Welcome to the new epoch. I’m excited for the possibilities…transcending hatred, encountering new alien life, extending our consciousness beyond the bounds of this mortal coil. Good times. Still, I can’t help but be a little scared too. Furious true believers get better-armed in more places around the world daily. The Large Hadron could twiddle the wrong boson into quantumtastrophy. The South Pole cover-up of Planet Niburu could fall apart, and as humanity learns it has one month until planetary extinction the ensuing brutal riotous decay of civilization makes the living envy the dead. Members Only jackets could come back into style, and once again Lew Wolff cackles amid agonized wails from the rest of us.
It’s a longshot hard 10 point for enlightenment, but I kinda like the glint of mania in the shooter’s eyes, a Balfouresque raving deranged confidence, and maybe the dice are hot.
Kodiak AK avoided the fecal cliff. The rest of us appear to still be mired in shit.
At least Oakland is well and truly stimulated.
Wearing one of these in the last week has won me more compliments than any previous sartorial choice I have ever made.
Not all those who wander are lost…some are just genetically disposed to need more dopamine. Manifest destiny. Like locusts.
Rogue asteroid, caught on tape!
Whether it’s proactively actualizing your communication channels or globalizing your intellectual capital, highly skilled professional consultants are ready to meet your needs.
Obligatory although no longer applicable after like 5am local this morning:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=o-bokeh9rDo” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kglXKGt0Wv4” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
I used to run into that guy (Kepi) all the time. I think he has a bevy of clones or something.
I bet there are a lot of clones. exp in Sacramento, I imagine his is kinda a big deal there
amongst the type of crowds that kiss musicians’ asses, most certainly.
The guys from The Secretions are also known across the grid, but they’re really sweet and treat people well, so that’s rightfully so. Mickie Priest used to play my band’s tape all the way through the middle of his KDVS shift so he could have a smoke and take a dump. Apparently that’s how Fat Mike heard of us… We really fucked that whole thing up. Our guitar player was a snob and didn’t want to have anything to do with what he considered to be a lame record label. We should’a just kicked his sorry ass to the curb, got a replacement, and taken our shot at the medium-time. It was 1996 for fuck’s sake, and bands and albums meant more back then. We could’a been a one-hit wonder, I tells ya!
96 was just after the green day and jawbreaker unpleasantness. Kinda makes sense, but its not like FAT was necessarily launching pad for stuff. Just a way to get better tours.
You may be right, Gawker commenter. This might be the most Internettiest thing ever.
This is also a candidate.
Last night, my mom and stepdad made me watch this ridiculous conspiracy theory movie. It had some age of aquarius religion stuff, but that was pretty much completely disjointed from the 9-11 Truther bits and the Federal Reserve / going off the gold standard is turning everyone into slaves bits. Fortunately I was around to tell them that it is all BS.
I’m going to be hearing a nice big pile of that sh!t over the upcoming holiday. I used to believe a lot of it, too.
They are generally pretty non-crazy (well, my stepdad at least… my mom can be kind of crazy), but he really latched onto the whole 7 WTC thing.
I saw Silverstein being interviewed about the demolition of the building live while it happened, and I didn’t trust him then and don’t now. I may well agree with your stepdad about Building 7.
However, I don’t really give much of a shit. I’m well aware of what sociopaths are capable of doing to further their interests, and it doesn’t much matter to me whose version of 9/11 is the “truth.”
“We had to pull the building.”
There isn’t much question that the building was set up to be demolished before the sun rose on 9/11/01, given that a controlled “pull” takes time to set up. So if we’re a jury looking for reasonable doubt of the official story, you have it right there: that if one building in the complex is previously rigged to be able to be instantly demolished, then more buildings could have been. Not saying they were, just that they could.
I was just watching a thing on the Bay of Pigs fiasco under JFK, and reacquainted myself with the very lovely Operation Northwoods program proposed by Lyman Lemnitzer (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to justify an invasion of Cuba and the elimination of Castro. I think it’s really important that we not harbor any illusions about whether or not elements within the military/industrial apparatus would stoop to murder their own citizens, especially given that they draw up plans and wars all the time to murder those of other countries. Because, well, that’s their job.
I also fully agree with Kay that it doesn’t matter what really happened anymore, because it may never, like so many other events from the JFK/RFK/Malcolm X/MLK assassinations to Jonestown to (your questionable historical event here), be conclusively proven what indeed took place.
Remember the Maine! Or the Gulf of Tonkin. Or 3/13/1997 in Phoenix, AZ. The list will always grow.
Welp, I think that the NIST FAQ provides a pretty good explanation for why that building collapsed.
I just googled for “silverstein wtc 7” and found the “pull it” quote. I don’t know all the ins and outs of this particular conspiracy, but to me that quote sounds like they were pulling out the firefighters who were going to try to stop the fire and instead just let the fires burn, which did eventually bring down the building.
I wish I could watch stuff like that, but not have it take up any of my actual time
That’s how I feel about almost all media!
I’m on FKing vacation. FK yeah!
I, too!
Im on my last day of vacation. Ive found that so many people take next week off I can “work” and basically get an extra week of time off.
Sounds like Zeitgeist? I picked my friends up from the woods one day like five years ago when they were tripping on mushrooms, and gave them a copy of it to watch while they came down. They were paranoid and talked about it for weeks. It was a terrible idea on my part.
Yep. Zeitgeist.
MORE INFO COMING SOON
I apologize for whom I’m about to offend, but I just don’t trust people with names like Asa and Birch and Mitt and Strom. It’s as if their names ooze slimy family corruption out of uncontrollable glands…
Well, you wouldn’t:
Asa (×ס×/’ay-sah/) – derived from the Hebrew language, as the name appears in the Old Testament to designate the third King of Judah, who reigned for forty years. It became a popular name because of the influence of the Puritans in the 17th century.
Well that makes a lot of sense, now, dunnit?
Their brilliant idea is to put first targets into schools! Yay!
Their brilliant idea is to…HEY LOOK OVER THERE!!!
It took a week of silence for the NRA to come up with the pile of stupid they shared with America today???
I do not believe that more gun control laws are THE answer… but there’s no denying that there is a legislative component that needs to be addressed in the conversation. The NRA seems to be saying it doesn’t want to take part in an actual conversation, one in which everything is on the table. So, in my mind, they’ve forfeited the opportunity to be a part of the conversation. Which is sad, because I think the rights of gun owners should be represented in the process.
that struck me as well. it was the best way for him not to get what he wants.
Depends on what you think he wants.
I agree with Magary; the NRA trolls us all with deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, because they want the debate to be about the NRA and “gun rights” and not about the men and businesses that profit while killing thousands each year.
good point
I’ve never read Drew Magary before. Enlightening.
He’s a fucking idiot trolling on another side of the issue.
The essence of his argument is… go after the people who are making an effective product. Tobacco got reamed because they spent years arguing their product was harmless. The NFL gets flak because they spent years ignoring the warning signs. Car companies issue recalls because of design flaws.
You tell me that Sig Saur sells fire arms that kill thousands a year? That tells me their guns are working as designed.
Legislating against and suing the makers of products which kill and maim has proven time and again to be the single best way of dealing with problems, far more effective that legislating on the consumer access side. Your examples of tobacco and cars make this point very well.
Except firearms aren’t a problem, they’re a constitutionally protected right for the citizens of this country. That you think firearms are a problem is the real problem. Not because you’re a bleeding heart liberal wackjob or other insulting label; the problem is you object to a gun’s purpose. That’s understandable, their purpose isn’t pretty. Tobacco and cars did not advertise that their purpose was to kill and maim. They were products designed for other uses and a side effect was the killing and maiming.
Guns are designed and built to kill and maim.
That’s, um, quite a defense.
I’m not giving a defense. I’m stating a fact.
What kind of conversation are you going to have on this issue if everyone is on the defensive? There are personal agendas in play from all sides and the more those agendas can be set aside the more likely it is we can have an honest dialogue on the subject. And from that dialogue who knows… maybe something can get figured out.
It’s it kind of both a fact and a defense? You’re using that fact and the constitutional amendment to justify the distastefulness of it’s purpose.
Firearms existed before the 2nd Amendment was ever written. The purpose of a gun has always been killing. Lots of things have been designed with the intent to maim and/or kill. Hell, people were using rocks and sticks to maim and kill before they ever figured out metallurgy or even design!
I agree that killing is “distasteful”. A gun is one of the most efficient means to kill something (or someone) that Man has devised. It’s a tool. Used in defense of oneself or to hunt for food makes it a useful, even beneficial, tool. Mis-used, and it becomes a horrifying tool.
But when you use a gun as designed… it’s meant to kill.
Therefore, the argument that gun manufacturers should be sued because their product kills and maims is pointless. You’d have more grounds to sue if the guns weren’t killing and maiming!
I don’t disagree with that.
They can’t be both?
Not really. Not saying the Constitution is or always has been perfect but I like to think the Founding Fathers tried to get things right.
Simply put, the legal use of firearms is not a problem in this country. The illegal or mis-use of firearms is, because when firearms are used illegally they can cause massive damage.
This is well stated.
Even when firearms are used legally they can cause massive damage. I find that problematic.
At least their timing was awesome.
Their rhetoric just creates fodder that will lead to their opposition ranting about stuff and intelligent conversation goes by the wayside.
There was a kernel of something serious buried in the crap the NRA was spewing. Should schools have security personnel? I’m not talking teacher’s packing heat, but a dedicated force of trained security.
Have you heard of the Twin Rivers Police Department? They’re our local poster child for what can go horribly horribly wrong with campus policing.
I’m not familiar with whatever story you’re hinting at.
But I’ll blindly offer this counter-point… would you accept whatever Twin Rivers PD did if it meant Newtown didn’t happen?
Blind arguments aside, I’m not saying armed security in schools is the answer, either. But it should come up in a serious discussion.
I think it’s absolutely fair to bring up. I’m not convinced it’s the answer since it just provides a first target for assault. But that could lead to random patrols or plain clothes officers and the like. Paying for it all is a secondary issue though.
I’m not convinced either, for the “first target” reasoning you mention.
I’m not convinced either, because placing hundreds of thousands of random ex-cops and soldiers with guns at schools is insane. Also expensive. But mostly insane.
Except no one is advocating that.
The NRA really fucked up their message today, lets not pile on by mis-stating what they said. The NRA is urging for the creation of a program that would place trained, qualified security in schools. Using ex-cops/soldiers would, in theory, allow for a shorter training cycle and therefore, a quicker implementation of the program. I’d assume psych evals would be part of that process.
But in regards to an immediate response, the NRA is asking for the police to place cops at schools.
I think it’s amazing that we’re discussing putting armed security in schools because school shootings are becoming so common. First of all, what the hell is wrong with us as a nation? Second of all, armed security is a band-aid solution offered by people unwilling to deal with the root problems. And the root problem is that it’s way too easy for pretty much anyone to get hold of an automatic weapon.
No, the root problem is that a portion of our society has serious mental health issues and they are not addressed.
Thanks, and go As.
what problem is easier for government to solve,the proliferation of guns of no decernable purpose and magazines that have no reason for existing in private hands, or identifying the ver small subset of people that have mental heath issues that will ultimately be violent?
its seems like an eay question. I am conceding that guns will always be in priavte hands in the US, but simple protections should be in pace.
I want my government to do what’s right, not what’s easy.
Thanks, and go As.
is right to protect people from unecessary danger
I’ve been following this thread for days and been quiet, simply put as long as people have access to firearms, period, this stuff is going to keep happening.
All this talk about amendments/ rights and homeland security is besides the point.
The right to arms was established because we had engaged in guerilla warfare against a colonial force, anyone who thinks its necessary against whatever governmental acronym out there in contemporary society and thinks they will ‘win’ is kidding themselves- see David Koresh.
Needing them for personal protection is a only a factor of the insane amount of weapons extant in the population, which is a direct result of the former.
I realize I’m on the extreme end of this conversation but aside from hunting I really dont see the need for them asides from personal enjoyment.
Protection is only necessary because of their ubiquity.
While it is the current law of the land, and enjoyment is important, I don’t believe that it outweighs the damage to lives lost everyday.
Well, the other thing is that “personal protection” is the socially acceptable way of saying “I live in a gun-obsessed culture and I want to be able to own a gun and possibly shoot someone someday.”
If you want personal protection, get a taser instead. Personally, I think that would offer a lot more personal enjoyment for tasing the shit out of some MFer who would try to break in than shooting them.
Since many talk about the will of the people, I found this an interesting read. Gun homicides have dropped in half, while ownership has risen. More people are against the semi-auto ban(53%), than voted for Obama in November. Oops…Is CBS too conservative?
Hard to put any weight to a Gallup poll these days…
Mostly because they only call landlines which largely skews the demographic.
Great news either way.
That is an interesting read. Of course, a lot of people oppose the Affordable Care Act while supporting every provision within it. I’d venture a guess that a big part of it is how the issue is framed. Once you start from the view that guns are absolutely necessary, you can never make progress toward regulating them. And liberals have done a bad job of dealing with the American gun culture.
I’ve seen recent poll numbers that flip those numbers. That article is from 2011.
1 As others have said both here and elsewhere Gallup is a shitty pollster and royally fucked up the presidential numbers again this year.
2 That poll is over a year old, before the Colorado, Oregon and Connecticut shootings
3 I don’t think that anyone is advocating things based on what is popular but instead they are arguing what should happen.
@DFA.
I was told in another thread on the subject, that those against an increase in gun bans are on the wrong side of what the people want.
Tutu. Try this.
Arguing about what people want is dumb as they are fickle. We should be arguing about what is the best idea (though if you want to make arguments about why doing something that is unpopular makes it a bad idea I would say that that is valid.)
That’s a fair and balanced view.
I think it has been shown that guerrilla warfare is still successful per Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sure when you’re battling an colonial force, battling the police, nat. gaurd, army, etc, the largest military in the world on its home turf, really? Hubris.
