article is a good summary of my thoughts on the whole incident why I have refrained from proffering up much of an opinion on what needs to be done to , either here, or on FB, or in any other forum. But my thoughts generally have coalesced around the same solution. In addition, there are still a lot of details about the shooting that aren’t available, such as a motive, which might help shape the debate, or at least my own opinions.
Of all the BS that’s come from friends on FB in the last four days, there was a meme that showed two signs, a “no guns” sign and a “teachers here have guns” sign. The meme itself said, “Which sign would prevent more deaths?” with the insinuation that the latter would do better. I wonder if just the sign, without the actual guns, would be enough of a deterrent to school shootings, much like having a sign that your house has an alarm system can be as much of a deterrent as the alarm system itself. The students might behave better, too.
It seems kinda fk’d up to imply the threat of gun violence as a motivational tool against young students.
Yeah. I feel guilty that the thought even crossed my mind, but it did. It’s less of an issue with the younger students, than with junior high/high school aged ones, some of whom are more prone to acting out.
I doubt that it would matter. People going on killing sprees often shoot themselves anyway. Having more guns potentially pointed at them wouldn’t make much of a difference. On the other hand, having everyone walking around carrying a gun would make for much deadlier bar fights, traffic accidents, etc.
I’d also imagine that if people knew X or Y may have a firearm, they’d be the first targets for spree which would negate (some/all of) their effectiveness.
Good point. It’s already known that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, I don’t see any reason to think that more guns would have any effect.
I could see how random police visits would help though. I know a few schools have them stationed there, but at the least make it randomly part of the patrol. It may not prevent this, but it may make it quick to react to it without painting someone as a direct target.
I don’ think any proposal would have stopped this particular crazy from doing something and harming some people. the two closet things would be limit magazine sizes and assault weapons bans.
But of course, as Tutu points out, assault weapons bans are kinda just “I knows one when I sees one” type of things. Any definition good enough to memorialize will be very broad and cover things that enthusiasts probably will point out as silly.
I would like to live in a country where bans of things that have the express purpose of killing me and my kids were not for private use. but that is not gonna happen.
So then you only want the military and police to be able to kill you?
Thanks, and go As.
that is not likely
I’m not understanding your last sentence properly then.
If guns were uninvented, the world would be a better place. Of course.
At the same time, I feel like there will still be people who are broken. Whether they are truly evil people and cognizant of what they are doing (and yes, I consider such a person broken as FK) or have a mental health issue that is either uncontrolled, undiagnosed, or not properly treated which leads to an episode involving serious injury/damage/death to themselves and/or others.
It’s just sad to see shootings like this happen and the immediate reaction is political rather than trying to understand what happened to these people that caused them to finally snap.
Thanks, and go As.
Serious (and as I have said, probably unconstitutional here) restrictions seem to be quite effective at “uninventing” guns.
And I very much agree that mental health is important too.
But why is it wrong to want to change the law after something like this?
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to change the law. However, I would think that people who are talking about changing the law now would have talked about it before as well, and I’m just not a big fan of pushing political agendas due to tragedy like this.
Also I’m simply saying that I don’t think that it will do much good, because people who make up their mind to carry out an act like that aren’t going to give a damn if it’s more illegal.
I dunno, I just lean toward the side that thinks this is attempting to solve the wrong problem.
Thanks, and go As.
Exactly.
So what purpose do any laws serve?
Suicide is illegal too, FYI.
Thanks, and go As.
Yeah? And?
How’s that working for preventing them?
Thanks, and go As.
Again, why have any laws at all then? I mean, if a law being broken at all is your criteria for a failed law, then I guess no law really serves any purpose.
Either you’re being obtuse on purpose or you don’t actually get that passing more laws isn’t going to fucking matter to people who are going to go kill a bunch of people and then off themselves. Since you don’t seem to want to actually reply to what I said, instead answering with more questions, I’ll stop the conversation here.
Thanks, and go As.
Mike, the laws being discussed are intended to make it more difficult for killers to acquire the most deadly weapons, not to make killing people (or themselves) illegal. We already have the latter.
and my entire point is that passing more laws isn’t going to make it harder for that to happen. It WILL make it harder for law abiding citizens, and that’s fine, but I don’t see how this addresses those with criminal intent. Now they’ll have to steal money and buy them on the black market?
Thanks, and go As.
And that is harder. It would raise the price of the weapons, if nothing else. And in the case of someone like the Newtown shooter, he might not have gone to the trouble if the legally acquired weaponry hadn’t been right there in his house.
I disagree with that. I think he would have done whatever necessary to acquire a gun or two.
Thanks, and go As.
If all he could acquire was a hand gun or two instead of four guns including semi-autos, odds are at least one or two people aren’t dead right now. No it’s not going to stop the incident, but it may save a life or two. Imagine if he had access to a bazooka or two instead.
Most hand guns ARE semi-auto
Thanks, and go As.
@MikeV. We still don’t know his motive for the shooting, yet, so we can’t say for certain he would, or would not have gone out and gotten guns. What we have been able to glean from interviews is that he was socially awkward to the point of not being able to function on his own as a 20-year old. I’m not sure that he would have had the wherewithal to go out and find said guns, especially in a place with fairly strict gun control laws.
Or you can simply assume that no laws to restrict access to guns will work without actually looking at the facts. It’s your choice.
You want a reply? Ok, here’s your reply. No one needs access to weapons that belong on a battlefield. No one. Gun control saves lives. Other countries have much more restrictive laws and they have far fewer gun deaths than we do. The obtuse idea is that we can’t prevent criminals from getting guns. We can’t completely stop them, but we can reduce their access and make the country safer.
Oh, whoops. I asked a question. Poor little obtuse me.
This is not what actually happens when countries pass gun laws (see my Australia article above, or England).
And, in this specific example, if these guns were illegal there is no reason to believe the guy’s mom would own them. And if she didn’t own them, no reason to believe he would/could get them himself.
@MikeV a ban would limit the future amount of assault rifles in the general population, you could have a high value buyback w/ amnesty which would turn up a few at least.
Also, stop selling high caliber ammo, most people hunt deer, you dont need much for that if you can aim well, hell, use a bow if you want to feel like a true huntsman.
To restrain those who agree to live by them. How many ignore the drug laws? People keep using drugs, so let’s make more laws limiting drugs. Or driving laws? It’s been proven that speed kills and we ignore the speeding laws. Lets out law cars. That is just as stupid.
So let’s not have laws. Or a government. Let’s just make it one big free-for-all.
And the car argument is really missing the point. After all, cars serve a purpose other than killing. Guns don’t.
Cars also require a license for the driver, which involves both written and practical tests and must be renewed periodically, registration of the vehicle, which must be renewed yearly, liability insurance, and all kinds of restrictions on what is or isn’t street legal because of potential danger to other people.
Requiring all those things for guns would be a good start.
This is also true. Of course, I also hear arguments that there are plenty of gun laws on the books and they just need to be enforced. That conveniently ignores the fact that so many shootings are happening with entirely legal weapons.
Ah, so you want a total ban on firearms. I thought all along we were talking about a workable compromise. That doesn’t seem to be much of one.
Again, where did I say that? I’m not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s obviously not me.
Are you saying this crime was committed with a “non-military” firearm? It sounds like you want to ban all guns.
Not my intent. My point is that if some nutjob couldn’t get his hands on an AR-15 and instead had to go on a shooting spree with a handgun and 9-round clip there would probably be a lot fewer deaths. You addressed the issue of how quickly a clip can be replaced, but there are other factors here. One is that more frequent stops to reload give victims more of a chance to escape. Another is that a pistol will probably be less accurate at a distance than a rifle (won’t it? I could be wrong on that). And not being able to rapid-fire would mean that victims may at least have a better chance of being wounded rather than killed.