Its far more likely to end up like Waco, but depending on the size of the resistance, the government’s stomach for collateral damage/civilian casualties I bet it could be kept up a lot longer than people think.
I think after Patriot I & II anyone can be deemed a terrorist combatant and can be penned up and renditioned.
oh if you are planning an insurrection? absolutely it is legal to do. But Im more thinking about people taking over some town in Montana and then going from there.
WOLVERINES!!!
Also, to do that you need RPGs and all the other heavy shit that even the NRA isn’t pushing for.
and yet they were doing fine resisting the US in Iraq until the rest of the country was like lets have a real country.
@DFA, you’re confusing an external occupying force w/ internal armed insurrection, thats if your stilling commenting to me, otherwise carry on.
@mr.only
Im not confusing them. I am saying that an armed insurrection would essentially be the same.
Other than the fact that there is no adequate solution to removing the potentially crazy psychos from these sorts of things, sure. There’s only so much that can be done about mental health issues. Even with time and money appropriately invested, the mind isn’t a simple fix for the profession itself.
More people have died from gun violence in the US since Kennedy was shot than all of the US’s wars combined.
Guns are the problem.
Agreed completely. Having said that, I’m done with this discussion, as a number of the opinions I keep reading literally make me sick.
I was sort of hoping it would die out but it instead got more convoluted.
Sorry. I was only trying to make myself sick.
No gag reflex?
God no. None whatsoever.
The guy killed his own Mom to get the guns he used to kill those kids. What protections can you put in place in that scenario???
there are ways to make the figure 24 instead of 27. like limiting magazine capacity.
that is something
bullets that cost $5,000
99% of which goes to schools.
I’ve got no problem with discussing magazine limits. I think that should be part of the national discussion.
There is a very vocal (I don’t know how large) part of the pro-gun lobby that insists 30 round mags are necessary and protected by the 2nd Amendment. I think they can be called out on that issue.
Well, if his mom didn’t have any guns in the first place…
Right. Take away the rights of law-abiding citizens so you can feel safer.
What was I thinking? I guess it’d be fine if my neighbor could buy a tank or a nuke, right?
Its not a feel safer thing when societies with highly regulated gun ownership/bans have almost no gun deaths… its a AM safer thing.
Its as easy as looking at shooting deaths around the world, res ipsa.
And there are already laws on the books against killing other people. Yes, a gun makes it easier to kill another person.
I’m not against gun control laws in general. But I do think if you’re punishing 100 people to stop 1 person you’re doing it wrong. That’s not how our system of government and justice was designed to be.
Well lots of folks used to drink and drive, the fact that you can end up in jail for a couple beers?
Can you explain the “punishing” part? What are you referring to?
so we should get to own personal nukes because 100 people won’t set them off?
I wish the TSA would follow this principle.
@nm
Some of the ideas in this thread range from outright banning of (from what I can tell) all firearms to making illegal most firearms.
Simply put, if you make it illegal to own an AR-15 then everyone who legally purchased an AR-15 is now a criminal. If you make it mandatory for anyone who owns an AR-15 (and with gun registration there would be a paper trail) to turn it in than anyone who was a law abiding citizen last week is now in a heap o’ trouble.
That’s where I’m going with the “punishment” angle.
There’s also issues with the “sale only/ownership OK” angle, but that’s a lot more technical and I don’t know the ins & outs on that… just that it would need to be addressed.
@DFA
Ummm…???
@doctorK ~ 1Mx Yes, I miss waving to people on plains and not having to share everyones foot beasties at the security gate…
@grover
on the buy back you are being incredibly obtuse thinking that anyone is saying that there wouldn’t be a cure period or a buyback program but rather we would make a ton of people criminals.
and the nuke thing is completely legitimate which you should have to answer. Should I get to own a nuke? It would probably be the only way I could overthrow the government which according to Tutu is the whole point of the second amendment.
@brian… best part of having an AOA badge is that you can do that!
@DFA ~ I only use it for work. #imanidiotiknow
@DFA
I’ve seen nm talk about a buy-back period and no one else.
Also, the whole angle of “you will sell your gun(s) to the government or else” pretty much ties to my making criminals out of citizens argument.
As for your nukes question, it took me a few reads to understand it. My understanding of home nukes is a little limited, but I thought the sale of certain materials essential to the building of a nuke were restricted by the government. (Keep in mind, I have no problem with some gun restrictions.) The costs seem prohibitive but maybe you know where to look for coupons.
Guns kill more people than nukes. We don’t have the right to own nukes because they kill too many people. Why then should we get to have guns?
Also, everyone is talking about an Australia like forced buy back program and a cure period which compensates people for their weapons much like people are compensated when the government eminent domains your property. This is no way makes anyone a criminal.
Pretty sure one nuke would kill more people than one gun, a distinction that should be noted.
Forced buy back. Eminent domain.
The government is going to take away the guns in the interest of national security.
And if you don’t give up your guns, the government is going to come after you.
I don’t see that going well.
Also… I think this is the first time anyone mentioned the Australian buy-back scenario in a reply to me. It may have come up elsewhere but some sub-threads where just too much for me to follow.
I say if there’s a way of doing something that would greatly reduce deaths in general, but you choose not to put out 100 people for the lives of every 1 you’re doing it wrong.
If I’m not willing to sacrifice the personal freedoms of 100 people to punish 1 person, then I’m doing it exactly right.
@grover: At the start of the Civil War, there were approximately 27.5 million whites and 4 million slaves in the U.S. I suppose you would’ve opposed “punishing” slave owners.
Depends what you mean by personal freedoms. That’s absolutely the right answer about, say, throwing people in jail because seriously curtailing the liberty of 100 people just to get one more criminal would be terrible.
But when it comes to the much less significant personal freedom to own a Bushmaster, balanced against everyone else’s freedom to be alive, it isn’t anywhere near as clear that you’re right.
@nm
Maybe you missed this before, but I’ve already said gun control legislation needs to be part of the conversation. Everything needs to go on the table.
I don’t understand why someone wants/needs a Bushmaster for home defense or any other legit reason. I’ve read arguments from people who say they do (not here, of course) and I don’t agree. I’ve also read some stuff (on here) that is at the opposite spectrum and just as pointless.
I’m not interested in being right. I’m interested in people not fucking up the process from the word “go”.
Not having a lot of luck with that.
grover, what you’re calling a personal freedom, I call privileged convenience. Not owning a gun is an inconvenience, not a loss of freedom.
@dmoas
A privileged convenience? I know people who’d struggle to put food on the table if they couldn’t hunt. I do believe they consider eating to be more than a convenience. There are many people, myself included, who believe gun ownership is a right. That it is a freedom protected by the Constitution. I don’t think you respect that stance.
People have been successful hunting for their food well before guns existed. And no, I probably don’t respect gun ownership as a truly inalienable human right. Yes, it’s a protect right according to the Constitution which is why it’s so hard to manage any real gun control. It’s the ultimate trump card and the NRA uses it as so.
@grover + dmoas
both you arguments are specious. I doubt that most people who are hunting to feed their families are using semiautomatic weapons to do so so banning them is unlikely to have a real impact on them. Secondly, suggesting that people who hunt for food should have to use a bow and arrow because at one time guns weren’t available is innanne; at that time a bunch more people starved to death.
@DFA
And where the fuck did I say they were? The only rifle I’ve specifically said should not be part of a ban was the pump action shotgun. There are semi-auto shotguns but there is a difference between pump-action and semi-auto.
@grover
I haven’t seen one person suggest that pump action shot guns should be banned. Me thinks you are moving the goalposts on this.
@DFA
You just got done throwing out a straw man, claiming I argued folks were using semi-auto rifles to hunt for sustenance. Which is isn’t what I said.
Dmoas is calling for banning anything isn’t a breech loader or some kind of one-shot weapon. Others are saying they’d like to ban them all. You yourself said we should do like the Australians… whose ban included pump action shotguns.
And you think I’m moving goalposts?
I know you threatened to be a dick about this conversation but I didn’t realize you were going to be stupid as well.
I’m done with your bullshit.
Let me make this clear for you: I think there’s a middle ground between letting people have nukes for home defense and total banning of firearms. But if you’re going to insist on one or the other then I want the right to own a nuke. (I can’t afford it but, oh well.) I will not surrender my right to bear arms. I do not think you can protect society from itself by taking away its rights. The only way to protect society is by taking care of the people within it.
What happened in Newtown?
A man walked into a school and killed 26 people.
How did he do this?
He used a gun.
Why did he do this?
…
Banning guns will certainly impact the “how” part of the equation. But it doesn’t address the “why”. Figure out the “why”, put a system in place that focuses on the causes behind the “why” and you’ll go a long way towards answering the other parts as well.
You’ve got the freakin’ NRA saying we need to talk about mental health in this country, if ever there was a time in my lifetime to truly affect change on this issue at a national level… this is it. The opportunity is there for groundbreaking change and instead people are going to waste time and political capital on magazine size.
Just a bit of highly provocative thought from a boring evening at the in-laws. I think there might be a common ground to the two proposals. If more care were taken about everybody´s mental health, I think fewer people would want to own guns, so that might be a win-win.
@grover-
One thing that worries me as a person with a diagnosed mental health disorder is that if there’s a new push to stigmatize mental illness, it may end up further marginalizing the mentally ill, and turning diagnoses into economic death sentences. The mentally ill are not fully protected from discrimination in hiring and housing, and definitely are not subsidized, like the gun industry in effect is (due to its’ immunity from prosecution over deaths caused by a deadly product).
If for some reason, this country was to come together and do the right thing, we would accept the fiscal cliff (or raise taxes on higher incomes to a similar extent) and pour tens of billions into infrastructure to treat and house our nation’s mentally ill. We would pass sensible regulations against certain styles of semi-automatic weapons and large clips. We would pass further sensible regulations in regards to requiring lockable gun cases and/or trigger locks for home storage (with an exception allowed for open carry on one’s own property when cleaning or when there is a literal threat to the home.) We would educate people that oftentimes there are more sensible options than guns for home defense, and that there is a great risk of and liability for collateral damage when actually firing a firearm in a non-controlled environment.
***
However, I think what’s going to happen are a bunch of inefficient piecework state-level gun control laws, and a further stigmatization against the mentally ill without any significant money spent to house/treat them.
Lobbyists will funnel what money does flow from this national debate into the security apparatus, which will do little to no good in regards to stopping school shootings, but may end up creating something evil like a national database of everyone who’s ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Of course, this database will become more and more valued in a backwards society that wants to blame people but is too cheap to fix people, and eventually will serve as a scarlet letter in regards to employment, access to certain services, access to air travel, and things like that.
@grover
The nuclear weapon is a specific legal argument as it interacts with Scalia’s writing in the Heller decision.
Have you read his decision, because I feel like you are really missing the point of the argument.
The Australia solution is obviously not legal in the US and is being proposed to show the power of a large by back program to be successful.
You are the one that is mutilating arguments, though the column inches doe make it difficult to follow at times.
@Kay
I share your concerns. I don’t want to stigmatize, I’d like to see care and treatment. That’s why I think the mental health aspect needs to be at the forefront of the discussion, to keep it from being marginalized and shunted to the side. That can only happen if we don’t get bogged down in the minutea of a gun control debate.
And raise everyone’s taxes.
Very well said Kay
@DFA
You are hiding behind you’re disagreement with Scalia. Here’s my take on the issue of gun control and the 2nd Amendment, based on my research behind the intent of the Founding Fathers: citizens are entitled to own firearms.
Any Supreme Court ruling that supports that viewpoint is in the right, even if in the process of issuing their ruling they got some of the message garbled. I don’t give a shit if you’ve got a “specific legal argument” as I think it is reasonable and prudent to have some regulation on gun ownership. As you yourself have said, the Constitution is meant to be a living document. It provides a framework for how laws can adapt with a changing society. Nukes, tanks and AR-15’s weren’t in the picture back in the 18th century; we should be able to find a balance between protecting our rights and sensible gun laws.
By the way, it’s impolite to ask if I’ve read Scalia when you never answered my way way earlier question about you reading the transcript from the NRA’s Friday debacle.
And when you said no one was advocating banning pump action shotguns (which I brought up elsewhere as weapons that had been banned in other countries; countries which had been specifically mentioned as examples of how life could be better if the US emulated their gun policies) what you really meant was if I ignored the comments made by dmoas, ozzman and yourself I would have no reason to believe anyone was suggesting banning those particular rifles.
@grover
Yes I have read the transcript. LaPiere went off the deep end v what the intent was. The intent wasnt equally as dumb but wasn’t a good idea either.
As far as your other points.
Heller is the constitutional law w/r/t the 2nd amendment, so you should give a shit because if there are going to be any regulations they have to comply with Heller.
Last time I checked pump action shot guns aren’t semiautomatic.
@DFA
Gold star for you. Now tell me… wouldn’t you need to ban most pump action shotguns if dmoas’ call for single round weapons came into being? Wouldn’t you have to ban ALL shotguns if ozzman’s obvious preference of a total gun ban became law? Didn’t you highlight a a national program that include the repossession or buy-back of pump action shotguns?
If the answer to all those questions are “Yes” then you’ve got no basis for saying:
The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the 2nd Amendment’s purpose. If there was specific language in the ruling that creates a potential nuclear war than folks should feel free to address it. As long as the next ruling continues to affirm my right to own a gun (should I want one) then I’m perfectly willing to accept that there will be laws that restrict the type of weapon I’m allowed to own.
Here’s the other thing to consider before you tout your home nuke defense… most of the rhetoric I’ve seen from the pro-gun advocates that really really believe in the whole protect themselves from the government angle state that they want to the right to own the same type of firepower that local police forces purchase. I’m sure there’s someone somewhere who wants to be able to buy a howitzer or a tank but you can’t worry about pleasing everyone.
uggg you are still mangaling the nuclear armerment argument beyond recognition and Im not enjoying explaining how the law interacts to you again so Im just going to drop this whole thing.
And yes I did mention a buy back program that included shot guns as evidence that a buy back program can be effective, not on the specific weapons. A pump shotgun is similar to a bolt action in that you have to reload it with the pump, so i don’t think DMOAS apply. I don’t see where Ozz says that we should totally ban guns.
good day to you
And a happy new year to you.
Depending upon your definition of tank, PDs do own them.
So if I’m your neighbor, you’d be okay with me once being able to start up my own personal meth lab or rocket factory? I’m pretty sure at one point or another a long while ago both were legal. Doesn’t really matter than I might have blown you up with me, you don’t need to feel safe?
I think you’d be in violation of zoning codes. But if you weren’t, and you were paying your taxes and meeting all required safety standards then I guess the next move would be mine.
If you were doing something illegal with your lab I’d expect you to be punished to the full extent of the law.
My point was that those codes came about because they were deemed unsafe. Safety requirements came about because they were deemed unsafe. So at some point people who were law abiding suddenly stopped being law abiding simply because a law or regulation was added.
And if you do that on a grand scale like we’re talking re: gun control you’ll have a much bigger problem.
Also, zoning codes and safety laws mean you can build rockets and pharmaceuticals in certain places. You’re talking total restriction.
For a much less smelly item, I might add.
So then make gun play zones where you’re allowed to rent a gun and blow shit away. I’m sure someone could make a ton of money from it.
Of course, many legal guns are used in illegal or accidental shootings. If they are law-abiding, as you suggest, and the guns are simply falling into the wrong hands, then the gun owners are not storing their weapons in a responsible manner. In that case, they absolutely should be punished.
And how does the mental health society fix that? Much more efficient for mom not to have those guns in the first place. Ironic how the thing that was meant to “protect” her wound up causing her own death.
Well, there were 680 accidental gun deaths in 2008. Fifty of those were hunting-related. I seriously doubt that all those gun owners out there saved over 630 lives with their precious weapons.
Hell, I’d bet you’d find that half of gun owners have been negligent and/or irresponsible with their firearm as well. (Yes, I’m pulling that number out of my ass, but given that the average person isn’t particularly bright and/or responsible in general, it still stands to reason.) And that includes plenty of people who typically are responsible, but have a momentary moment of dumb. Like the parents of that kid who brought a gun to school last week because “he didn’t feel safe.”
I can only speak for the people I know, but I would guess that more than half of the people I know keep guns in their homes. Of those, only 1 has a gun safe, and the only gun he keeps in it is some collectible old rifle. None of the others lock their weapons up.
Kind of scary.
To be fair, I mean half of my friends in the area where I live. I’d be shocked if many of my family members back in CA own guns. I can only think of a couple of them who even might. But in SC, a lot of people own guns, and keep them loaded and near their beds. There’s a lot of hysteria about the possibility of late-night home invasion, apparently.
I see. Punish those who aren’t breaking laws to get back at those who did break laws in the past.
Stupid like that is why the NRA has power in politics.
You’re clearly in no position to call other people’s arguments stupid.
I’m talking sense. My position is objectivity.
People who mix up “assault rifle” with “assault weapon” and semi-auto with full-auto only add to the paranoia of pro-gun advocates who think there’s a push to ban all guns. And let’s be honest, there are people on this thread who would support such a push.
When people talk about “no one needs more than 3 rounds in their gun” they’re talking about making illegal well over 90% of the guns in this country.
Discussion points like that lead to nowhere! It’s ranting for the sake of being loud. I’ve seen that happen on this topic before and haven’t gotten involved because people need a good rant now and then.
But a serious discussion needs more than loud. And I thought people wanted to have that discussion.
Not everyone is ranting.
I haven’t really seen a convincing pro argument asides from its in a 200 yr old constitutional amendment and self defense.
I agree with this.
Support and advocate are two separate things. I’d support an outright gun ban, but would advocate extreme gun control banning all semi and fully automatic weapons. Personally, all you need for self-defense is one in the chamber and accuracy. If you need more than that, you’re fked (and llikely fked regardless). But don’t mistake that to suggest I think that only a single loaded guns should be allowed. I’d just like some effort to be required to both chamber a round and load a weapon.
@brian
You’re correct, not everyone is ranting and I’m trying to talk to each person in the same manner they’re speaking with me. So…
Self defense. Hunting (not just sport, for food). And a 200 year old document that would not exist if it hadn’t been (in part) for gun owning citizens. But it also has to do with the Declaration of Independence.
There are a lot of people who believe that it is the responsibility of the citizenry to be prepared to enact drastic change on the government. Most are cool with sticking to the vote. But the Colonies were able to defeat the most powerful empire on Earth in part because their citizens were armed. And there are people who feel a duty to ready themselves in case something similar happens again.
@dmoas
One shot/one kill in a high stress, sudden attack requires military training. I’m all for people knowing what they’re doing with their guns but… I think your suggestion underestimates how difficult it would be to do something like that.
Not really. I’m suggesting the likelihood that having a semi-auto weapon in your home and being able to actually defend yourself with it is highly unlikely anyway. You’re probably only getting one shot, if any. Better you’re forced to make it count (and use that as encouragement to get appropriate training to take that shot). And you don’t necessarily need to go for the kill anyway, just buy yourself some time TGTFO.
@dmoas
I don’t care if you don’t think I’ll have the opportunity to defend myself, I’d like to maximize my chances at success. You can do whatever you wish to do when it comes to your own personal protection but where do you get the hubris to say others need follow your example?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t have the opportunity to defend yourself, just where I see the line between safe for all and safe for one’s self.
@grover Do you have the right to use a personal nuclear weapon to defend yourself? I mean fuck everyone else right? The argument is not that you don’t have the right to defend yourself, but that your rights to defend yourself with certain weapons (tanks, nukes, grenades etc) stop at a certain level or societal risk and that we should deem semiautomatic weapons to present that level of risk.
DFA I’m sorry but comparing semiauto firearms to nuclear weapons is a laughable stance and you’ve taken it multiple times. Please stop doing it because it makes it nearly impossible to take what you’re saying seriously.
Thanks, and go As.
The point is that it it is laughable mike.
The reason why it matters is because it shows that we as a society generally accept the principal that certain armaments are too much of a danger to society to be owned by civilians.
Fully automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, tanks all are banned. It shows that grover’s punishment and rights argument don’t carry any logical water if we as a society deem semi automatic weapons to be too much of a risk to the rest of us.
@DFA
That may be, but you are assuming that your position is that of “we as a society.” which isn’t the reality. It is just your belief. Many, MANY others don’t see it your way, yet you wish to force your beliefs down their throats, WITHOUT having to change the constitution. It is interesting that you and others here are preaching that the Constitution is a “living” document, yet choose to bypass it when it doesn’t agree with you. You say that the Heller decision is faulty, but many tend to ridicule those who believe the Roe v Wade is as well. Others have spoken about the advancements of mankind, yet deny the practical advancements in firearms, such as a pistol-grip of a rifle, yet also wish to limit firearms to those of the 1700s.
The fact of the matter is that firearms HAVE been restricted! We DON’T have fully-auto rifles! We DON’T have RPGs! The Second Amendment HAS been reduced yet you want it GONE!! I have many questions as to why the anti-gun groups wish this, and what their true intent is, because it isn’t to reduce crime and increase safety. If it were, you would be more than willing to open the discussions to include the REASON the crimes are committed! The majority of gun deaths of people between 17-30 are due to drugs disagreements. The fact of the matter, is that the death penalty WOULD have stopped the man in NY from killing the fireman, IF it had been enforced when he was a 31 year old who took a HAMMER( not a gun) and beat his grandmother to death. Prison re-rehabilitation didn’t help him and failed to keep us safe.
@tutu-late
I can only speak for myself here but I dont have any ‘ulterior’ motives when it comes to gun control.
My biggest concern is that they are death-dealers, when most efficiently used they simply end life.
All too often the lives are humans and not uncommonly the deaths are collateral.
My personal interpretation (of the original text) of the 2nd amend does not believe agree w/ Scalia’s findings, I don’t glean that the orig. drafters proposed a militia equated a singular citizen w/ no training or affiliation.
Here are a list of G8 nations (source) with the total of homicides committed by firearm.
USA- 9,164
Japan- 11
Germany – 158
UK- 62
Russia- * (unavailable)
France- 35
Canada- 173
Italy – 417
Is this anything to be proud of?
Does this make our country great?
Is this a freedom that sometimes in the end engenders fear and xenophobia, which thinks in terms of the other and bad guys?
I say sometimes because I do believe the majority of gun owners are responsible people and only own them for hunting, sport, or for a last resort protection.
What I have issue with is the guns out there to protect against other guns, that lead to stronger guns, that lead to faster shooting guns, etc. ad inf…
Where does it end, what needs to happen before real change happens.
Yesterday at 2:30pm someone was shot 3 blocks from my house, on Christmas, what if I was driving by and the bullet went through the door, or even worse my 7 and 8 old cousins were in back?
Is it that worth it, the power to erase w/ the pull of a finger?
Tutu,
You re incredibly dense if you believe that the people that want to severely limit guns have no desire to talk about mental health, including addiction in this country. We are the liberals that want to put healthcare systems in place that infringe on your liberty to go bankrupt from getting treated for shit. The problem is that that is mental health on a broad level is a difficult problem that pretty much no one has an answer to and yet a preponderance of the literature shows that real meaningful gun control, mot shitty assault weapons bans with 600 exemptions work. Even the countries that the NRA points to for its incredibly ill concieved arming schools plan (Israel) have significantly stricter gun regulations than we do.
Secondly, we as a society is basically the government making decisions. If they can use the attention generated by the recent string of masacres to the wholesale slaughter of our population at the hands of guns, then yes.
Personally, I would make gun manufactures liable for the deaths their weapons cause. Its completely legal from a second amendment framework, even under the most broad reading of the law and it would immediately cease non military weapons production/importation in this country.
Tutu, the latest polls (not a year old like you posted earlier, but actual recent polls) suggest that the majority of people deem those types of weapons too dangerous and should be banned. It’s not an overwhelming majority, but it is a majority. We’ve reached a point in the last year where mass killings are becoming all too frequent and people are tired of it and as a result opinions are shifting.
@DFA
Laughable is your belief that the Left’s vision of political power and control over the citizenry is any better for us than the Right’s.
Laughable is wanting to sue gun makers for building a product that works!
Laughable is insisting if you can’t have a nuke then you’re neighbor should get to own a gun because there’s absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the two.
Laughable is crying that the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you so they must be wrong.
What isn’t laughable is that for the first time in who knows how long, you’ve got nearly every major political group in the country calling for a get-serious talk on mental health and instead of capitalizing on the moment to push potentially broad sweeping change folks are going to get bogged down in a debate on gun control. Gun control advocates, especially those who’d overturn the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, don’t have the fucking votes to make it happen.
There is ground to be made by gun control advocates; Newtown brings some serious questions to the forefront. If sensible voices prevail I think they’ll make some hay. I hope they do.
But I’m not going to bet on the sensible voices being at the forefront.
I will say that it wasn’t particularly laughable to sue cigarette makers for making a product that works. And they mostly just killed their customers.
Cigarettes.
Tobacco got slammed because they didn’t say their product was harmful.
It’s pretty well understood that if you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, harm will follow.
@ NM
It isn’t laughable, but I noticed that they didn’t ban cigarettes either. That is because there is, “money in them thar taxes!” Some of the local smoking bans have been lifted, once revenue dropped. So much for the ideals.
I’m not proposing a total ban.
How about this: treat guns the same way common law treats owning a wild animal. You’re welcome to own one, but any damage it causes is on you.
In general, I’d be perfectly allowed to own a bear and keep it in my back yard. But if it escaped (no matter how good my cage), any consequences of that are on be because, well, it’s a FKing bear and consequences are what it does. Seems like a pretty good analogy to me, particularly since gun owners seem to always say “I already keep my weapons safe, so no need to regulate that.” I’m just saying they should put their money/freedom from incarceration where their mouth is. And yes, I’m totally comfortable with a theft exception, based on Grover’s earlier comments.
@nm
You lost me when you capitalized my name. That’s a slight too many…
=D
@nm
No, you aren’t proposing a ban as others have. However, I feel a specifically enumerated right, such as ANY in the constitution, shouldn’t be treated as a common product. We have a war of incremental erosion here. At what point does it stop? Some would insist we apply the same principles to the 1st amendment. Should we regulate all speech? Or religion? Many see this as only affecting those with guns, but I see it as just another step in the destruction of the constitution. How about the right to assemble? One could say there was no reason to march on Wall Street( or any other demonstration). It was destructive in some cases, and thus we should be more than willing to accept any restraints for the “good” of the innocent.
@grover: DAMMIT!
@tutu: I don’t see the point here. We do regulate speech in a large number of ways (obscenity, no yelling “FIRE” in a crowded room, etc). We do limit freedom of religion in various ways.
Your view, as I understand it, is that the second amendment guarantees the right to own handheld things that shoot bullets, with the exception of things like fully-automatic weapons that are currently banned. My proposal is simply this: Ok, but the weapon’s owner is responsible for any harm that weapon causes (except if the weapon was stolen), whether or not the weapon’s owner intended it.
In other words: keep your guns safe, and we’re fine. Fail to, and you’re in a heap of trouble.
I see. Punish innocent people so that the gun owners don’t have to take responsibility for the fact that their weapons kill people.
I won’t stoop to calling you stupid, though.
Pretty much this.
You can, and the laws do, punish gun owners who use their weapons to kill other people.
I’m completely in favor of that!
My problem is, punishing Jim for owning a gun because Mary used her’s to kill someone.
It is completely unfair when you look at it that way, but we are talking about killing people.