He was in a room, right? A pistol is more than accurate enough. A reload takes 3 seconds. Not much time to decide he is reloading, and clear out. There is no deference between firing a handgun and a semi-auto rifle. One trigger pull= one round fired. You can’t “spray” bullets everywhere.
a lot of small caliber handguns fire at 1/3 to 1/2 the Feet-Per-Second of rifles, so the pistols by nature would do less damage, unless they were .357 or above with hot loads and/or copper jackets.
In this case he was in a room. But there are other cases of mass shootings where this isn’t the case.
@ Kay
Yes, but we are talking 50 feet or so. Well within the range of even a .22 caliber.
I read him to mean (non-military) gun violence (i.e. not killed by soldiers). Not non-military-gun violence (i.e. not killed by military-grade weapons).
We might have an honest misunderstanding here.
@Tutu-
I’m talking sheer firepower, not range.
I posit that there would have been more wounded and less dead if Lanza had only been armed with pistols, even with unlimited clips. The .223 is a beast, even at the lower caliber, due to the hotter load and higher proportion of gunpowder to lead in the cartridge as compared with a .38 or 9mm.
NM is right, I was excluding American soldiers killed in combat.
In many locals they are. In CA you must renew your Carry permit every two years, I believe. All instructors recommend you carry insurance, as you can be sued no matter what happens. There are restrictions as to what are legal and what aren’t.
And how are those restrictions working out? How many people are being killed by guns every year (yes, I said killed by guns; not people, guns)? It’s pretty obvious that we need to find a way to make gun ownership safer. One method is to restrict the types of guns people are allowed to own. There’s nothing radical or unconstitutional about this idea.
So then only certain types of guns will kill people?
Thanks, and go As.
Whose being willfully obtuse now? There’s a difference between a tool designed for a specific purpose being misused, and a tool designed for a specific purpose being used properly. An assault rifle isn’t designed to drive you to work, or build a house, or put venison in your freezer. It’s designed to kill other human beings. It’s not meant to “disable” them, or “protect your property.” It’s designed to end other people’s lives. You can own a hunting rifle and kill all the deer you want, and if someone breaks into your home and you can use it for self-defense. But if you own an Uzi, your only reason for owning it is because you expect to kill someone someday. Can you not see the difference?
Given the choice I’d rather have an Uzi than a long gun for home defense, actually. I’d probably pick something like a plain old shotgun with buckshot first though.
It’s almost as if there are different tools for different jobs.
Thanks, and go As.
And here’s a crazy idea: you’ve never in your life needed an Uzi for home defense. Nor has anyone you know, I’d be willing to bet. So why are you suddenly all freaked out at the idea that you shouldn’t be allowed to own one?
I’m not. They’re banned in CA. :)
Thanks, and go As.
And with that uzi, you’re as likely to kill the perp as your kids and a neighbor or too.
Based on what, exactly?
Thanks, and go As.
General accuracy of an uzi for one.
What is restrictive enough for you? If we outlaw all “military” weapons, yet the crimes continue, will you want more?
I think everyone here will stipulate that crimes will continue. The idea is to reduce their number and the number of deaths that they cause.
Gun violence won’t be eliminated, but it sure would be nice not to have 3 or 4 mass shootings every year.
Drug use will be more meticulously micromanaged and human-driven cars will be outlawed on most public roads by 2050.
A) you’re once again comparing something that has one purpose (to kill) with something that has many purposes (not to kill) B) You’re assuming people who are talking about stricter gun laws are suggesting outright bans, which is flat out not the case. Just like people still speed, some people ARE going to continue illegally carrying weapons. But what the law DOES do is enable law enforcement to act against those people. A CHP officer can pull me over and penalize me for speeding. Hell, if I’m reckless or drunk, he can throw me into the back of his patrol car and get me off the streets. If a particular gun is NOT illegal, a police officer can’t stop me from carrying it around.
What about flare guns? Those aren’t designed to kill!
Thanks, and go As.
Okay.
It is illegal to carry an ax handle in CA. It sure isn’t designed to only kill.
What’s your point?
It is the same as a car. Its not intended to kill, but it can be used as such.
Any number of strange things are illegal (or not illegal) in various places. I’m not sure what a debate over ax handles says about gun rights.
Apples and oranges – most people dont force others to do drugs, its a personal choice, getting shot is entirely different.
I agree trying to prevent exactly this thing is attempting to solve the wrong problem, but gun control can be effective, and has been in other contexts.
And major events can, and should, change people’s minds. I don’t remember anyone saying 9/11 couldn’t change anyone’s views on the invasion of Afghanistan, for example.
There is an epidemic of gun violence in America. On most days its easy for the political class, and for most of us who don’t live in the most affected areas, to ignore it. After all, there are a lot of other pressing issues too, and taking on the committed opposition to basically any regulation on firearms is difficult and time-consuming. But when something like this happens, it shines a bright light on the problem and pushes it to the front of the agenda. There is nothing unseemly about that. It’s how politics works.
I’d say a lot of people are doing both. Trying to prevent it from a mental health standpoint in understanding why these things keep happening as well as trying to limit the damage that could be caused by those that fall through the cracks and/or can’t be stopped. There’s no doubting that someone, somewhere is going to eventually snap again, but why not do our best to make that person unable to act en mass? Based on what we know of people in general, that’s the easiest move. Mental health is very subjective territory to try to legislate and/or fix in a medical sense.
Not only that, but why not reduce the number of shootings? I don’t know the debating term for this, but you have pro-gun people arguing that gun control wouldn’t prevent every single shooting and therefore it would be a failure. The thing is, no one has claimed that it would prevent every single shooting. That’s like saying that some people still die in car accidents even if they wear a seatbelt, therefore seatbelts don’t work.
It comes across little straw man to me, but it’s certainly misconstruing the opposition’s argument. Just like “Gun Control” gets interpreted as “Ban All Guns.”
Yes, we do have gun control. 20,000 laws as it stands. In CA, you can’t possess a firearm within 1000′ of a school. The only way to prevent things like this horrible tragedy is to ban guns outright. Of course, that doesn’t address the underlying mental/moral issues, and other ways will be found to commit heinous crimes.
Again, the point is that reducing gun violence is still a victory. The idea that if any incident of gun violence proves the failure of gun control is simply missing the argument altogether. How many Americans will die from non-military gun violence this year? Ten thousand? What if we could take action that would save 5,000 of them? What if it only saved 2,000? Or 1,000? Or 500? or 20 children?
If you are truly worried about saving lives, many times more are taken through other legal means, such as smoking, drugs, car accidents. You present this as if only guns kill.
I can’t even…
And you think that making gun ownership safer has to come at the expense of making other things safer? I mean, we can’t restrict access to assault rifles and also try to prevent drunk driving at the same time?
But hey, maybe I should send a letter to the parents of those kids thanking them for the sacrifice their kids made so that I can own an AR-15. It was so worth it, right?
Again..What is an “assault rifle”? Most people think of an “Uzi” or an “AK-47/ M-16” used as a fully automatic mode in the movies. THOSE ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!! ALL AK-47s legally imported must be PERMANENTLY modified so that they can NEVER be fire as a fully auto rifle. Our stupid politicians have included things that make a gun “look” like an automatic firearm! “Folding stocks”‘ and “Pistol grips” are terms used in the 2004 law. WHY? An adjustable stock makes sense so that different types of shooters can use the gun. A pistol grip is a more comfortable position to shoot from. WHY are those illegal? Do you really expect me to go hunting a dangerous animal( bear, moose, etc.) with a single shot, bolt action rifle? That is a quick way to get hurt. There is nothing wrong with using a semi-auto rifle.
Why not hunt with a single action rifle? That’s what was available when the 2nd amendment was ratified. If we’re going to pretend that changes in technology don’t apply to the interpretation of the law, then why pretend that they apply to usage?
You still didn’t answer my question. What do you consider an “assault” rifle? Be specific.
Shove that up Scalia’s butt, light it on fire, and see how high he jumps!
I would define an assault rifle as a rifle that is specifically designed and manufactured for military use in a modern context (meaning that your great great great great great great grandfather’s breech-loader from the American Revolution wouldn’t meet this definition, even if he used it to shoot Redcoats). I think all assault rifles would be semi- or fully automatic, but I don’t know enough to say that all semi- or fully automatic rifles would be considered assault rifles.
@ozz.
Thank you. That is the problem as it stands with the 2004 law. They claim that ALL semi auto are assault weapons.
This might help you understand how ridiculously broad it was.
The ironic part of all this is that if I were to stay in SC, I would want to learn to shoot and purchase a handgun. I’d feel safer in CA, but there is quite a bit of hostility toward people of my political bent here and I don’t feel particularly safe at times.
@ozz- Do you feel threatened in SC because of your politics or because of the color of your skin?
What’s so ridiculously broad about it?
@Kay: a little of both, but mostly my politics and the fact that I’m not willing to shut up or play along with the beliefs of others. If I lived in a more rural part of the state, my skin color and not being Christian might be more of a problem than it is in Charleston.
Are you assuming that guns are our only concern or are you actually trying to be an ass?
Only that the gun incidences are blown out of proportion for political reasons.
I think most mass killings get major billing, whether you use a gun, a bomb, or some other means.
If by “political reasons,” you mean that it motivates politicians to act, then there are countless numbers of issues where this is the case, not just gun control. In my particular world, the Cuyahoga River catching on fire was “blown out of proportion” to pass the Clean Water Act, and the Superfund Law was passed much as a result of “Love Canal.” Unfortunately, it often takes tragedy to move public opinion to the point of moving legislators to get laws passed. That’s the nature of the beast.
The fact that 20 kids and 6 adults died needlessly is prompting a national debate on gun control, mental health and other issues? I hardly count that as being blown out of proportion.
I think most gun incidences tend to be sent off with a shrug. There are countless murders by guns yet we don’t hear about every one of them nor do we see them blown up out of proportion. If anything, we’ve reached the point of under reacting. Now, when there’s mass death involved, I hardly think opening up the gun control topic is an over reaction.
California has a ban on magazine capacities over 10 rounds. The ridiculous part of the limit, is that the average shooter can change clips in under 3 seconds. That is about the same time it takes to acquire a target. The 30-round mag saves two shots in 30. Not much point to the limit. The British in WWII could fire 30 rounds a minute with their bolt-action,10 round, Lee-Enfield rifles. As any trained military person will tell you, a fully automatic firearm is impossible to control( and illegal to own in the US). That is why the military uses select-fire option on their rifles. As Mike has said, the issue is with this person’s state of mind.
(1) we’re not talking about expert users, we’re talking about crazy people; (2) what limit do you think would be effective? (see Manchin‘s mention of 3 bullet clips).
And I agree with both of you that mental health is part of it, but you have to be crazy AND well armed to kill that many people. So why not address both sides?
This seems so blatantly obvious to me as to be a no-brainer.
However, the gulf between diagnosis and treatment involves utterly gutting our nation’s for-profit public weapons industry, dismantling and/or marginali(s)zing a very scary culture of white male entitlement, mending a very unhealthy culture of blaming the mentally ill for their ailments, as well as spending billions of dollars on caring for and housing those most in need of inpatient mental health care.
By average shooter, I meant someone who isn’t an expert. There is nothing stopping you from using tape to connect the magazines back to back. It is very easy to change clips. Do it about 10 times, and you will be able to do it 3 seconds. A WWII M-1 Garand uses an internal 8-round clip. Since it is a semi-automatic, should that be banned? What should the police limits be? Should our elected politicians as well as the rich continue to have armed bodyguards? Are the limits to be confined to the unwashed masses? The point of the second amendment is to protect us from an over zealous government. Kind of tough to do with a bolt action single shot, not to mention no gun at all.
Was this rifle locked in a safe? Did his mom give him the combination to it? My wife and I are the only ones that know ours. My kids’ BB guns are locked in it, because that is the only way they will learn safety. However, just going back to the 1940s, almost every house had loaded guns mounted on the walls. The kids just didn’t abuse the privilege. I see the problem deeply rooted in our society’s “do what feels good” attitude, and gun bans treat the symptom, not the cause.
If the gubbmint came rolling down the street with tanks and drones, do you really think you’re gonna stop them with a couple of AR-15’s? Arming people is a guaranteed way to create more violence, not less.
Its a whole lot easier when they are unarmed.
How many times have we needed to overthrow dictators in US history? I mean, there was that evil Lincoln, who tried to take away
ourrich people’s Negroes, but that’s about it.How about this?
Sure, but I don’t think the answer is to allow large groups of angry people to have unfettered access to high-powered weapons.
That wasn’t your question, though. Those veterans had a right to defend themselves from an over-zealous government, using whatever means necessary.
the Bonus Army???
They were a bunch of desperate homeless protesters trying to get their military bonuses 12 years early, not “freedom fighters” or “revolutionaries.”
Dugout Doug’s darkest day.
exactly
I thought you were using the Bonus Army as your big point in favor of the people being armed to overthrow an overzealous government? Did I misinterpret you, or did you just celebrate the failure of your own corroborating evidence?
I was answering as to another situation of our government being overzealous. Do you really believe that the fact that the US population is armed ISN’T a deterrent to the government? I believe it is.
A deterrent against what? What kind of FK’d up stuff do you imagine the current US government doing to the populace if it were completely disarmed?
I think there are many things they could do, including revoking the 1st amendment. Opposing views would not be allowed, etc. They wouldn’t do it immediately, of course, but it would happen.
Thoughtcrime enforcement will be a very real thing in the next 30 years or so, but so will force fields that deflect bullets.
If “they” have the power to revoke the first amendment, why can’t they just revoke the second amendment first?
Because they’ll have to take the guns you already have from your cold dead hands.
@ Kay.
This made me laugh for a solid minute.
Dare I say Tagline?
Taglined.
What about the destruction caused by “large groups of angry people” in the march on Wall Street movement? I sure don’t want mob rule, and I don’t want a police state either. It is the sane members of society that try to keep the rest in line.
I addressed the Occupy movement below. There is, however, no reason to think that all of the violent incidents in those marches were solely instigated by the protestors. Still, introducing more guns would simply result in a lot of deaths. I, for one, would not advocate killing people to save a few store windows.
Makes it harder for them to pay for the damage too.
Name one.
I posit that no such thing exists.
Also, imagine if many of the folks at the modern Occupy rallies had been armed. As it stands, protestors received numerous injuries at the hands of the authorities. If said protestors had guns, how many cops would be dead? And how many cops would’ve pulled their own guns, and how many protestors would be dead?
Oh, so the answer is to allow the mob to destroy other’s property( like the hot dog vendor in SF), because “things like this just happen”. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t approve of the bullies rule mentality. We need to remember just how few actually carry, or even WANT to carry firearms. Less than 2% right now.
What about the innocent people in the Occupy riots? Should they have been subject to this? Should they have to just accept it as part of life?
You’re putting all the blame on the protestors, then? While ignoring how often they were the victims of unprovoked violence? And you think that maybe if there were a bunch of guns there, things would’ve turned out for the better? Hmm, let’s see… a little damaged property that’s probably covered by insurance or a lot of dead people? Not sure which one is better.
Actually, if you read your homeowners policy, it won’t cover mob destruction, at least none that I have ever had. I’m not blaming anyone, but why should they be allowed to wreck other’s belongings?
No one said that anyone should be allowed to destroy property. But that’s why we arrest, prosecute, and require them to pay restitution. I’m just not comfortable with the idea that I should be allowed to kill a guy because he might break something of mine. And if he’s already broken it, then shooting him is kind of pointless, don’t you think?
Should the hot dog guy have been allowed to fire into the crowd to protect his stand? If not, why would you want him to be armed?