Do you have the same issue with cell phone laws and/or DUI laws? Just because Mary can’t fking drive with a cell phone pressed to her ear means you have to punish me too? Lots of people think they’re being safe while doing/having something without even realizing they’re acting dangerous themselves and they’ve merely been lucky so far that nothing bad has resulted. It’s why I was saying earlier that I’d guess that more than half of gun owners have probably acted negligent with their firearm.
That’s pretty simplistic, though. No one is saying that Jim’s bolt-action rifle should be confiscated because Mary used her collection of Glocks to shoot up a shopping mall. On the other hand, if Jim has a Glock, maybe we should think about confiscating it. After all, he’s not using that to shoot deer. It’s only purpose is to kill people, and if Jim owns a device designed for that sole purpose then we as people/potential targets have every right to examine his intentions and discuss whether or not he should have access to such a device.
@brian
And there are laws to punish those who kill people. Why punish people who own a gun and don’t kill people?
@dmoas
I think cell phone laws are a joke. And I don’t know how you’d enact a no-negligence policy of gun control. I agree that there should be a standard met before owning a gun. I’m just not sure how far you can go re: safe gun storage or training certification or things of that nature before you go too far in infringing on personal rights and freedoms.
There is a balance that has to be met between civil liberty and community freedom. I’m not sure where that line is.
@ozz
There are already laws in place that do much of what you describe.
What are you referring to, background checks?
Well you could start by only selling guns to someone who could prove that they had a gun safe in their home.
As a start, I’d propose that a gun owner is culpable for any illegal discharge of their weapon, regardless of who the shooter is or how the shooter obtained that weapon.
In what way do you find cell phone laws a joke? Because it’s okay for some idiot to nearly run me off the road at least once a week (which is probably more an understatement than over) because you think you’re capable of doing driving while on the phone or because they’re not strong enough?
I don’t know how you’d enact a no-negligence policy either, but one is necessary. I think the balance between civil liberty and community freedom falls under a relatively simple criteria: If being dumb only hurts you, it’s okay for you to do. If being dumb puts others at risk of being hurt or killed, no way no how.
@dmoas
From the studies I’ve seen, cell phone laws have not significantly helped decrease the number of accidents in CA. The state had been seeing a decline in then number of accidents since 2005, with the most significant dip occurring between 2007 and 2008. Cell phone laws kicked in July, 2008 through January, 2009.
Ah. That’s probably true. It’s basically just a slap on the wrist, if that. Nothing very deterrent about them.
@grover the effect of publicizing the law’s imminent implementation could have the effect you see there by preemptively getting people off their phones.
@DFA
Possibly, or it was just a random blip in the numbers. Plus the data after 2008 saw the decline continue at approximately the same rate pre-2007.
I haven’t seen any real comprehensive study, I was just positing one possible explanation.
Not looking too powerful at the moment actually.
Don’t mistake not getting their way on every issue for not being a major, major political influence in this country.
And for the record… I think they’re way too out there when it comes to gun control issues.
For sure, enormous lobbying prowess, I’m more surprised/ shocked that hardly anyone has come to the media in support.
Brian… they really, really fucked up their message!
Read Friday’s transcript. There was actually some solid stuff buried in the mess. But the mess… DAMN!!!
Why would changing the laws equate to punishment.
I think I’d feel better if better would just say “guns are really fkin’ cool and i love shootin’ em, some of the best times w/ my grandpa.” because I don’t think anyone here has had to use them for personal defense or even had to threaten someone with one.
Unless your concealed carry the odds seem pretty astronomical it’d be around the second you needed one and your hands weren’t quaking.
I fired a rifle for the first time on a ranch in Oregon over thanksgiving. It was fun.
They’re extremely fun, I used to shoot cans and bottles w/ my grandpa, good memories- I wasn’t being sarcastic up there.
If by “way too easy” you mean someone being willing to kill their own mother to get her guns for a shooting spree…
But I agree, a squad of cops or other armed security at every school can only be considered a stop-gap… an attempt to limit the damage of a shooting spree… and not a solution to the under-lying problem of violence in society and, in the case of Newtown, mental disorder.
magazine.
no reason for a hunter tha have more than three shots.
no reason for that magazine.
Says you. Most hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols all carry more than 3 shots. Pass legislation banning more than 3 rounds mags and you’d be turning millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Nice going.
It’s more prudent to ban sale/purchase instead of possession. As well as ammo for that weapon itself. And for the manufactures, you’d have to pay current (pre-law) market price for the weapons already built and purchase it for military use.
Obviously, like pretty much all bans in every country that has done this there would be a buyback program so they could turn in their guns.
Also do you mind not being an ass, and just making the arguments that you are making? Because if you dont pretty soon im going to start being a dick back if you continue this.
For the record… I missed this reply and comment on buyback earlier. So you and dmoas and nm… apologies.
np
Whenever they make laws like this there’s always a grace period and usually involves some effort to grandfather in current “law breakers” so no, under no circumstance is there any effort to turn law abiders into law breakers. It’s not too dissimilar to things like seat belt laws. It’s kind of a foolish argument. “Let’s not make the world safer because we might make law abiders law breakers.”
Actually, not very similar at all.
Who is at risk when you don’t put on your seat belt? You.
Who is at risk when you own a gun? Apparently everyone else.
Yes, the US government is more rigid on laws to prevent your accidental death via car crash than it is with its gun laws.
You want to make the world safer. I don’t object. I think gun control needs to be part of that.
Wrong seat belt law. I was referring to forcing car manufactures to include them. In that case there was a grace period in which cars made before X date were allowed to have no seat belts and cars after it weren’t.
And the US government has instructed gun to add safety features to their products before sale to the public.
Heh. Only way to make a gun safe is it to make it not a gun.
You’re focusing on 1 shooting. How many shootings have we had over the last 15-20 years? A lot. A whole lot. And in virtually every case, the shooter had easy access to automatic weapons. This is one of my big problems with the pro-gun lobby. They treat each shooting as an isolated incident without ever looking at the bigger picture.
No, they haven’t. Automatic weapons are banned.
Thanks, and go As.
why?
Why what? Ozz has said twice now that automatic weapons are easily available. They’re not.
Thanks, and go As.
Really? They’re not? Then how come people have them? And use them, on other people?
he is just mixing up automatic with assault weapons.
Automatic weapons were banned when? the 40s? because they were too dangerous. Kinda like assault weapons
1934. It was to stop the mafia gang wars
Well, my point is that guns such as the AR-15, which is (or can be) automatic are available.
Automatic by any other definition than the traditional naming convention.
You’re right. That’s why there are never any shootings, anywhere.
The automatic weapons ban expired 8 years ago.
Remind me which ones had automatic firearms. This is a common misunderstanding. Hollywood makes it look like everyone is walking about with fully-automatic firearms. This is a myth. A semi-automatic firearm is no different than a pistol. Just as MikeV said before, one trigger pull+ one shot fired.
and automatic weapons are banned.
why shouldn’t they be legal? same arguments, right?
So, now it is about taking way ALL guns! So much for the Second Amendment.
Other than hunting rifles, why not? Maybe revolvers would be acceptable, too.
Bring back the classic six-shooter with spinning chamber.
If you are a member of the state militia then you can have one.
We all are according to the Supreme Court.
One Heller is a stupid decision.
Two the constitution is amendable.
@ DFA
Then amend it, but don’t try to render it useless through unconstitutional regulations. If we go down that path, then what is to stop a group from using that same tactic against rights YOU agree with? How about putting restrictions upon freedom of speech so that only pro government news is allowed? How about restricting all demonstrations that protest against the right to organize unions? See, once you go down the path of restricting others’ rights, yours are the next to be attacked. The EPA tried that last year, when they told a property owner that they had to go through the EPA’s procedures, and that the EPA was the final arbiter. The SC ruled 9-0, that the EPA requirements were unconstitutional, and that they COULD be sued in court.
Oops.. I meant FOR the right to organize unions. Sorry.
Or just get better supreme court justices.
Most of the rights that I care about are being systematically taken away (except gay rights, which is being done as I suggest). Its all about power and utilizing it.
@DFA
There you finally said it. Its all about power and control. The SC is just fine. You just don’t agree with them. I will take their opinion over yours any day.
You are a moron if you think that politics is anything other than power and control.
The legal system is just one avenue of utilizing it. Something that the Right recognized long before the left and uses to pack the court with unqualified jurists like Thomas or people that have a shifting judicial philosophy based on political outcomes like Scalia.
The right has been doing this with regard to gun rights and especially the commerce clause for thirty years, so excuse me if Im willing to fight fire with fire.
@ DFA
You’ve now called me dense and a moron. I have never used personal attacks. This is obviously a case where you don’t care about right and wrong, legal or illegal, you just want it you way. Well, guess what. You aren’t the arbiter of the truth, and people who have an opposing view don’t deserve to be constantly belittled by you. Up until now this was an open discussion, but you truly do just want to bully and silence all who disagree.
I didn’t know that you were so fragile, so I apologize that I bruised you.
This is a contradiction. I want it my way because I think my way is right.
Whether it is legal or not doesn’t matter since I am proposing a change in the law.
The operative is should not would.
Further, you can argue that degrading the 2nd amendment is bad but you haven’t done that here, since the Amendments I care about are generally run roughshod over anyway, I don’t think there is a brightline that passing restrictions that I have listed meet, especially since making manufactures/importers liable is 100% in line with the 2nd Amendment, as is banning their sale (you have the right to own which is guarenteed) nor would a legislative act that broadly declared semiautomatics unusually dangerous guns which would fall under Scalia’s Heller decision.
And I don’t want it your way, because I think you are wrong.
Really? That is like saying, ” Abortion is legal, but Doctors can’t perform them”
So basically you agree that you were being dense because you are opperating in the same framework I am while decrying the framework? Sweet!
No it really isn’t. You can make your own gun or use one that is one of the 300m currently in the us.
They’re nearly uncontrollable. Have you ever fired an automatic weapon?
Thanks, and go As.
no. semi autos are nearly iin controlable too.
that’s completely and totally false.
Thanks, and go As.
Possibly. But they’re for all intents and purposes automatic in their ability to discharge a high frequency of ammo.
Semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic in many cases.
No, they aren’t. By definition. The faster you try to fire a semiauto the harder they are to control, as well.
I’m genuinely curious about the amount of experience with guns some of the anti gun people here have.
Thanks, and go As.
Yup, metal 3D printing or a sinple rubber band…
Mind you ‘sinple’ rubber bands are extremely rare.
@ozzman
A process which is already ILLEGAL. Being caught doing that leads to fines and prison.
It’s not always about control. Especially at close range.
@grover: And what are the odds that you’ll be caught?
I don’t know why you are saying simple rubber bands are rare brian. You can get them at office depot or on your newspaper.
No they aren’t. We shoot them all the time at the Range. If you want to see how tough it is to fire a fully auto Thompson, google Geraldo Rivera’s opening of Capone’s vaults.
Ok, if they were all semi-automatic then I guess semi-automatic weapons need to be regulated and perhaps banned. But putting more guns in the world will only lead to more shootings and more deaths. It’s not rocket science.
Semi-automatic simply means a bullet is fired every time you pull the trigger. Considering how poorly you understand firearms, it could be reasoned that you’re calling for the banning of ALL firearms. And you can’t just ban new gun construction, you’d have to repossess all current guns.
Which would be a violation of at least 2 constitutional amendments.
Because the Constitution has never been changed, ever.
And yes, I know what semi-automatic means. I also know that semi-auto weapons can often be converted to full-auto. Thanks for the condescension, though. It adds oh so much to your argument. Which reall yisn’t an argument at all, really. So far, all you’ve said is that people need to talk about the problem. In case you haven’t noticed, they already are.
If you know, then get the terminology right. As I said above, converting semi-auto to full auto is illegal.
What you did get right is that I’m not arguing, I’m pointing out facts. A quality discussion can only happen if people understand the facts. So yeah, people are talking but I’m not too sure a lot of folks (and I’m not just talking about this board) know what the fuck they’re talking about.
But you are an expert on the topic? If you dropped the self-importance and actually read what I wrote, you’d see that I never confused semi-auto with full-auto. If you’re going to start an argument with someone, have a working knowledge of what they said. You wouldn’t make yourself look quite so foolish.
It would also be essentially impossible to repossess all current guns.
Thanks, and go As.
And yet Australia did it.
Population: 22,000,000
There are more people in the 10 largest cities in the US. It would only be the 3rd most populous state.
I mean that’s not even close to the same.
Thanks, and go As.
I’m sure this is how folks in China and India talk about the US of A. ;)
I agree it’d be tough but this is more of the “too hard, shouldn’t try” thing.
It just means it would cost more, take longer, and require more overall effort, not that it’s not possible.
The idea that you couldn’t replicate what they did on a larger scale is silly unless you have specific reasons to believe it wouldn’t work.
Also, mike. Didn’t you earlier in the post say something to the effect “I want government to do what’s needed, not what’s easy”?
I said what’s right, not what’s needed. And I don’t think it’s right to try to take away guns from the public.
Thanks, and go As.
Not much difference between the two when what’s needed is what’s right. Th
@MikeV
When did it become wrong to offer to repurchase weapons?
@NM
I think he was responding to the repossession of weapons, which indicates a forced sale back to the gov.
I stand corrected. Lost the thread a little.
I agree that there is no way we could do an Australia-esque forced-buyback under current law. I personally would vote to amend the constitution to allow it, but I also know my side would lose that vote.
Democracy.
Sure, but very easy to reduce the supply. Less supply = less deaths.
Also repurchase is very very different from repossess.
Big picture includes the Columbine shooting happening in the middle of the Assault Weapons Ban.
Just saying.
Columbine had armed security.
Just saying.
The Assault weapons ban was a leaky sieve of a law.
While I’m in favor of better legislation, more than gun control law needs to be discussed. And the people who want to advocate more gun laws need to act like they know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto.