And if he did, would he reasonably be able to fend off a crow of thousands?
Every interview with criminals shows that they will NOT attack if they know the intended victim is armed. That is also why most robberies happen during the daytime. Ask yourself, “Should I attack this guy, when he may just be armed?”
In case of premeditated acts by someone of sound mind, sure. But the vast majority of violence is not premeditated. That’s why the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent. And why gun proliferation won’t stop someone who ends up shooting themselves anyway.
Name me one person that had the death penalty enacted that committed any crime again. You say that we need to restrict guns to save “even one life”. What is the difference?
You’re talking about “specific deterrence” (deterring the person being punished). That’s not relevant to ozzman’s point, “general deterrence” (deterring the public at large) is.
Also, the first time the phrase “even one life” appears in this thread is in your comment.
@GM
True, Ozz inferred it when he said:
^^ This and this.
My “this and this” comment was intended to reference GM’s comment. But no, I didn’t infer anything. I said what I meant. The inference was on your part.
I think both things are true: 1, the existence of a death penalty does not seem to deter crime and 2, people who receive the death penalty never hurt anyone again.
I’m not sure I buy Ozz’s connection between premeditation and deterrence, but the latter point doesn’t really relate.
I’m not sure how that responds to my question.
The Bonus Army was not a legitimate overthrow group.
The odds of this ever happening is nil. The reverse is significantly more likely.
Well, actually that’s not true
History says otherwise.
The whole idea that the Second Amendment was written to allow people to arm themselves against the government is just complete nonsense.
My reading of it suggests that member of a state militia may own guns, within established limits.
If true, remind me why you don’t think people should be able to own RPGs? Anything less and you’re not just going to lose, but lose without inflicting casualties.
It seems to me that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on building or buying nuclear weapons. I mean hell, they even used similar arguments to justify the government having nukes (deterrence, that is). If it worked for the US and USSR during the Cold War, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work for me.
See, this IS the issue. There already ARE restrictions as to what an individual can possess. Your answer is NO guns at all.
Um… when did I say that? That is the conclusion the pro-gun crown always leaps to.
Thanks, and go As.
So… hunting rifles belong on a battlefield? Small hand guns belong on a battlefield? Are you even bothering to take the tme to comprehend what I’m writing?
Just about every soldier on a battlefield has a handgun as a secondary firearm.
What are you defining a hunting rifle as? Single shot?
Thanks, and go As.
Um, I’m defining a hunting rifle as a rifle that would typically be favored by hunters. I don’t think assault rifles are popular among that crowd. You’re working awfully hard to twist my arguments into something they’re clearly not. Be nice if you tried as hard to get the point. Or make reasonable counter-arguments.
You know tons of people hunt with AR15s because they’re so modular and you can set them up in to a bunch of different configurations?
Essentially you are talking about banning certain guns because of the way they look.
Thanks, and go As.
Ok, when the Marines start carrying WInchesters into battle, we can discuss this further. Until then, let’s stop with the “you could technically use this to do that” argument. I could technically use a truck to run down deer and call that hunting.
this is also wrong. most do not
this
As many here have stated, “Guns only kill” then all guns can belong on the battlefield. Since we are already limited to non-military firearms, the only ones left are the rest of the guns.
The point is that you’re not already limited to non-military firearms. You can buy assault rifles right now if you want.
Yes, we are.
That depends on where and who you are, I guess. Here in SC, members of the military or law enforcement and members of certain organizations are allowed to carry pretty much whatever they want even when not on duty.
I don’t believe they can carry fully automatic firearms, or machine guns, etc. That is federal law. Some states are currently fighting that law, but as of now it stands.
This may be a case of putting a law on the books just to make a point, but I do know that SC law specifically allows them (and politicians, apparently) to carry “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
If I was head of a large corporation, I would want a secret nuke or two, in anticipation of the day when my corporation is powerful enough to bully around nation-states.
Also, remind of what type of weapons were around back when the amendment was ratified. I think they got by without even the bolt action single shot.
They had more modern firearms than many of the British regulars. Their arms were equivalent to the militaries of the era. ( If you notice I didn’t use ERA+) ☺
And yet it could take minutes to reload after a single fire.
Do you support mandatory safe use (like EC describes in Germany)? If not, why does your question matter?
Finally, I reject the notion that there was some magical time in our past where this stuff never happened. See, e.g., the 40s.
Tutu, it is impossible to be protected from an overzealous government in an era of total information gathering, unchecked media manipulation, and drones.
Anyone in this country can be arrested, smeared, and eventually disappeared, if enough people in the government want it to happen.
Well, the answer isn’t to become sheep( or goats…☺) Syria, Lybia, etc., are all out gunned, have been able to hold on long enough to correct their governments.
I’m sure that if America erupts into a Second Civil War, we’ll have state-level actors funneling weapons and logistical support to the various sides, and fight some sort of proxy war on our turf in the process. The rebels will be fighting with improvised IEDs and imported rockets and military grade weapons, not their weak-ass pistols and hunting gear.
My gawd yes this, they’ll be fighting each other over it.
If we EVER reach a point where it’s necessary to take up arms in that manner, I’m thinking the legality of having or acquiring those weapons will be a pretty moot point.
that sign thing is ridiculous. many of the observers of that sign will then bring a gun just in case Mr. Van Trease goes bonkers, or gives me a C
As if you would be disappointed with a C.
In reality, I’m concerned that at some point a teacher will be careless enough to not lock up the gun, leaving a curious kid to find said gun in the desk and do something even more careless or accidental.
Call me
maybecrazy but I just don’t fucking want kindergarten teachers carrying weapons.Thanks, and go As.
Yep. Imagining Spawn1’s teacher packing heat is, at best, ridiculous. Five year olds have too much of a fascination with guns and not enough self-control for that to be safe.
Hell, one of the SFSU’s professors years ago killed his daughter (by accident) showing her how safe it was. Can’t remember if it was “hey it’s unloaded without the clip” squeeze of the trigger with one in the chamber or “hey the safety is on, it won’t fire” while stupidly aiming at her without the safety actually being engaged. We’re talking a college professor who you’d think would know better. People do stupid ass shit, rather not have people who will be easily distracted by kids.
This!
That actually happened in a Fresno classroom a few years ago. The middle-school student was angry with the teacher, so her mom and mom’s boyfriend, came to the next class. The boyfriend barred the door, while the mom and daughter beat the crap out of the woman teacher. I don’t want teachers with guns in the classrooms, but we do have a serious problem with people knowing right from wrong.
Fresno is not a microcosm for the world, though. The Bulldogs are a very unique, loose, and all-encompassing criminal sprawl, at war with the cops and the municipal system in general.
Yeah, I have an issue with Fresno. My High School prom date was murdered at FSU. It will never be solved as the attacker used a 9″ knife, and the rain washed away the evidence. The police figure she saw something, like a drug deal going down. You couldn’t pay me to live there.
Fk. That sucks.
It really does. I had a real crush on her. She had gone for a walk because she thought she did poorly on a test. Just wanted to clear her mind…
That’s… even worse. Ugh.
I still cry every November…
:(
Thank you…Sorry to burden you with this.
Thank you for sharing. It explains some of why you feel/think the way you do about weapons, safety, and Fresno.
Fresno might be Hell. Just voted dirtiest city in the US too!
I worked there most of the last 15 years, but I would never live in the valley again.
Thanks, Kay. That type of event does change a person.
No burden at all. In many ways it’s what we’re all here for.
Leading to the question of how we move away from a culture where killing children or beating the crap out of teachers or similar violence is what people perceive as a way of righting whatever issues they have. I have read solutions ranging from “better parental discipline” to “more church” to “better access to mental health care” to “less media” to “more responsible media.” I suppose all of these could work, but I don’t know if any of them would have worked based for this case based on what I’ve read (maybe mental health care, but only if the mother took advantage of it and we don’t know if she did or not, yet.)