I think the problem you’re having is you’re confusing a lack of knowledge of the difference with a lack of distinction of the difference. In a gun control argument, I see no relevant difference between the two so their use as synonymous and the over it to be rhetorical at best.
And that’s where you’re argument fails. They are different, and to gun owners that difference matters.
DFA and Tutu are arguing over the definition of “powerful” below. Why? Because what DFA is trying to say is not what he’s actually saying about the capabilities of an AR-15.
People are worried about the capabilities of a gun to kill yet they’re mangling the description of what concerns them. Miscommunication is bad; people need to understand what each other is talking about!
No we are arguing because gun experts say Im right
@DFA
No. You guys are arguing two separate things.
As Times journalist C.J. Chivers described in his 2011 book “The Gun,†when Stoner was working on the AR-15, he also redesigned a commercially available .222 Remington round in order to meet a standard set by the Army: that a bullet fired from the rifle be able to strike and penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards. For this purpose, Stoner created the .223 round, slightly longer than the .222, able to be filled with more powder. Lightweight, but high-powered.
@DFA
The AR-15/M-16 was introduced to replace the Army’s M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm round which fired at approximately twice the energy of a .223 round. Many bolt action rifles fire a 7.62 round, i.e. a more “powerful” round than the Bushmaster uses.
They’re only different to owner enthusiasts. They want to make technical distinction between the two that’s merely semantically.
@dmoas
Muzzle velocity, stopping power, energy release ARE NOT semantics. Different guns do different things and if the discussion is supposed to be about restricting certain types of guns then you need to understand their different abilities.
See, I don’t necessarily care about how strong a gun is like that. I really only care about guns that require no time or effort before the next bullet is ready after discharging the first. Whether that bullet can or can’t go through a person or a wall doesn’t much matter to me.
@dmoas You SHOULD care whether or not a bullet can go through a person or a wall if you’re ostensibly defending a house with other loved ones/non-combatants in it.
Kay, most rounds of real consequence (hollow point, 50 caliber, etc.) are (as far as I’m aware) adequately regulated. So one gun may utilize legal rounds better than others, it’s far less important that how quickly that ammo empties.
In a practical sense there really isn’t much of a difference; it might be easier to kill people with a semi due to the kickback of the fully automatic and the ability to aim.
I don’t see why you need to be able to fire bullets even semi automatically fast, nor why you need something as powerful as an AR 15. A bolt action rifle or a classic revolver should be enough.
The AR15 isn’t powerful. It is a .223 round, that is so weak, that the government has re-issued the M-14s from the Viet Nam era to the Afgan war. Most bolt action rifles are MUCH more powerful than an AR.
Heck, the US government itself has been selling semi-automatic rifles to the US population for decades!
I don’t think you’re thinking of power in the same sense as some of us.
Yes I am. It was brought up that the semi-auto was a weapon used to snipe, and it isn’t.
Um, wasn’t it specifically designed to go through steel lined helmets? I thought it was an extended shell cartridge to hold more powder giving the projectile more penetration.
DFA’s point was that a bolt action or classic revolver was powerful enough. The inference was that the AR was more powerful. Now, you are talking about the bullet design, which is different. The shape of the projectile accounts for most of the penetration. This is why most hunters don’t use fully-jacketed bullets. They tend to go through instead of the animal taking the entire impact.
Sure does kill lots of people really fast though. I couldn’t give two shits about how well it penetrates kevlar.
I mean, seriously? The AR15 isn’t powerful?
Tutu, when we’re talking about powerful, we’re referring to it’s ability to fire/kill many in a short period (and in essence makes firing back/getting away more difficult). Whether that’s being done with a firearm/bullet that barely gets into the middle of the body or through doesn’t matter much since dead is dead.
@dmoas
Remember that only 6% of all shootings result in a death.
So your saying the gun isn’t the preferred military weapon should be the standard for civilian armament decisions?
@tu
where are you getting your 6% number
Yeah you are wrong
I’ll be your huckleberry.
1) The ban was not great, and some of its targets were stupid
2) The ban was better than nothing
3) Guns like the Bushmaster have no place in civilian hands
What we need are people who drop an argument when they’re wrong instead of holding on to something they made up. Would that your reasoning matching your ability to be a douche.
And you’ll be taking your advice when, exactly?
So… what exactly have I made up? Oh yeah, that wasn’t me.
@ozz
I knew you were making shit up when you accused me of being pro-slavery.
Moving the goalposts, huh? First of all, I never accused you of being pro-slavery. I simply used your reasoning on a different issue. Second of all, that argument came after your made-up point about me not knowing the difference between semi-auto and full-auto.
What else you got?
@ozz
Moving the goalposts? There is very little comparison in tone, temperament or even logic between this comment and when I was talking to DFA earlier.
You don’t like guns. Fine.
You think everyone’s converting to full auto. You’re wrong but I doubt you care.
And I’m going going to walk away from this ’cause I’m tired of carrying you.
I’m most certainly focusing on the shooting which has brought a national discussion into focus.
The easy access you mention involves, to my knowledge, stealing weapons from people who had legally purchased them or KILLING someone who had legally purchased the firearms.
Here’s the trick to gun control legislation… you have to be able make rules that don’t punish otherwise law-abiding people. I’m not pro-gun, I’m pro-Constitution. And since you don’t even know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, you are not in a position to talk intelligently on the subject UNLESS you adopt a Ban-Them-All argument. Which isn’t going to fly.
You’re so close-minded it’s unbelievable. Actually, I do know the difference between semi-auto and auto. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. It was auto and assault that I mixed up, mainly because of some comments in another thread. You seem more interested in stirring shit up than in actually saying anything.
Why? The Consitution says nothing about that. Just like banning personal nukes is legal even though it takes away the rights of someone who would own their personal nuke for defense in a law abiding fashion.
The Constitution says US citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has upheld this right.
Yet you still feel the need to argue against it because you don’t think it’s right. Guess I’m arguing my point about not making rules that punish people ’cause I think it’s right, too.
You are confusing two different arguments and butchering the Heller decisions implications.
1 I think Heller and Scalia’s decision on the individual mandate are wrong.
2 Even if that isn’t changed Heller upheld Miller’s restrictions on extra dangerous weapons.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time†finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
So while much of the court would reject that argumentation, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was able to get Kennedy and a workable majority of the court.
I wasn’t talking about Heller. Pull your head out of the law book and reconsider what I wrote in the context of a lay person.
Ok, but what the constitution says is very unclear (see the argument about whether it means guns for everyone or the right for well-organized (state) militias). The interpretation of it is done by the Supreme Court, so it is hard to argue about what the 2d Amendment means without addressing that interpretation.
I, as you would guess, am with DFA about both that decision existing and that decision being stupid, but your comment (intended or not) reads as a broader rule than the SC’s decision, which I think is also worth acknowledging.
This statement of mine:
Begat this reply from DFA:
I responded:
I thought I was pointing out the joys of the 1st Amendment and the earnest attempt on both sides to do what is right… but it seems no one else is getting that. So FK it!
I understand (and have acknowledged) your punishment point. I don’t agree, but somewhere in the thread (below, I think) I’m trying to work around it.
My understanding is that he used her guns to shoot her. Is that not correct?
Thats what i read.
if that is so grover’s argument is bunk.
I believe so.
And if the argument is she’d still be alive if she didn’t own a gun… doubtful. But irony noted.
She’s probably toast either way. But arguable (though not necessarily a given) that school would have seen no/fewer casualties.
Why do you think it is doubtful?
I’d think she’s toast because all it would have taken was a kitchen knife or a pen/pencil to do her in. And he did it in her sleep.
its a lot easier to survive a stabbing
Plus, if she had no guns and he stabbed her, he couldn’t have gone on a shooting spree.
That’s definitely the biggest point.
Well, sure. But not in your sleep. A hard jab to the juggler with a knife when you’re z-ing does you in.
The argument is that more people would be alive if she didn’t own a gun.
What’s your non-snark response?
That is a argument (certainly not the only one going on) and it is probably correct.
Which is why Newtown serves as a focal point on a conversation to, in essence, change society in a significant way.
What can we do that does not violate personal freedoms (like owning a gun) to try and stop something like this from happening again? The on-going fight between individual rights and the community good is in constant flux and I think the more you restrict the individual the more you ultimately cripple the community. There has to be a balance and stripping away someone’s rights, someone who has not done anything wrong, is not balance.
Where are you getting that there is a right to own a AR 15?
This is my reaction too. I understand that the 2nd Amendment is what it is, and limits the types of laws we can pass. But assume that we are talking about the ideal legal posture on gun ownership instead of what is achievable in the US as it stands today.
With that assumption, I feel pretty strongly that when it comes to assault rifles (yes, there’s a definition issue in there somewhere, but wherever the line is, a bushmaster is on the bad side), society’s right to be free from them trumps an individual’s right to possess them. Because they are really dangerous and do not serve any purpose important enough to overcome that danger.
If I’m not mistaken I think grover stated prior that he doesn’t believe the bushmaster rifles should be in public circulation, but this is a long thread to muck through.
I am defending the right to bear arms in general, not any one particular gun.
And the only specific objections I’ve had are when people suggest banning anything other guns with magazines that carry 3 rounds or less, as those suggestions are rather impractical given the bulk of firearms in existence.
If we agree that ownership/non-sale transfer of all currently existing guns remains legal, how far would you be willing to go with respect to new guns?
My initial reaction (in terms of gun control, not counting disgust and horror) was that gun owners were going to lose their 30 round magazines. I read up on the Australians, their ban included pump action shotguns. I think that’s too far. I don’t know of any tubular magazine rifle that can hold more than 15 rounds (including one in the chamber) so for the sake of argument, cap any new gun at a 15 round capacity.
Handguns are tougher, in large part because I think they’re more suitable for personal protection. It was brought up earlier that a person only needs one shot to defend themselves… no! Most revolvers carry 6 rounds, let’s be practical. Most automatic pistols carry 12-15 round clips.
So as a real general rule of thumb for new gun control I’d say 15 round limits seems realistic.
I also doubt most folks around here would be satisfied with that cap.
I like the idea of people needing to undergo formal training in the use of a firearm before they purchase it. I think the NRA would be uniquely suited to establishing a large number of “accredited” training posts where they could teach gun owners proper gun safety, maintenance and how to shoot.
I also am in favor of requiring gun safes/lock boxes but any law would need to be lenient enough to make sense: a person wanting to buy a $300 handgun shouldn’t be required to purchase a $2000 gun safe to store it.
I think the biggest hang-up will be sale of used guns at pawn shops or gun shows or to individuals. People have the right to sell their property… I don’t know what the solution to that angle is.
Fair enough.
How about a 15 round max capacity on any weapon plus a restriction on rifle function designed to put AR15 types on one side and actual hunting rifles on the other (in my ideal universe, it would be no semi-auto long guns, but I suspect that goes way too far for you), plus a restriction on certain types of ammo (like hollow points). I would also want to put serial numbers on ammo for tracking purposes (which I understand has nothing to do with the current shooting, but I think would help with gun violence generally).
All restrictions are prospective, but resale is prohibited. There is also a permanent, voluntary, buyback program at current prices indexed to inflation, so if you want to sell you can.
As far as the safe issue, I really like what E/C said about German law. Basically, if you own a gun, you’re responsible for crimes it commits. That way, you don’t need to mandate any specific protection, but each gun owner needs to take the steps they think are necessary to keep themselves out of trouble.
Obviously none of that is perfect, but it sounds like a fairly reasonable compromise to what I’ve seen you saying. Am I close?
Both CA and CT have 10 round maxes
@ nm, I like the buyback idea, sounds completely do-able.
A possible solution is selling the gun w/ its own locking hardshell/ impossible to break into attache case. I’m sure if there was a market for such a thing it would happen relatively fast.
@nm
I don’t know anything about German gun law and I haven’t seen the comment you’ve mentioned. If the law says that I can own a handgun, store it in a lock box, have that lock box stolen, report the robbery and still be held legally liable two months down the road when it’s used in a crime then fuck that law. But I don’t know what the law says so I’m just guessing.
I probably have a couple questions about the buyback program, but I’m tired and a little fed up.
I was just going off a comment by e/c, but I agree with that hypothetical being the wrong outcome. I understood e/c to say there are defined storage requirements, and if you fail to follow you’re responsible for whatever happens. Google isn’t giving me the details quickly, so I guess the right question is whether that kind of regime would work for you, and under what circumstances.
Sorry you’re fed up. I’ve found our part mostly interesting and refreshing, fwiw.
@nm
Threads like this are why I wasn’t heartbroken when AN went with a zero-tolerance policy on political discussion.
Good for you two that this is one of the more boring evenings and I have the access to the house PC.
I haven´t read through, so I hope this is the info you were looking for:
1. You are required to store your gun in the appropriate safe ( I don´t know the exact specs)
2. You can be subject to control of that even if there is no reasonable suspicion of your criminal intent
3. If you fail to comply, it is a fellony + you can be held responsible for damages caused by it
4. If you comply, yet have your safe broken in, as grover mentioned, you are not liable for damages
(As always, my legal English is even poorer than my normal one, so take all legal terms with a grain of salt)
@ec- Over the last four years, acceptance of grammatical and spelling errors has become more acceptable, due to recognition of the limitations of smartphone and tablet input devices. Many of the tech-based errors are similar to your conjugation-based differences (I don’t call them errors), so in effect, the tablet input era serves as a functional mask of the fact that English is not your main language. You’re totes camo, bro!
@kay and ec
EC will always have better construction that I do, so I think hes got nothing to worry about
@elcroata
Thanks for taking the point on that whole end-o’-the-world thing last week.
I’m not sure what you’re saying in Point 2. What does “subject to control of that” mean? Or at least, can you re-phrase it?
@nm
I have a question. What does hunting have to do with the second amendment? Why is this constantly being brought up by gun control advocates?