More focus on Education. We don’t spend nearly enough on it. Right and wrong need to be taught, it’s not an inherently biologically known thing. We keep pulling money out of education and it’s continually biting our collective asses as a result.
Get rid of participation ribbons and start keeping score again, too. The idea that you aren’t going to win all the time needs to be conveyed.
Thanks, and go As.
This I agree with.
And teach them to grow from the failures.
What do we do with the special ed kids who’ll never amount to anything?
Thanks, and go As.
I take care of mine the way I should.
Fair does not mean equal. Some people need special attention. And they do so in a manner is still respecting the principals of growth.
Oh HELL FKING YEAH.
What do we do with the perpetual losers and malcontents?
Isn’t that what FK is for?
Let them live with it or find them something they’re actually good at.
I agree with this.
Good thing the mom and daughter didn’t have a gun. Also, I assume the criminal justice system handled that just fine…
Wouldn’t the gun need to be so locked up for safety reasons that it would be pretty much useless in an emergency situation anyways?
That is another issue. Many to the laws are designed to render the firearm impotent. Laws that require ammo to be locked up separately from the firearm AND in another room! Or laws that require you to disassemble your gun as you move from one room to another in your own home! This renders you totally defenseless in your own home. You won’t convince me that these laws are anything other than attempts by those like Sen. Feinstein to ban ALL guns.
It just means you should be more adept at re-assembly. And laws against moving it from one room to another won’t manner to you much if you’re intending to use it. I *am* with you on the bullets in separate locations. Perhaps locked separate in the same place (i.e. gun and bullets locked in the same safe, but the bullets locked within the safe), but that’s about as far as I’d go.
There was an interesting point brought up during similar discussion over at Tango’s place, about differences in what freedom means between the two continents:
Well, Americans would have much better health care but for fucking Aaron Burr
Yes yes yes.
American freedom = every man a sovereign (aka DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT TO ANYONE EVER!)
European freedom = every person a member of a reasonably safe and well regulated society
I think it would be more correct to say that American freedom = freedom from responsibilities and consequences.
Close. It’s “freedom from responsibilities and consequences but still making the assumption that this celebration of infantile barbarism somehow qualifies you to be the moral arbiter of the planet”.
Ask the French police that refuse to go into areas of Paris, because they fear for their lives. Europe has the same problems as we do.
Really? I’d like to hear your first hand experience of this, do you have some sort of source in the French police for this? Because last I looked for every mass shooting in Europe there’s like 50 in the USA.
No, Europe does not have the same problems as we do, and such sweeping generalizations do nothing to advance understanding about the realities of this topic.
Your implication — they are “afraid for their lives” to go into “those neighborhoods” — is part and parcel of why, IMO, guns are so big and out of control in the US. Because “they” are coming. The savages. Those people. The other. They’re at the gates, you know… to “take” what we “make” and kill our children and rape our women. Why, the only reason they know how to read at all is so they’ll know when the 1st and 15th of every month falls, right?
Guns are where they are because you have millions of people that wake up every day in essence fantasizing about how it is they who will be the “hero” that refights the Civil War and wins it for the South, that’s why. The one that keeps the hordes of nomadic barbarians that are always coming, coming, coming far away from the gates of righteousness and purity.
The woman whose son did this CT shooting — whom he swiped the weapons from to do it — was along these lines, stockpiling weapons for the imminent collapse that is clearly the only result expected by a LOT of people because the president is, well, Black. IMO this is one of if not THE driving force behind the vast weaponization we are seeing: the belief (stoked 24/7 by Fox News) that Black president = must prepare for Doomsday with vast caches of munitions. This is why since 2008, weapons sales have skyrocketed to levels never before seen in a “civilized” society.
Just google French No-go zones. They are all over Europe.
They fear for their lives if they are non-Muslim, from what I am reading. The Sharia extremists apparently close off sections of their neighborhoods for Friday prayers… the police fear for their lives in those places.
It almost sounds like here, where the redneck apocalypticals hole up in the woods and shoot at the ATF when the feds show up… it’s like an urbanized version of that.
Humanity is just so, so fucked.
Or neighborhoods in Chicago…bad people live everywhere
So simplistic, “bad people”. You mean like people who continue to indulge in a system of resource distribution they can easily discern will make life for the people that come after them unlivable? Are they “bad people” too? I love how convinced you are, so comfortable in making such a statement.
What kind of simplistic 4-year-old statement is that? Are you living in some sort of John Wayne fantasy cowboys vs. Indians film where the battle lines are drawn so distinctly and starkly that they resemble something out of Star Wars for nuance and realism? Cuz Planet Good vs. Bad Dichotomy is not the world I live on.
The only people we have a right to make such sweepingly assumptive black-and-white judgments about are the people — the person — whom we see when we look in a mirror.
And I’M the one that is twisting? You know for a fact that my reference was to the totally bogus representation that Europe was some kind of Utopia. It ISN’T!
This is what I was responding to:
All I said was that they have problems just like we do. I never said that we were better, or they were worse.
I also don’t appreciate the personal attacks that you inferred. This discussion has been civil, and when pointed out, I apologized to EC when I stepped out of line.
Hmm…
I think that most people find it easier to live in a world of dichotomies as opposed to a world of spectrums. It takes a bright and/or crazy person to abandon/eschew dichotomic thinking.
There are bad neighborhoods in Chicago (I lived adjacent to one for 8 years) and there is a lot of gun violence in Chicago, but I’m pretty sure that Chicago Police go everywhere.
There was a while when they more or less stayed away from Cabrini Green, but those days are over.
Except to watch the Cubs. Not even police can endure that
You’d be surprised. Going to Wrigley has little to do with expecting to see the Cubs win.
It’s an important part of a day of cutting school, visiting the Art Institute, stealing someone’s reservation at a snooty French restaurant, and singing in the Von Steuben Day parade.
Heh.
If the day ends with wrecking a Ferrari, I want no part of it.
You don’t want that much heat.
I just did that, and am seeing a lot of blogs but no credible sources (either way). I’m open to being convinced these things exist, but this suggestion didn’t get me there.
He twists it to make radical Islam and Sharia communities in Europe equivalent to the school shooters (and below, to Chicago’s poor “bad people”) so his assumption about “dangerous” people (the Eternal Them) can remain unchallenged by objective reality as uncolored by the narrative thrust of Fox News. Really the reasons that the French cops won’t go near the Friday prayers in Sharia communities and the reasons the cops might be afraid to go into the Cabrini Green Projects in Chicago are vastly different, but it doesn’t matter cuz both contain THEM, the OTHERS whose basic humanity is always available to be questioned once the toxic assumptions take hold and come to replace observable reality free from these biases.
It’s pointless to challenge these kinds of arguments or suppositions anymore, as their progenitors and their adherents have come to the conclusion that it is they and they alone who decide what reality is, regardless of the facts of situations and the forces at work to define those situations.
nicely written
Are you positing that conservatism is not only a rejection of sovereignty of government, but also a rejection of objective consensus reality as well?
Brilliant, methinks.
It’s the logical conclusion of all the “America, Fuck Yeah!” mythology… it’s where John Wayne and Ayn Rand meet at the End of the World. Where the myth of the individual unmoored from all the “others” to whom he is “superior” can pretend or fantasize that he or she is living on their own separate planet unbuckled from the recognition or even the need for recognition that there is anyone else anywhere whose lives or rights matter.
Our issue is that we’ve allowed, over the last 30 years of rightist, disinformationist rule, the words “common good” to morph into the devil “socialism” in all cases, and we have failed to adequately challenge their ridiculous, toxic, community-destroying ethos as they have voiced it those 3 decades.
Now these motherFKers think they can say anything and it’s cool. They can come on with blatant dogwhistling racism and homophobia and misogyny and expect that they will get approval. They can see the school shootings and propose arming teachers with AK-47s and it’s shocking to them when people’s jaws drop to the floor. They can come on with “legitimate rape,” and “death panels,” and “Kenyan Muslim Socialist,” and “man on dog sex,” and “War on Christmas” like it’s all true and our failure to adequately or creatively challenge this mechanism for so long means they expect credibility and a place at the table of what might be termed legitimate discourse. They have effectively thrown us out of the Overton Window and it’s not their fault, it is ours.
What has happened since Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union and defunded vital mental heath care (after all, they’re not crazy, they are “faking it so they won’t have to work,” right Dr. Ronnie?) in 1981 is that they have dictated, unchallenged in any meaningful way whatsoever, the discourse and the tracks it has run on — and our inertia in responding has put them in a place where reality and objective facts of situations no longer matter as much as the mythical construct our inaction has allowed to be built up in their minds.
Now there is no turning back and the well has been poisoned. Many people probably believe the lies, the idea that their neighbors are the enemy and the vampire “taking” all that the individual “maker” has “made”… the community — last I checked as vital a component to human efficacy as can be named — as pure leeches devoid of responsibility or initiative.
To take it further, this shit boils down once again, at the root, to my ongoing supposition that as the resource base of consumer capitalism dwindles, the drive required to adequately secure what one perceives as necessary resources will increase to the point where competition for the lifestyle to which one is accustomed — and which in consumer society forms a lot of the basis for the individual’s recognition and degree of respect & acceptance in one’s community — will reduce and fray the bonds of said community to the point where the community will no longer effectively exist.
And here we are. See, what I am saying is just that as the energy required by the system becomes so great and the stakes so high to keep the line moving and the paradigm of resource distribution intact, that we will and have begun to neglect each other to the degree where the neglect and apathy will become the predominant mode of action. Because I believe that the human behavior with the greatest impact on situations is often not the proactively aggressive gesture but one of neglect and not-doing — of silent, socially acceptable disregard for the suffering all around us and even inside of us.
Talk about “twisting!” Where did I ever mention the Chicago “poor”? I was referring to the gun violence in their neighborhoods. Period. You talk of tolerance, yet show an extreme intolerance of those you don’t agree with. This really does fit the definition of bigotry:
OK, you didn’t say “poor,” you said “bad,” but I know you didn’t mean the rich people are shooting at the cops and each other.
You made a ridiculous, implied parallel between “the bad people everywhere” from Paris to Chicago and I responded with how I feel “conservatism” (quotes cuz it ain’t conservative of anything but its own psychosis) today means freedom from being a country.
Are you gonna respond to that? Or are you just going to attack because I called out the little cute dogwhistle you planted when you made your Chicago comment?
I will give it to you straight cuz I like ya and you were always kind to what I would write on ** with your comments and I haven’t forgotten that.
But here it is: the time where your side will be allowed to come on and scream and froth that “Saying the sky is blue is a liberal, socialist conspiracy against our way of life” whenever someone dares suggest that the sky is in fact blue — that 30 years is up, it’s over. The “conservative” strategy of halting human social progress by carrying on with these extremist, racist, homophobic, misogynist histrionics so you can shift the Overton Window to be somewhere to the right of Joseph McCarthy in the minds of the underinformed and vulnerable? We’re onto it. It took us a while to suss it out but we get it now and that game is as over as when Hawk Harrelson calls the final out of a White Sox win.
It’s a new day and everything you say and suggest will be subject to the most intense scrutiny and examination by those of us that are paying attention, and you should be grateful that we are back to reassert a modicum of sanity before you guys take this country over more than just the bullshit fiscal cliff your side has ginned up to further redistribute wealth upwards.
That’s right, YOU are the wealth redistributor, not us — YOU are the socialists, except yours is maybe better termed Corporate Communism where it’s feral capitalist competition to the death for the poor and unconnected and eternal paradise on a platter for the rich and connected.
None of this is personal and it’s not even really you specifically that I am talking about, Tutu…. like I said I like you despite the RW talking points you sometimes repeat as gospel truth. But this affection cannot deter me any longer from running it down 101% as I see it despite the uncomfortableness, because the damage your side has done and seems determined to escalate has gotten so egregious and has gone so unchallenged for so long that it has to be stopped and emphatically so.
Of course I am no emperor — I am just a nobody and I apologize for coming on so strong about it, but I have made up my mind that I will go down swinging and say exactly what you mean when you say what you say, even if you yourselves have become so accustomed to being able to say any old ridiculous, fear-motivating thing to keep people’s hands around their own throats that you express shock and indignation when someone dares challenge the erroneous and disinformative things your side so casually and confidently often proffers as facts.
How about this?
In general, I do not trust somebody called “Cristian Broadcasting Network” to be even-keeled when commenting the “Muslim problem” in any part of the world. After seeing that they base their report on what Guy Milliere and Bloc Identitaire, one of the biggest neonazi groupations in Europe, have to say, I’d advise you not to put too much value into their opinion.
CBN is Pat Robertson’s network.
I don’t think I know who Pat Robertson is
OK, I googled
He seems like an open-minded guy when it comes to religion. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes on any subject:
They also referenced other articles including the BBC. Just because you are suspicious, doesn’t mean it is incorrect.
They referenced news reports about multi-culturalism failing in the minds of two European politicians. I believe both of those statements are real. Neither article says anything about no go zones, which I am still up in the air about.
Well, how about the Washington Times?
I refer you to this part of the article:
Doesn’t sound to me like it is just Islamic hatred.
I agree that the zones exist. I have not seen anything credible (either way) on what the zones mean, other than that wikipedia article and some of the linked work.
If anything, I would consider the CBN more reliable than the Washington Times.
LOL
Indeed
This makes it untrue?
It means you have presented no credible evidence that it is true.
So, you are denying that they(ZUS) exist? It really wouldn’t do much good to link French sites, as I am not fluid in their language. How about this article?
Here is the author’s bio
Of course, I don’t expect you to believe it is happening, because it doesn’t fit into your thinking.
Don’t do that please.
I have linked to the evidence, which you repeatedly deny. I don’t read French, so I can’t link any “official” French Government proclamations. Yet when I link sites that reference those proclamations, you say they aren’t credible, not because they aren’t true, but because you don’t approve of the site. I apologize for my choice of words, but you seem to be unwilling to accept any evidence that I present.
I didn’t repeatedly deny anything. I don’t have strong feelings on this question, but I do have a strong feeling that the Washington Times, CBN, WND et al. are not to be given any weight in a discussion of what the facts are.
How about this?
Seems the list does exist, and the areas referenced in the other articles are real.
@Tutu: If one of us presented an argument and linked to sites like Addicting Info, Mother Jones, and The Huffington Post, would you accept them as reputable sources?
@ ozz.
The news is the news, so yes. I may question the editorial, but not the fact. You can also look to Reuters for the articles as well. Come to think of it, The Huffington Post ALSO presented an article on the subject.
Tutu, news is not the news, when “news” is basically an interview with only one interested party and a very extreme one at that.
@Tutu-
I’m not gonna argue the credibility of your sources, or even whether the stories are true or not. I care about plausibility, and it seems eminently plausible that liberal immigration policies in France in the 90’s through 2008ish could have allowed millions of underskilled Algerians and other emigrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East in to fill low-income jobs in a booming French economy. Then, when the boom went bust along with the rest of the west, these people were the first fired, and suffer the brunt of the worst unemployment and social discrimination.
Neighborhoods that had over time been neglected became affordable enough for immigrant families to afford to move into enmasse and in effect ghettoize/semi-willingly become ghettoized. The language barrier and certain elements of cultural distrust caused the neighborhoods to distrust municipal and police structures, as happens anywhere in the world where people are marginalized in ghettos due to culture, race, or language. Eventually, internal neighborhood structures became powerful enough to scare the undergunned/undermanned local gendarmes, just like certain Mafias did in Sicily and New York, and as the Black Panthers did in certain neighborhoods in the 70’s.