Something to think about…Why has the DHS purchased 450 MILLION rounds of hollow-point ammo( both handgun and rifle)? It isn’t used for practice, as it is much more expensive than FMJ ammo. The ONLY reason for the DHS to buy HP ammo is if they are getting ready to shoot people,(since they aren’t a “hunting” group). As far as I know, the DHS isn’t assigned to conduct operations outside the US, so who are they planning on shooting?
@grover
My second point means that if you are a registered gun owner, law enforcement can obtain a warrant to inspect your home and make sure that you posess a valid safe, even though you are not a registered criminal and there is no reasonable suspicion that you are on to criminal activities.
@everybody else, you are far too kind, but that´s quite OK
@ec
Does this mean without probable cause? They can just randomly get a warrant?
@Tutu: fair question. I think people talk about hunting because it is a major use of guns that people generally find to be reasonable. It’s the same reason people say that AR15s are shitty home defense weapons. The point, generally, is that “having fun on a shooting range” is not enough reason to allow people to own guns that are designed to kill a lot of people really quickly.
Also, I don’t see the relevance of the DHS point. One, the agency routinely makes shitty buying decisions. Two, the agency is overfunded. That said, I’m glad we agree hollow-point ammo can be scary.
@Tutu
It means anyone who is a registered owner. I don´t know what you mean with a “probable cause” as the inspections are not to make sure that the person has no criminal intent, but rather that the gun is properly stored. The whole idea is to limit the situations where owned guns can be accessed by other people.
It´s not much different than having your car or chimney being inspected to make sure you comply with the regulations.
@elcroata
Oh boy. The 4th Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. I’m not a lawyer, but I have a hard time seeing how following another constitutional right counts as sufficient probable cause to search my home. Laws shouldn’t be written so that to obey one part of the constitution means to give up another part.
@nm
Hunting was NEVER the purpose of the second amendment. The AR platform is finding a following within the hunting community, is to it’s technological advances. An AR15 may not be the ideal home defense firearm, but it is a whole lot better than a muzzle-loader, or no protection at all.
Yes they can be. That is the point of HP ammo. They are especially scary in the hands of any government entity without opposition.
@grover
I think you are being paranoid about search and seizure rights, but then again, I think most of America is paranoid, period.
For you it´s “search and seizure”, for me it´s regulation compliance inspection. As I said, if I use a chimney in my building, I am subject to inspection that makes sure my oven is properly installed. If I use a car, I am a subject to yearly inspection that that cur complies to regulation. If I want to own a gun and have it at my home, I am possibly subject to inspection that I have it stored properly. I have absolutely no problem with that. Whether it fits into the interpretations of your constitution is up to you guys to slug out.
@grover: There is absolutely no 4th amendment issue there. If part of having a gun permit was an inspection requirement, those inspections would be totally legal (like, say, health inspections at restaurants). I understand you might not like a safe-housing rule, but that’s a different issue.
@tutu: where did I say the 2d amendment is for hunting? You asked why gun control advocates talk about hunting and home defense uses, and I answered. If it is all about defense from government, what on earth do you think your weak-ass AR15s are going to do against a SWAT team, let alone the FBI or the US Army? Other than give them a reason to kill you?
@ NM
I wasn’t saying that you meant hunting, just that it is constantly being brought into the conversation by those who wish to limit guns. As to what they can do against an overzealous government? They will level the engagement. Taking them away creates a slaughter.
@nm & E
That is entirely a 4th Amendment issue. If I wish to exercise my 2nd amendment right to own a gun I have to be willing to give up my right to require a search warrant be issued with probable cause.
The text of the 4th Amendment (probable cause italicized):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People have argued about the language of the 2nd Amendment for decades, and that’ll probably continue for decades to come. But the language in the 4th Amendment can’t be any clearer… there must be probable cause to issue a search warrant. We could probably have a colorful debate about what warrants probable cause but exercising my constitutional rights shouldn’t be one of them.
@grover
and this would change the second amendment into a privilege, not a right.
Only it´s not a search, and conflating it with one is paranoid. If you are chosen for an inspection, you get a notice well in advance and on a given date somebody from the law enforcement will come and the only thing you have to show is the safe itself. Nobody goes through your belongings or searches your private stuff.
Again, I am no lawyer and have no idea how they would interpret your constitution and the needed legal framework. I am speaking strictly from a logical point of view.
Except it is a proven failure. We had armed cops in my high school… didn’t keep the kid who I gave the word jumble from my paper to from taking a BB gun and shooting 4 kids in drama class.
An armed Sheriff’s deputy didn’t keep the killers at Columbine for perpetrating the horror there.
The problem is guns, not a lack of guns.
DFA is back!!
What I meant is: the problem is DFA, not a lack of DFA.
Yup. And Yay! DFA!
Don’t be a dick and next time I won’t leave.
Fair enough.
Whoa whoa whoa. You just came back and already demands?!?
You didn’t think I went off to go a changing did you?
I was expecting mellow, agreeable, vegetarian, teetotaller DFA who doesn’t like dancing. Or French girls.
I was gone for a month… do you know how much therapy just one of those things would take?
I thought dating French girls qualified as therapy.
I actually snapped my string of 49 shitty dates in a row with a gorgeous girl from Utah. So i might be laying of the frenchies for a while
Hey, congrats.
Well see if it goes anywhere.
Unfortunately she lives in Sac and her being in Utah for the Holiday makes the whole “I really like you and want to stay in touch before you come back and we can go on another date but Im totally not clingy (even thought Ive personally accepted that I am because when Im dating someone I want to share my time interests and experiences with them and I don’t really need much me time but that its best to try to ease into that shit because most people aren’t lke me) and threading that needle is more difficult is said circumstances.
You’re right… guns don’t prevent bad things from happening. It’ll take more than firepower to craft a realistic solution to the problem.
What I find interesting is that while you’re ready to get rid of guns because they didn’t work in your stated examples, you make no mention of getting rid of cops because they didn’t prevent these events from happening. You don’t argue that laws against murder failed to prevent Columbine, therefore they should be tossed from the legal books.
While many are upset that LaPierre didn’t apologize for a crime HE DIDN’T COMMIT, no one has accused the mental health profession for not preventing this tragedy. I don’t hear any of our politicians clamoring to get rid of their personal armed guards.
he did not commit the crime. but his presser was a train wreck that insulted everyone.
politicians are targets, they should have security. children aren’t. they shouldn’t need security.
I agree on the train wreck part.
And while children shouldn’t be targets…
yeah, shouldn’t be.. uhg
So the politicians are are more valuable? Hardly. They are no more a target than anyone else. The only difference is that they are able to get protection.
They’re very much more of a target than everyone else. If there were no Secret Service, how long would the Obama presidency have lasted? Forty seconds?
I have no problem with body guards per se, but why do they carry firearms? Firearms are only meant to kill, right?
It’s a chicken/egg issue. *If* we ban weapons from the general public, the same should be said for private security and the like as well.
I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me how banning guns is going to keep people from acquiring them on the black market. Making it illegal to possess a gun isn’t going to bother someone that wants to go kill a bunch of people. Do junkies care that heroin is illegal?
Thanks, and go As.
So… why does gun control work so well in other countries?
Be a lot harder to own and you’d be in deep doodoo when caught. That’s basically conceding that its too hard, not worth trying.
The average person won’t be able to afford or acquire a black market gun. Hell, there already IS a black market for guns and that’s not going to go away any time soon. It’s about overall gun reduction. Fewer guns = fewer opportunities for guns to be used. They also mean simply seeing the gun gives grounds for law enforcement to act which offers an additional measure of prevention.
The average person also won’t commit mass murder.
Thanks, and go As.
@ MikeV ~ True, but most people aren’t felons, just because its legal here doesn’t make it ‘right’ or even neutral.
I have absolutely no problem with fishing rods or bows and arrows.
I don’t understand the fishing rods/bows and arrows comment.
Thanks, and go As.
If mass murder were all we were worried about maybe that would be a valid point. But you might notice, a trend in mass murder is taking an easily obtainable gun by purchasing it legally themselves or taking it from someone who did. Who knows how many of these cases wouldn’t have occurred had you added the extra layer of having to purchase them themselves from a black market, at black market prices and the seediness that likely follows from such circumstances. But probably more than have of these cases don’t happen if their parent didn’t have a gun.
If there wasn’t already a ridiculously large amount of firearms cycling around you wouldn’t need them otherwise unless you wanted to bring some meat home or shoot a coyote.
Thx, I’ll have to save that for tomorrow, long article.
The point in the second amendment was to protect the people from the government. Disarming the populace is the last thing we should be considering. How about we disarm the criminals and the government first?
No, the 2nd Amendment was to protect the new country from the British, or from that great phantom menace, “Indian Attack!”
Um, the British government right?
@ozz
If you notice it says the “…right of the people…”
But wasn’t Jefferson fond of revolution every 20 yrs or so?
Not the country we live in exactly, also to not see the parallel between 2nd amend/ Rev. War is being disingenuous IMO.
So what? It’s archaic. We’re in a habit of updating laws that are no longer necessary. Or do you think we shouldn’t allow women or Blacks their freedom or right to vote? We even had amendments for and than against prohibition. The law is there to adapt to necessity. Protection, forceful protection, is no longer necessary and no longer even possible it ever were.
@Tutu: And if you’ll note, it says well-regulated militia.
The Constitution also says Congress may call forth the Militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
In other words, to fight for the US government, not against it. The opposite interpretation is nonsensical.
And it was an abysmal failure since George Lucas released it.
The only way to practically protect people from the government is personal nukes.
Even Scalia thinks that they should be illegal. Your argument is bunk.
I’m with dmoas here, we might as well all be fundamentalists then.
EVERYONE in the revolutionary era had a gun for hunting. The specific terminology of “bear arms” meant for use in protecting, as in a war, or personal attack. It doesn’t say that the “state” supplies the arms, it says the people are the militia. To consider “hunting’ as the purpose of the amendment is total bunk.
I haven’t seen the ”personal attack” claim anywhere.
The amendment was so people could rise up as ‘militias’, co-ordinated armed partisans, if the British came back…
@brian
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.
Hrm, can you educate me or link, I was unaware (snark-free response).
not really at all. living constitution bitches!
@DFA, who are you referring to?
Is there a personal attack portion?
@ brian
You can read the history of it here. Especially the section on the British law, which includes some of the US Supreme Court’s findings. Also the section that follows which speaks of the intent of the citizens of the time in America.
@Brian
I was talking to tutu
The Heller decision basically said that your and my constitutional interpretation is wrong. Scalia is an ass and I hope it is overturned.
i am not a target. high profile politicians are.
Tell that to the Kennedys or MLK or Milk or Regan or Giffords.
So you’re comparing a weapon of death’s availability against people’s who’s job is as much reactive as it is preventative and laws that are as a much (if not more) a penalty as it is preventative? Seriously, you’re trying way too hard to justify guns.
I applied the same logic DFA did to other “failed” components of the process to point out the futility of his position.
I’m not trying to “justify guns” or any such nonsense and if you think I am, you aren’t paying attention. You don’t like guns, period. I’m fine with that. I’m not overly fond of guns. I don’t own a gun. I understand that guns, in the wrong hands, can reek havoc. They can destroy lives.
I also understand that people in this country have a right to own guns, if they choose to do so. I think there are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on gun ownership. I also think you’re a fool if you truly believe that banning all guns will “solve” the problems facing this country today. Asking millions of people to give up their rights so you can have your fantasy world of a “safe” society is wrong. Insisting or ordering them to do so would be even worse.
A serious discussion needs to happen about gun control, mental health, school safety and a host of other subjects. People need to be able to listen to each other. If you cannot set aside your bias against guns and listen to the concerns of gun owners then you have no place in that discussion.
I said it earlier… the conversation gets nowhere if everyone is busy with their personal agendas. DFA’s comment is wrong to suggest that because a gun carrying cop was at his school and stuff happened that the concept of campus security is a failure.
Fair enough. Can you present examples of armed security preventing a school shooting?
This.
You want documented instances where someone admitted to planning a school shooting but then backed out after realizing there were cops present???
If that is the standard you set then I see no way but to conclude you think ALL law enforcement is a failure.
How about a case of an attempted shooting where security intervened? Since that’s what I meant and all.
You think all law enforcement does is prevent criminals from acting?
No.
The claim was made that having armed security in schools did not prevent bad things happening the NRA’s call to put more armed security in more schools is doomed to fail in preventing future attacks.
I know that prevention of crime is not the primary purpose of law enforcement… although it is nice when they can pull it off.
Prevention of crime will come in the future with the end of individual privacy. When humanity functions more like an anthill or beehive, with NO SECRETS and FEW TABOOS, crime will be prevented in advance by mental intervention from others in the society.
I think that a whole lot of crime is committed in schools with armed guards (including, of course, Columbine). I would be interested in whether there is any evidence of an actual deterrent effect (however that evidence goes).
I think crime is committed in spite of laws and law enforcement. Everyone here has cops where they live. Everyone here has crime where they live. Some just might commit a bit of crime on occasion! Even the NRA’s debacle acknowledged a need for more to happen than placing cops in schools. A cop (or 12) in every school could only be a first step and a wasted one if not followed up.
I guess I see the guns-in-schools as (1) unlikely to help; (2) acknowledging that we’ve lost already (I feel the same way about crazy TSA stuff); and (3) only proposed by the NRA because they know gun manufacturers would LOVE it.
nm
3) The NRA asked for existing law enforcement to guard schools. Even if you figure an eventual bump by local/state/federal government to hire more officers there would not be a corresponding need to buy more weapons.
I understood the proposal to be broader than that (say, ex-military unemployed). Does he really think there are that many surplus cops? Am I wrong the proposal is broader?
The NRA’s original proposal was essentially a giant PTA meeting between school officials, police, parents and people with military/security background so each school could tailor a custom security plan. Sure, there is the inherent implication of using ex-cops/ex-military as school security but that would be strictly dependent on what the community called for.