This kind of thing does happen as a byproduct of inefficient planning in regards to multicultural absorption and accomodation, as well as blindness of power in regards to emerging economic trends.
Now, the question is… what the FK point was I trying to prove with that?
I plumb forgot!
It was founded by the Moonies.
It’s not incorrect because I am suspicious. It is extremely radical interpretation of what is happening, because it is an interpretation made by extremely radical people.
Interesting, but it sounds to me like the “sensitive urban zone” that Robertson calls a “no go zone” is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying a no-go zone is. Instead, they’re areas that the government invests MORE heavily in trying to help.
It does appear true that “sensitive urban zone” is an official designation.
That’s absurd enough to be a tagline.
It boils down to the externalization that people are taught like monkeys from birth. That it’s always someone else’s fault; that someone on whom to blame things is always more of a priority than untangling what the operative resolution to conflicts might be.
There’s just a LOT of people who don’t seem to get that the definition of a situation and its possibilities isn’t in the quantity of the challenges or the severity of the trespasses, but the QUALITY of the various responses and reactions to those challenges and trespasses.
There’s no hope but to perfect interstellar travel and watch in the rearview mirror as they destroy what’s left of this world.
I don’t think humans have evolved nearly as much from the primate ancestors as we think we have. We’re still pretty FKing dumb.
Wake me up when specialization is obsolete because human cloud memory shares all knowledge and experiences across the integrated hivemind network.
Yup. We take the specifically great achievements of the very best while ignoring both their very worse moment or the worst of all humanity and rank it against the opposite perception of the animal kingdom.
I am answering to this one, because I followed it up to see what your point was in the first place.
Nobody is denying that ZUS do exist. What people take issue with is that you present opinion of people on far right about what ZUS are and why, as some sort of evidence. And sorry, when your crown witness is the lead of the one of the biggest Neo-Nazi movements there is, then your argument loses a lot of credibility.
Yes, there are over 700 ZUS in France (which, by the way doesn’t mean that they are all over Europe, unless you mean Muslims with “they”). ZUS are an extremely complex issue, as much an issue of white French wanting to put immigrants as far away from their eyes as possible, as it is an economic issue or a poverty or crime issue. The picture that white supremacists are painting in that article you linked to is on a very extreme end of the opinion/explanation spectrum of that issue and that is why you are met with resistance when trying to present that as any sort of evidence.
Actually, they repeatedly “proof” that they existed. My entire point was that Europe has civil problems just as the US does, and comments like,
are patently untrue.
That comment is what the freedom means to people on each side of the Atlantic, and of course it is no black and white picture, but rather an overlapping one with many of the wishes and ideas shared.
However if you take an average opinion, I don’t think it is wrong, much less patently untrue.
For majority in Europe, freedom means much more freedom to be able to better defend against poverty and disease than freedom to be able to better defend against an intruder into your home.
Does this mean that Europe has no problems? Hell, no. We could be discussing for weeks whether it is the USA or Europe that better succeeded to make it a great place for its citizens to live.
But you can not deny that there are fundamentally different approaches to it in the two areas, the ones that pretty much do boil down to the two lines I posted.
He can deny anything he wants, the facts be damned. This is the “conservative” birthright, didn’t you know? Fox News says “Freedom Fries” so “Freedom Fries” it will be for a big segment of the US population. Europe is full of effete homosexual socialists who owe their very existence to America.
Let’s make it really clear: Americans — many Americans — want guns because they WANT someone to threaten them, so they can get all FK’in puffed up and take power over someone else and kill them, “kill the bad guys” in the eternal, oversimplified garbage John Wayne C-movie that is playing in their heads at any given time.
This is what you get when you systematically disempower millions and tens of millions of people, turning them into lackeys and apologists for the sham, jokefuck democracy which they have no choice but to see whenever they open their eyes. The one so COMPLETELY corrupted at the fundament by corporate money’s influence that it’s long been clear that both US “parties” legislate on the direct behalf of the 1% wealthiest, and them alone. I saw this first hand in the 1990s when I worked for a PAC trying to get environmentalists elected to the CA legislature — when the car companies would cozy up to the legislators and end up writing the environmental laws to their specification — and it’s only gotten more pervasive since.
When you do this — when you subject people to total disempowerment whilst simultaneously inculcating them with the most elegantly-produced propaganda in human history about how they are the anointed saviors of Earth itself — you create a cognitive dissonance so monumental that anything can happen and often does when those people come into contact with conflicts in their lives that seem to offer no path at their surface to peaceable resolution.
Again, you know your way with words, mister.
Agreed.
Thanks you guys, I appreciate it even though I don’t think anything I am gonna say is ever gonna be taken even moderately seriously. Still, it means a lot that someone agrees or approves.
In a really strange way, you kind of created an argument in favor of guns for protection. If there’s no path to peaceable resolution, violence becomes the only response (per history) and you damn well better be ready to defend yourself when that comes.
There’s always a path in situations, always a creative way to avoid catastrophe. I think the Zen koan “Violence is a failure of the imagination.” should be our guide to remind ourselves to always search and be searching inside ourselves for a peaceable path, no matter how bleak.
Of course instinctually people are gonna defend themselves when attacked and that is a automatic function, very hard to suppress. But the presence of that instinct doesn’t just make guns a viable option; you could put any number of destructive weapons in that category of “tools to reach for when it all goes to shit”.
I guess guns are so popular cuz they are so portable and instantaneous to use, kind of a Weapon of Instant Gratification that can do the most damage in the shortest time.
American freedom is freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want to whomever you want, and to be able to pay the lawyers to make it look like YOU were the victim afterwards.
This isn’t a country so much as it is an anti-country in a lot of ways. I see it as just 300 million delusional gullibles wandering around the same continent chasing the same Death Paper more than I see it as any kind of country or community of identity beyond “Get the money, now, or you will die.”
To this day in the U.S., the concept of freedom is most loudly expressed by those who wish to be free from the institutions of society—freedom from taxation, regulation and the impositions of elites.
Yes, you got it B. The concept of freedom in the country of the US boils down to freedom from being a country at all.
They call this place “America” because “Perpetual Race for Zero Accountability Whilst Holding Oneself Out As Somehow The Moral Arbiter Of The Earth” was too long.
You’ve hit the emotional head of the pimple of spoiled conservative male entitlement.
It’s all about literality for them, these (I laugh out loud cuz they seek to conserve NOTHING WHATSOEVER but the ancient bigotries that fuel their misplaced fantasies of “superiority” over “others”) “conservatives”.
Really they are stuck in Freud’s Concrete Operational Stage, where everything is literal and there is no nuance, no subtlety and no irony.
We are being held up in our progress as a species by people who for whatever reason never made it past the mentality of an 8-year-old, and I’m a little pissed off about it already, truth be told.
Dont worry, only 3 more days to new leaf right?
No, three more days until humans fail to learn yet again that vital, necessary transformations take work, and don’t just miraculously happen all on one day after literally millennia of degradation and barbarity.
You are pissed off. :)
At least there are concepts such as childhood and the not normal/ less able bodied aren’t left abandoned at the edge of the woods, that’s some progress no?
Look, there’s plenty of material available why we shouldn’t oppress each other, about the cycle of brutality, about a hungry mob is an angry mob, and on and on and on.
The truth is it doesn’t matter because there are some people who just don’t care, and the more an objective reality is demonstrated to them and their previous assumptions proven erroneous, the more they will double and triple down on their madness.
I mean, we know that where unprovable belief — absolute faith in things that have never been conclusively demonstrated to be true — starts intelligence ends, right? Yet we live in a world — and in a country especially — where such belief is a prerequisite for any number of levels of social acceptance and credibility, from acceptance in one’s general community (in a lotta places) to becoming President or even holding elective office or any kind. I mean, just as an example, you have the ultimate need for Reason in the position and yet no atheist has ever even seriously RUN, no less won. Further, candidates have to out-duel each other in the ways they voice their perfect, unending “faith” in ever-more-ridiculous ways if they are even to be considered as serious.