The only immediate response called for by the NRA was for the police to place active duty officers in schools.
Link
I’ve included a link to the transcripts of the original Friday press release by the NRA (sans protester commentary). There’s a lot of crap to wade through, but the bottom 3 paragraphs of Page 7 and top 3 paragraphs of Page 8 outlines their proposal.
Thanks. I can see why those comments were confusing, but also how you read them that way.
Still think it’s a bad idea (and find it funny that the NRA loves cops in this context, but hates cops when they’re trying to get dangerous weapons off the street), but I agree with you on the immediate proposal.
Not saying its a good idea.
Here’s something you need to understand: ALL GUNS ARE DANGEROUS. The NRA and (most) gun owners understands this, they accept that risk when they purchase their gun.
So when you say:
gun owners hear you talking about ALL guns.
Ok, fine. Certain types of guns/ammo. For example, the NRA and cops are definitely on opposite sides of a number of issues. Including this one from a few months ago.
I’m not going to open another link. I’m sick of this discussion and pissed at myself for getting so involved. I know the crowd here… I knew better.
And if you think that’s what we’re actually after when we discuss better gun control, you’re equally missing the point. We do have to ban a serious segment of the guns out there. But we also have to do it in a fair and appropriate way. It’s also something that will not happen overnight either. The first step would be identifying what weapons can inflict the most damage in these scenarios and start by banning their sale. Sale, not ownership. Same for the ammo involved. You’re never going to go door-to-door collecting, but you can take a long approach to reducing (not eliminating) their prevalence. We may never live in a perfect world, but we should never stop trying to.
Very well said. No one has ever said that gun control would change things overnight, but it makes more sense to effect change over a long time than to accept the status quo.
I think that is a fair position and worthy of discussion. But I think it’s also fair to say that that is not the only argument being presented by the pro-gun control side of this thread.
There is also something you need to consider when presenting your argument: if it is legal for me to own a specific rifle why would it then be illegal to sale that property to another person? Or gift it to them? Or pass it down to my child?
Because your right to legally own it would merely be grandfathered in, not inherent. And you’d probably have to have system in place to pass it on to another/offer it as an inheritance as well. But one would hope that eventually after most of the ammo has been spent/bought it would become increasingly expensive/difficult to make it more than a once dangerous trinket.
Seriously? That’s where you’re landing? Because resale is often the target of laws. For example, it’s perfectly legal to own whatever toilets you want in SF, but to sell a house you have to have low-flows installed.
I think it would be wrong to go door-to-door taking things that were legal (but prudent to offer to buy those things). I think it’s stupid to extend that to resale.
Simply asking the obvious follow-ups…
It’s not just the 2nd Amendment in play. There are also search and seizure and private property issues in the mix.
I’m not sure where those come into play on my proposal.
Resale would be a crime, so search/seizure when supported by a valid warrant would be the same as any other crime. And I don’t see a private property issue at all
Name another piece of property you own that you aren’t allowed to sell.
And since I was responding to dmoas, I wasn’t addressing your specific proposal.
my kidneys?
Uranium on your property.
My children
Medical marijuana.
@DFA
Back to eminent domain. Nice. Because that’s the sensible way to approach millions of citizens.
In legal terms, sure, children would count. Of course, it’s also illegal to buy children so I think there might be further distinction between the two items. But point for you. If you want to argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to sell their guns because you can’t sell children then go right ahead.
@oblique
Some states say you can but the Federal Government argues otherwise. Out of curiousity, do all 50 states allow the growing of medicinal marijuana?
I’ve also seen it argued (not here, though) that people shouldn’t be allowed to own more than a certain number of guns. That doesn’t fly. If you have the means and interest in owning 50 legal firearms there shouldn’t be a law limiting you from doing so.
I mean if I buy some legally, I can’t resell it. Not talking about growing.
Your last point is a bit of a tautology, though I get your meaning.
Why is eminent domain the wrong approach?
It would be just like a recall.
@grover: high-water-use toilets in SF.
Also, you can own property that doesn’t meet code requirements, but if you remodel anything you have to change it (and if you want to become a business or a condo you have to change it).
Seems like a pretty close analogy to non-conforming guns to me.
@grover, medical prescriptions? Some articles of clothing (underwear, swimsuits).
@DFA
A recall? That’s so transparent as to be insulting. A recall is done primarily for the safety of the consumer who purchased the product. Typically a defect has been identified and needs repair/replacement and the manufacturer tends to initiate the recall. That does not apply in any way to this topic.
@nm
I’m not seeing the analogy as it doesn’t sound like you’re selling the property.
@Everyone else
It does seem that drugs are an example of property you can’t resale.
What’s wrong with my analogy? high water use toilets are legal to use but illegal to sell in SF
@grover
the newton shooter’s mother’s safety was sure in danger from her own gun.
@nm
I was referring to all the remodel stuff you were talking about.
@DFA
Guess she should’ve looked into that really really late term abortion option…
@g
im missing the abortion connection
I believe Gov.Cuomo does have that intent( one of confiscation)
I actually worked to try to get the cops out of SF schools when I was on the Student Advisory Committee and was on the school board.
Interesting.
I think if the entire focus of “school security” was armed guards then it would be a failure to address the real problems of violence in our society, mental health treatment and yes, gun control.
I’m curious… did you read the transcript from the NRA’s Friday debacle?
SFUSD at the time (early 2000s) payed the city $8m a year for cops on campuses and patrolling the surrounding areas as School Resource Officers. At the time the average counselor to student ratio was 1 to 400. We tried to get the district to re allocate the money to fund counselors. Basically, after the cops essentially started the 02 riot at Marshal, it was clear that they weren’t successful at dealing with the issues of school violence.
So…I skimmed through much of this after being away from FK for about 10 days on vaca. One thing that I’m not sure has been mentioned in the discussion, as regards the inclusion of mental health in this debate, is the willingness of the mother to actually address the child’s mental health issues.
From what little that I’ve been able to glean from various articles:
– The killer was unable to deal with any social situations outside of his mother.
– The mother was extremely devoted to her son and trying to address his mental issues on her own.
– The father was out of the picture.
– The mother had sufficient financial independence from divorce settlements that she should have had access to mental health care had she wanted to pursue it.
– The mother taught her child to use firearms as a way of teaching him “respect,” and often brought him to the shooting range.
Some unconfirmed information:
– The mother was in the process of committing the child.
– The child was jealous of the mother’s involvement with the school where the shooting occurred
What I can’t tell (and if anyone has information, please share):
– Did the child actually have some form of mental healthcare?
My point in these statements and questions is to say that access to mental healthcare, particularly for minors, only works inasmuch as a parent is willing to pursue it. The child had issues and the mother and father clearly knew that, but the few reports make is seem like the mother wanted to deal with it on her own, but was in the process of finally giving up.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t be having a dialogue about mental health care services. We should. I, for one, think that a lot more money needs to go into early diagnostic services for preschoolers and elementary age kids, as well as awareness among teachers in terms of identifying signs of difficulties.
Coll, whizkid made a paper on statistics, in which he quotes Dan as “THT Writer” and me as a featured writer on the Oakland Athletics fan websites AthleticsNation.com and FreeKraut.com
Um, what’s FreeKraut.com?
Also, when MikeV mentioned that he no longer wants anything to do with SBN, I looked at his “Take this site and shove it” essay in his profile there and noticed he links to “dot-com” as well. We don’t have that many sources of new FKers, aside from Facebook I suppose, so something like that might be worth fixing.
That would require logging in.
Thanks, and go As.
there is a link to the wordpress that links here there
Also, I’m actually somewhat surprised that they haven’t removed that.
Thanks, and go As.
They’d have to see it first.
Yeah, but what featured writing have you done for us lately?!?
At least he got mentioned in the post…
I think we need Jennifer to comment on this.
And EM don’t forget to tell us your Jeopardy tale!!!
I’m ready for a full YouTube posting of the whole show featuring EM.
Pretty good work, Tyler Greene.
FOURFIVE MORE YEARS!Thanks, and go As.
“I believe the A’s have a great deal to contribute to the area for the next five years, and even thereafter.”
My goodness, the old Soviet Union could have written that press release. I think those last three words indicate they know they can’t move to SJ. Ever. Either that or the Commissioner had told them he won’t answer the T-rights question until the NEXT Mayan epoch ends.
Nah, I took it as “Oh, yeah, um,… after we move, we still want you to… um… show up and stuff… please?”
I think the A’s would be foolish to go much longer without any kind of a lease extension, whether they hold out eventual hope for San Jose or not. If they don’t have a lease after the end of 2013, the Coliseum Authority would be free to knock the existing park down in order to start work on a new Raiders stadium without even compensating them.
(and then we’d be tailgating in the parking lot of the Pak-n-Save at the corner of 40th and San Pablo in Emeryville, as the games would be played in the cool baseball display they always put up in the produce section)
The good news is for most games, attendance would still be easy enough to take care of.
Heh.
Real question is under what terms. Coliseum offered A’s an extension: at below-market rent if A’s commit exclusive negotiating period with City/County, huge rent increase without such a commitment. That the A’s responded at all is not big news; I want to know what their offer was, exactly.
Pretty sure they told the City to shove it on the commitment. Probably counter with the first price without the commitment.
Slusser has the full text of the A’s letter to the JPA.
Translation: “Dear JPA, please sign away all leverage now without getting anything back, kthxbai.”
Hm. I might be reading too much into this, but I’m struck by the “Mike Crowley has my authority to negotiate” emphasis.
The sad thing is that this implies 5 more years of Wolff/ Fisher…
Does it? We’re in a new k’atun cycle, after all.
This is amazing.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CP-RQkeXkf8%3Frel%3D0” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
Thanks, and go As.
Heh.
wow
I think the best part is that they’re not delivering any of those lines with a nudge and a wink. If you’d never seen the movie you wouldn’t think “what the FK are they talking about?”, it seems quite natural.
I never seen a movie and I was wondering what the hell you guys are talking bout
hang on.. wait, just hang the FK on for a second
YOU HAVEN’T SEE THE PRINCESS BRIDE?
I need a shipping address for you. Right now. Merry Xmas.
Thanks, and go As.
Make sure the DVD is Euro-zone (not that it’s not crackable, but it can be a pain)
Just rip it and send it to him e-style.
Even worse. I don’t think I have ever heard of it
I’m not much of a moviegoer and I don’t have any recollection of it. When I saw it was ESPN, I assumed this was some cross-promotion of one of Disney’s cartoon movies.
Me neither.
Bring popcorn. We’ll watch it.
Thanks, and go As.
WAHAHHHHTT?????
You are always complaining about how terrible your life is. No wonder.
Crap. You came back.
Yup… yet another example of things not working out for you.
As we were packing up our office for a move to a new place a couple blocks away, my colleague found a mounted 8×10 photo, presumably left by the previous tenant, that had fallen behind a filing cabinet, and offered it to me as the resident baseball fan:
An image search indicates that it is Johnny Evers and Eddie Plank, from October 10, 1914.
That is the Evers of “Tinker to Evers to Chance”, no?
wow! heckuva find!
Quite cool.
Now that’s what I call a christmas bonus!
” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
This is awesome…. and how appropriate for this thread, as the Nat’l Anthem is sung by The Fifth Dimension!
The Tiparillo commercial edges out Reggie’s Afro as the highlight. Too bad Lefty Grove found himself stuck between Bowie and Charlie; that must have been awkward.
I have several of the 1973 WS games in their entirety on my HD and as you watch them and they show Charlie O. and Kuhn interact you can tell that Bowie Kuhn is wondering how the nutcase next to him took over the entire sport. At one point in Game 7 Finley is turned around facing the stands and “conducting” the ecstatic cheering with two of those little gold pennants in his hands, and you can see Kuhn physically recoil in horror :)
I’d swear that I remember that Schlitz ad.
Also, I couldn’t find an image, but last year for the annual South Pole Telescope tshirt they did a really sweet “Greetings from Nibiru” design. I wish I had one, but my trip to pole was early in the season and tshirts don’t show up until later on.
Photos from my trip here
Very cool (literally). Thanks!
Nice – thanks.
New friend!
Long story short, I’ve been waiting for the right time to own a pet after years growing up with cats and dogs in the household. I came across a 6-year old Bengal who’d been recently adopted but he just would not get along with the two cats the owners (fellow A’s fans, whom some of you may know – Amber’s who I mostly talked to) already had and they needed to find him a new home. We talked a good deal, I went down yesterday, and came home with him.
Still thinking of a name. They told me his name might’ve been Leo at one time but they were calling him something else and only had him for around a month. He definitely wasn’t too pleased with the long ride home (about two hours in a carrier) and quickly hid under the bed last night, but once I got some food set up in the bathroom he began to open up and now he seems pretty happy exploring his new home. It’s good to have a pet again.
Congratulations to you. He’s very unique looking, and I hope he warms up to you and enjoys your hospitality.
He already slept on a blanket atop my bed last night and right now he’s giving my hand endless headbutts and nuzzles. I think it’s good so far.
nice
Congrats on the kitty-ownership! He’s lovely!
He’s gorgeous!
Gorgeous!!!!!
Woot!!! Good!! Glad you gave the little fella a new home! So cute!!
I redid the filenames, so you can just go here instead:
http://www.murkworks.net/~james/Cat/2012/Dec/
First couple from last night, again:
Wow. Beautiful!
Beautiful markings, and from the video you posted to Twitter he seems to have a very sweet nature. As for a name, what about Brandon?
He’s been as affectionate as the prior owners said, though not too talkative yet. He’s going between making himself comfortable with the place and keeping to himself so far, but it’s still just in the first 24 hours.
I’ll have to think more about the name. Easy to go with something related to things I’m interested in, whether he actually responds to it or not.