As long as we make the criteria for credibility the incredible and impossible and fealty to the unserious a necessity to be taken seriously and to be a prerequisite for acceptance and legitimacy, there’s just no point anymore.
Hmm…
You seem to enjoy life a lot and have a lot of passion, which is why you’re capable at getting upset over injustices that others shrug off out of numbness. You’re kinda one of my heroes that way.
Maybe I’m naive, but I think a lot of people really dislike life, and need reasons to keep from killing themselves, so whatever small part of them is capable of connection and compassion ties itself up with fairytale deities to obey and inflated beliefs of things larger than them (or inflated sense of self).
I think a lot of people really dislike life
I think a lot of people — esp. Americans — dislike that life fails to provide them with the fantasy outcomes their inflated sense of self and position in the world indicates they will receive from situations, and that this shortfall of expectations-vs.-reality causes them to run into the mythical arms of perfect, supernatural, omniscient deities they have constructed over time as a mechanism of filling the void left by life.
Wilhelm Reich — that’s MY hero — was all about this, it’s his basic “Function of the Orgasm” theory applied in action away from literal sexual gratification. Basically he says that our lives and our force of individual impetus for progress and action withing our lives are driven by the difference between the orgasm we have and the orgasm we perceive we could have.
Apply this beyond the literal interpretation of actual cumming and into other realms (job, romance, relationships, etc.) and I think Dr. Reich was spot on.
Wow.
One of my personal tenets/proclivities is that someday when holodeck sex is possible, I’m going to end my sessions with simulated death, as opposed to orgasms. Why bother with the little death when you can play with the real thing? Then again, this may be a poisonous byproduct of what I’ve internalized from the death culture surrounding us.
I guess every kiss DOES begin with Kay!!!!
Huh. Very well said.
Sure is.
I think that may just be a tagline.
Meanwhile, in Canada…
Holy FK. That has to be one terrifying moment for both parent and child.
It’s unreal.
Well, lesson learned. If you’re gonna take your kids there, spray them down with Pam first.
I think that young one will be afraid of pigeons even for quite some time.
Raptors are no fk’in joke, seen them take out wolves…
If eagles are outlawed, only the outlaws will have eagles.
(Also, video appears to be a hoax.)
Ah, well.
My wife is watching a BBC period drama about midwives. I’ve never heard so many English people grunting in my life.
A drama about midwives having their period? That sounds extraordinarily boring.
We’re a nation of swine.
“In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely.â€
HST FTW!!!!
The imgur short code for this picture? “OK Jed”
Thanks, and go As.
that’s pretty FKing funny.
Kyli bait
Thanks, and go As.
Obviously, Slusser didn’t get the Team Photo giveaway.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHATTY.
Yay hurray!
I find it encouraging that Yankees management is dumb enough to think this will work.
Yay my Christmas present arrived early!!!!
Congratulations!
Mine arrived early too. My present has more handheld Tesla coils than yours does, but other than that, I think you got a fine present.
Easily the appellate opinion of the year.
I wish it wasn’t quite so joyless about the whole thing.
Yeah, that’s the Fed Circuit for you. It’s a shame Posner or Kozinski couldn’t have written this one.
Still, the clinical nature of Dyk’s opinion almost makes it funnier. The PTO examiner is the real hero though:
Left unanswered is the question: what’s wrong with being a sucker of penis?
Nothing. You just can’t trademark it, no matter how good you are.
CA does the same with personalized license platesw.
I remember reading in Herb Caen about a Cal student with a VW who requested plates that read “FKSTNFD”. His request was rejected as vulgar. He appealed, claiming that the plates stood for “Frankenstein’s Ford” and was approved.
Similar story in the Sac Bee back in the 80’s. Someone requested 4NICK8, plate was denied, appealed claiming the plate was for Nick’s 8th anniversary, appeal was denied.
Washington took GOTMILF (which he had claimed stood for “Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator“) away from some guy a few years back.
And then, of course, there was that woman in NC a year or 2 ago who learned from her granddaughter what WTF means, and then started a campaign to have the state stop issuing plates with that sequence on them.
And don’t forget MISS DP.
For a state that’s been more or less irrelevant for the last 150 years, SC sure gets a disproportionate amount of press.
The court rules: “Hang dai”
Cocksuckers!
Anybody else craving a lollipop now?
Those poultry saps!
Bookmarked
sorry could someone re-size?
done
look
nice
I would have started a HOF discussion, but FKing Dave Cameron already ended it.
I’d vote McGwire over Walker and probably Edgar.
Anyone else think about how Dallas Braden didn’t give up 51 for Cespedes and now is gone.
He’s gone?
I think it is all a gummint conspiracy! ( and I am talking about the Area!):)
Science.
Thanks, and go As.
If that is true than you need a career switch and it’s Med School for you!
Exactly what I was thinking.
Thanks, and go As.
Lucky you’re a boob man, otherwise you’d be a couple hundred years too late.
I’m an ass man. Anyone need help preventing ass cancer?
Woohoo!!
Crimson Schlong has a message for you.
That is handwriting that makes the Zodiac Killer look like a professor of penmanship, but I love it just the same.
I love that he chose that photo of himself.
Yeah, I love the guy, he is like a cross between a Deliverance redneck and Louis CK or something.
I hope he brings back the mouthguard next year.
It’s like he signed it using one of those Jeopardy “my name is” boards.
That thing was FKing hard to use.
OMG you went on Jeopardy–do tell!!!!
Remind me tomorrow!
At first, I thought he was holding a piece of chalk in his mouth and signed it that way.
He kind of sounds like what I would if I were leaving a voicemail minus the “ums, ers, grrs, uuhhs” and completely jumbled words that are too incoherent to make any sense.
It’s great that he identified himself by what position he plays. In case you don’t know who he is.
“Having David Brooks explain why teaching a course in Humility at Yale is not a landmark moment in the history of pretentiousness by quoting Burke, Niebuhr, Dorothy Day, Montaigne, Martin Luther King, Samuel Johnson and Daniel Kahneman in the same sentence has to be some kind of trap, right?”
Beautiful.
Wow. Jeffery Toobin dropped the hammer on Robert Bork. The opening paragraph:
Tough, but fair.
that was nice
Yea, fuck that guy. Which way to the graveside pee line?
Can you wait till the conga line has passed first?
slouching towards the trough
Even Bork’s beard was sociopathic.
Bork calling Coulson… come iiiiiiiiiiin, Coulson!
I’m going to need you all to start referring to me as the “Cazique of Poyais.” And give me all of your money. And get on these boats.
Oakland criticism.
I like how they leave out that this is debt payment started well over a decade ago and not some decision made yesterday. Not saying it was a smart move either way, but it’s not as if they thought, “hey we’re broke, let’s lay off some cops and give money to sports!”
Yeah, this article is full of deliberately misleading equivalencies. Oakland didn’t “lay off 200 cops” all at once; that’s the sum total of reduced OPD personnel budgets over about five years of brutal budgets, necessitated in part by the expiration of a key voter-approved police funding measure. And the $17 million figure is a bond payment…you can’t just decide to stop making those.
Important takeaway:
Ironically, the one party that did OK out of the 1995 deal (financially at least) is the Oakland A’s, who to this day get a bunch of revenue from their share of Raiders game concessions, including all of the “pouring rights,” aka beer sales.
So you’re saying I should… like… that Raiders fans are beer-drenched cretins (unlike my classy wine-sipping gang-banging brethren)?
“I wouldn’t recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they’ve always worked for me.”
Here’s the Bloomberg article, minus all the left-wing vitriol.
much better.
The beginning of the second paragraph still bothers me. “Untouched” as if they COULD touch it?
right, they could default.