Speaking of films, I’m a big fan of Gleeson’s and this excellent short is freely available on YouTube
Hi, JamesV! I finally took your advice and attempted to fix my Canon 10D camera. The CF pins were bent, and Canon wnated $150 to fix it. I borrowed a magnifier from my dad, and used an empty mechanical pencil to carefully straighten the pins! The 5mm pencil fit perfectly over the pins. Just in time for the holidays and the 2013 baseball season! Thank you for your support in suggesting I try to fix it myself.
Good job, but I suggested that? I honestly don’t think we ever talked about it!
Well, you suggested to jump in and try to fix it, rather than buy a new one. You basically said that since it was broken, I couldn’t hurt it any more. Canon’s use of a sloppy fit for the CF card is really sad. I am going to buy an adapter that lets me use a SD card in the camera. That way I never have to remove the CF card again.
When was this? Recently, or further in the past? I don’t have any memory of it, but sometimes I forget stuff. Just curious.
It was sometime in the 2011 season. It took me a while to figure out a plan…
Ahh. No wonder. I’m lucky to remember some things from a week ago.
Swish -> Indians (4/56)
mystery team is shocked by player accepting offer
Snerk.
Why the FK do they need him? They’re not a contender at this time. He’s in decline, too. Dumb dumb dumb.
Stayed out of the AL West which is all I care.
Exactly, was kind of worried he’d end up w/ Texas or Seattle.
Me too.
Ibanez to Mariners (1/2.75)
Ross to D’backs (3/26)
The Ross deal seems pretty dumb, too. WTF did they even trade Young for?
They wanted some MONEYpenny!
ross is worse and older, it makes perfect sense
I’m surprised it wasn’t the Giants.
The Ibanez deal could be a bargain, he’s often annoyingly clutch it seems.
5/70 with a easy-to-reach 5th year vesting option.
…Huh.
sslinger bait. Also includes this interesting history which I had never heard before:
Nice article! Greg Epstein was the officiant at my daughter’s wedding, and she’s already put me in touch with Figdor. Hopefully I’ll meet him in the near future.
Also, relevant article.
MikeV bait:
Not only is Rebecca Black performing at House of blues Disneyland, its $20 and there is something written about it in the Orange COunty register that was mistakenly delivered to my parents house this morning.
And its sunny
Hopefully she plays on a Friday.
Thanks, and go As.
three times
neat
Cool. I’ve taken classes there. I know exactly where that is.
$862,000 in silver coins
Man it looks like the Blue Jays plan on starting Rajai in place of Anthony Gose, I’d be soooo bummed if I were Antny’…
is there anything Rajai does well?
Over-slides????
getting picked off
And doing the best BoCro imitation on outside sliders!
bobby crosby and rajai davis were once on the same MLB team
And both are color-blind..neither one can see the RED DOT!
He was 11th last year in Baserunning runs per fangraphs metric
that seems wrong. the eyeball test is him getting picked off.
but I believe you
Im not a huge fan of their metric.
Shit. I was counting on Gose to hit .225 and steal 50 bases for my deep-keeper fantasy team.
Heh, I just dont see why to play Rajai who’s def. not part of the long-term future, esp. when so many parts have been added.
I just got back in my time machine, having visited Monday morning as a low-risk test run.
I managed to catch some news when I was in the future, so I return to you with tomorrow’s conservative policy proposals… and guess what? They are doubling down again, who knew?!?!?!
So here we go, ripped from tomorrow’s headlines, the top 10 latest and greatest policy initiatives from our friends on the right:
10. Substitute .357 Magnums for chopsticks in all sushi bars, to protect against oncoming, barbaric hordes of “Tekkarists” coming to hijack our hard-earned raw tuna.
9. Demand cyanide soup in all school lunch programs, because who are those liberals to decide what my child can or can’t eat? If it was good enough for the children of Jonestown, it’s good enough for us!
8. Replace the coach’s red “challenge flag” in the NFL with a duel with pistols at 40 paces between the line judge and the head referee.
7. Legislatively codify AK-47s for Santa and his elves, so they can defend themselves proactively from the “War on Christmas” we see all around us if we just look past all the ornamented trees, Yuletide-themed sales, and gorgeously colored lights festooning every house on every block.
6. New incentive for kids to learn to shoot early: The Smith And Wesson Scholarship for the most accurate 6th-grade marksmen. Hit the Obama bullseye target 10 times in 12 shots and college at Bob Jones University is FREE!!!
5. Goes with #6: Replace recess with target practice for all elementary and middle school students. Printed targets include Michael Moore, Sandra Fluke, Van Jones and noted communist Mohandas Gandhi.
4. Mandatory castration for all male homosexuals regardless of age, and mandatory lesbian pornography on all cable networks. Because gay is bad, OK? Unless it turns me on, then it’s mandatory for everyone else because Freedom!
3. Demand the president produce a galactic birth certificate to prove he is not a reptilian extraterrestrial originating somewhere in the Aldebaraan System in the constellation of Taurus. Because we’re not racists, we just need to be sure he wasn’t spawned by a soulless, barbaric alien species and sent to destroy the very fabric of our precious way of life.
2. Constitutional Amendment to provide fetuses with Uzis and Glocks in vitro so they can protect themselves against abortion.
1. Remove “The Star Spangled Banner” as national anthem because it’s not violent and supremacist enough. Replace with Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold” to symbolize the coming 1000-year reign of conservative values on Earth.
Here is a pic of my new Time Machine!!!
The ToiletThrone 5000!!!
Piano driven, making expensive reindeer maintenance obsolete! Plus, as per its’ name, one touch of a button and you can relieve yourself without having to back up on the throttle or waste time stuck in time!
I will make you one too so you can go 1000 years into the future and partake of the Sex Holodeck technology we have both been waiting for K!!!!
I would likely get addicted to death simulations, and my life would turn into one big snuff film.
I was extremely bummed when I learned that they were thinking of re-making Videodrome, now they’re actually doing it, sacrilege…
Add another log to the ‘No Bueno’ pile…
Even more than how hopelessly outgunned the most heavily armed individuals would be by the US military/police, this kind of thing is where the naivety (and distraction) of the “we need guns to protect ourselves from our government” position really bemuses me.
Greetings FK’ers and political enthusiasts of all stripes and persuasions!!! It’s time for another installment of “What if…?” ladies and germs!!! Today’s edition asks the burning question:
What if Supreme Court Justice and “Constitutional Originalist” Antonin Scalia had to perform in other jobs? How would he do?
To whit:
What if Antonin Scalia were a surgeon? Would he use leeches, because that’s what was used when surgery was invented?
What if Antonin Scalia were a baseball pitcher? Would he refrain from ever throwing the split-fingered fastball, given that it was not present at the dawn of the game in the mid-19th century?
What if Antonin Scalia were a writer? Would he only write using a quill and inkwell, or only write on the walls of caves, to be true to the original format of the written word before the printing press?
What if Antonin Scalia were a musician? Would he perform only on ancient drums, lutes and other instruments used at the beginning of the art form? Would he eschew the use of amplification, as this was not invented until long after the advent of music itself?
What if Antonin Scalia were a librarian? Would he refuse to allow Blacks to loan out books, given that centuries ago they were prohibited by law from reading?
What if Antonin Scalia were a NASCAR driver? Would he forego the use of motor vehicles altogether and instead use a horse-and-carriage to gallop around the speedway track?
What if Antonin Scalia were a filmmaker? Would he only shoot on old Edison film canisters, used at the very beginning of the medium?
What if Antonin Scalia were a soldier? Would he refuse to fight with any weapons developed after chain mail and swords? Or perhaps sticks and rocks?
What if Antonin Scalia were a schoolteacher? Would he whip the children with a belt or a switch, because centuries previous this was the educational norm?
There you have it, that’s nine in honor of the number of jurists on the SCOTUS!!!
Now, luckily, we don’t have to ask these questions, because Antonin Scalia is on the Supreme Court of the United States.
This, because he presumably could not find more suitable employment in the auto-da-fé…. given that the Inquisition is rumored to have ended well over a thousand years ago.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
–Thomas Jefferson
this is a better one.
Well, I’d think it would be… that guy’s on Mt. Rushmore, man. I’m just some schmuck with a keyboard that needs to keep writing and writing to keep the I-quit-smoking-herb-a-week-ago demons away.
Honestly, this is a dumb argument. And I agree with you that Scalia’s means of interpreting the constitution suck.
Why is it dumb? You’ll have to elaborate.
I used to be really big into guns.
I was a big believer that an armed populace would be an effective deterrent against harassment from regular army or reserve units illegally deployed domestically in times of disaster or insurrection. I was a big believer that the apocalypse was coming during my lifetime, therefore it was important to be well-armed, as to protect oneself from hungry crazy people and/or to raid the homes of local survivalists in order to kill them and steal their provision hordes.
It seemed important to me to retain the right to be able to fight back against possible police or government corruption if our economy went to shit and the US effectively became a third-world nation. It seemed important to me to be able to defend my home if local police cutbacks made call response times so absurd as to be useless. It seemed very important to me to be able to have a convenient weapon available in case somebody insulted/hurt me or someone I love so badly that it seemed worth risking life in prison in order to right the slight/negate the threat.
It seemed important to me to keep up with the joneses in my family and certain friend circles, at first because I was naive and bragging rights mattered, but later, because I realized most of the gun owners in my circles were angry and or paranoid people, and when angry/paranoid people with weapons go crazy, shit can go bad real quick. I wanted to make sure I was armed in case an older family member started stalking me, like my Grandfather used to stalk my dad (both armed) and my Grandmother tried to kidnap me from school when I was a kid.
Naturally, the problem here is that the volunteer firefighters didn’t have assault rifles themselves.
What a horrible thing to happen on xmas eve.
Forgotten, ignored, or drowned out by the gun-control wars is this outrage.
I’m pretty sure this is a textbook case of sexual harassment.
Yeah that one really blew me away.
The “How many orgasms do you have?” text should, if there is any justice in the world, win her a settlement.
Disgusting…
To top it off his wife worked in the office!!!
thank god there aren’t too many teenage boy CEOs
Yeah, but now if your boss wants to fire you all he/she has to do is claim sexual attraction.
I keep wanting to wake up and have this story be a joke. I keep being disappointed. It’s one of those stories that has exactly zero non-fucked-up elements.
It’s an unbelievably stupid decision. I guess men and employers aren’t legally responsible for anything they do.
So much of our legal and social history is about protecting the rest of society from the “uncontrollable” urges of the menfolk.
True that.
Personally I think it was Helen’s fault rather than Menelaus or Paris
The Iowa Supreme Court agrees!
Yep.
Yeah this is just judicial miss-practice in every conceivable way.
Amy one doubt that I would win this case with a just cause burden if she was in my union? Unions can be one of the best tools in preventing work place sexual harassment.
Here’s the problem:
The reasoning that this is not motivated by gender is still highly suspect, but the lawyer seems to have blown it by not including sexual harassment in the complaint (or not arguing it on appeal).
Sorry, link to the opinion.
Yeah I still would have won a Just Cause case on this as it meets a grand total of 0 of Doughtery’s 7 tests.
What does that mean?
I don’t doubt that you would win a grievance by the way. I’m just pointing out that the Iowa Supreme Court did not have a sexual harassment claim in front of it. Their decision, while still iffy, makes a lot more sense when you understand that.
In order to meet their burdens the employer has to have a good reason to dismiss a worker.Daugherty created the standard as to what was required to be a good reason
Daugherty is a court case?
Daugherty is the arbiter for the seminal arbitration case
Which you can’t blame on the court. The attorney did blow it big time
It is gender discrimination regardless of whether or not there was harassmetn.
I only meant that it is up to the attorney to present the proper case. It isn’t the job of the court to read his mind.
Short of total incompetence and lack of understanding of the law by the judges, which to get where they were at least seems unlikely, yeah, total incompetence by the lawyer.
Oh this I would agree with.
But even if you went for a more limited case gender discrimination is covered
If I magically end up with a couple mill in my bank account tomorrow, I’m starting up a program to help relocate women the FK out of Iowa (and Virginia too, while I’m at it. And Utah. And…)
Not that other states are necessarily free from legal misogyny, but y’know. I have dreams.
And yet as of the year 2000 there are more women in Iowa than men. Wouldn’t that suggest that they are unwilling to vote for change?
Yes, but that’s because they’ve been brainwashed into supporting the wrong side by years of misogyny and patriarchal religion.
Can we have a foreign bureau doing extractions from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well?
How about buying a company in Iowa and firing all the men, on the grounds that you might someday find them sexually attractive?
ha!
I wonder if the ruling would have been different if a woman had fired a man. Or if a gay male employer had fired a straight male subordinate.
Well this one is kind of unexpected.
Gotta love this –
So many better reasons for wanting to be rid of Piers Moron.
Hey, whatever it takes …
The Grauniad reports that 600 Brits, so far, have signed a counter-petition that says in essence “no backsies”.
#win
#arsenal
So if this is indeed true it seems like FOX news called yet another election…
This is just sad, no one spends $45M towards something their heart isn’t into.
I don’t buy that “he didn’t want to be president stuff
It’s just more revisionism. Conservatives can’t allow any show of weakness or disappointment, so when they lose they have to claim they really weren’t playing in the game.
I hope 2013 is the year they go the way of the Edsel.
Pretty much.
Torn ACL & PCL. Ouch. When he went down and didn’t get up, I was thinking ACL/MCL. The knee isn’t meant to bend like that.
Amazing what happens when one defender holds you up so another defender can take a dive at your knee.
Thanks, and go As.
heh
Damn, that’s some serious doxing there.
Reading this thread, it brings back memories of last summer, when the NRA came out with press conference after press conference, demanding young black males be outfitted with assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons so travesties like the killing of Trayvon Martin would not happen again. Remember their stand for the 2nd Amendment then, how strong and definitive it was, and how their hearts truly went out to the victim?
Nope, I don’t remember that either. Cuz it never FK’ing happened.