Slashdot Mirror
Snapchat Wanted $150K To Not Run NRA Ads On Gun Control Group Videos (thenextweb.com)
New submitter bababoris writes: It appears that Snapchat's Rob Saliterman attempted to "encourage" Everytown for Gun Safety to advertise with Snapchat or risk having National Rifle Association (NRA) ads run during their Live Story promoting gun safety. The Next Web reports: "Everytown for Gun Safety is an advocacy group that focuses on gun safety and violence issues. According to Mic, it reached out to Snapchat in 2016 to inquire about an advertising campaign for its #WearOrange event, held on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. A Snapchat representative, Rob Saliterman, responded to Everytown with a quote of $150,000. This would allow Snapchat users to engage with the event using custom filters and lenses created specifically for it. Realizing that another department within Snapchat had undercut him, he fired off an email suggesting that Everytown pay up, lest National Rifle Association (NRA) adverts appear on their videos."
Everytown for Gun Safety has no interest whatsoever in "gun safety".
has its own protection racket. so does snapchat
What if we aren't haters and don't hate the NRA? What if we don't have a phobia of guns? Why is this "stuff that matters"?
Companies that sell ads sell ads. BFD.
I have no problem promoting gun safety but what i do have a problem with is stupid law's that are just these feel good laws usually by liberals that claim to work to attack gun violence problem but reality do NOTHING to stop the problem. After sandy hook shooting they tried to pass laws to increase back ground check's(which there are already are checks) but it was one those feel good liberal that's that make them look good and pushed on emotion but when you look at the law would never stopped what happen from happening again. Want to see what stupid gun legislation gets you, well you get Chicago. People that are law abiding citizens have to bend over backwards to buy a gun but everyone else that don't give 2 craps about the law gets them in 5min.
Honestly? I'm curious whether they violated any of their own terms by deliberately soliciting bids to bump the NRA from their ad slot.
Realizing that another department within Snapchat had undercut him, he fired off an email suggesting that Everytown pay up, lest National Rifle Association (NRA) adverts appear on their videos.
Ahhh, to go back to the good old days when extortion was a crime.
Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at.
The truth is that even the majority of NRA members back more background checks on all gun purchases.
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
The nerve of an advertising company to take money from a paying customer and beg someone else to buy advertising so they wouldn't be "forced" (as if someone put a gun to their head to make them take money from the NRA) to show their ads at certain times. Were I the NRA (or any Snapchat customer) I would be appalled at this behavior.
No, the best way to defend yourself is to not be a privacy nutcase and make sure that government and business organizations know and respect the nonviolent people's positiobs so that we also know who the people are who are having issues so that we can get them the help they need not to make their problems big problems for everyone else. But no, the suggested answer to 1984-type problems hasn't been mutual understanding and respect, but secrecy, and I am putting a stop to that being the only suggestion. Anyone with me?
it was about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trolling. In the late 70s early 80s manufacturing finally made guns affordable by minorities. That's also around the time gun control laws started making it through legislatures. If you ever want to seem the funniest thing in your life looks up a story about a bunch of anti-muslim rednecks who took their AR-15s to go harass worshipers at a mosque unaware that the Nation of Islam are a little more than just peaceful worshipers.
My point is we don't have really effective gun control law because we never really tried to. Now, I don't think we ever will and I honestly wish the left would drop the issue entirely. It's a losing issue (and noticing that was the only thing Clinton got right). But it does irritate me to see folks like you saying gun control doesn't work. No shit Sherlock that a bunch of laws designed to keep guns out of oppressed minorities didn't have much effect on gun violence...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With Snapchat lenses?
I can see how this could really go wrong.
Have gnu, will travel.
The NRA is a deeply controversial and polarizing gun advocacy group. While some argue that it exists to vigorously defend the Second Amendment, others argue that the NRA has stifled any meaningful attempt at reasonable gun control reform.
Can't both arguments have merit, simultaneously?
What is the metric for whether a proposed gun control measure is "reasonable"? That is a highly subjective term.
Furthermore, what is the standard rate for this type of advertisement? Is $150k USD the going rate for 3x 10-second ads for an event of this nature, or is the price here being inflated simply due the diametric natures of Everytown and the NRA?
I do like how Mic (who originally received the emails regarding this story) fails to address these questions entirely. Mic is garbage, as is TheNextWeb for running a [basically paraphrased, rehashed] story without asking pertinent questions.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Next time a nutcase breaks into your house and rapes your wife and children, make sure to let him know that you're not violent, that should solve the problem.
lucm, indeed.
Do you have any idea how paranoid that is? Around here that might happen a couple times a decade across the entire county. You're much, much better off just buying a security system and reinforced doors than you are bringing a gun into the house for that sort of thing.
Bottom line here is that accidental discharges and suicides are a much more common occurrence than the specific crime you're referencing.
Some of us are just not the kind of horrible people that you 2nd amendment people are.
In no way was I saying that a gun isn't a way to protect yourself and have little issue with people owning whatever weaponry they care for. I was outlining what I believe is the best defense which if implemented, the scenario you describe would be virtually impossible.
Who cares, the troll army has to upvote only alt-right edgelord comments!
Boy slashdot commenters sure have changed radically to the right in the past 9 months or so. Hmm I wonder why
Classy guy, that Rob Saliterman. Maybe he could join Trump's team.
No. I make it abundantly clear that I am willing to make a principled and nuanced use of violence. The Doctor from Doctor Who uses people as weapons so deftly that he has an ironic reputation for nonviolence. He is actually the most violent person in the Doctor Who universe such that his enemies have given up trying to kill him resorting to a tactic of forcing him into a stasis chamber in a manner similar to that of Star Trek's Data's strategy in the game Strategema. I want people to answer when asked the question as to whether messing with me is a good idea, "What universe have you been living in? Don't you know who he is? Do you realize how crazy you sound just now?" Others read the Bible and strive to be good people. I read the Bible, read Jesus' words that say "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." and strive to understand the full import of that statement, and have come to the conclusion that such striving is folly. I am me and that is all I need to be. Any striving to be any other is folly. I do not cuss. My not cussing comes out of heritage, not from some striving to be good or to not offend. You had better believe that I have plenty of other options available to make people very uncomfortable at displeasing me.
The thing that makes this so stupid is that you haven't made contingencies for the thousands of other terrible things that are far more likely to happen to you, your wife, and your children. This is what makes the "I'm prepared game" so fucking hollow.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Gee, are you guys stupid or what? The posting is not about pro/anti gun shit. The posting is about buying some time on Snapchat to further your cause and told that you better pay additional money or else Snapchat would run advertising during your timeslot that was specifically against your precious cause. That reeks of extortion to me. Sounds downright Uberish (tm).
You're counting suicide toward the total gun death figures that you hope to prevent. To me, that does not make sense. It seems that you lack respect for the people who would kill themselves. Who are we to tell them they do not have that right?
The most immoral act it seems was to sell ad space to the NRA, who represent about half of the households in the US (45 million households own firearms) and then turn around and try to stifle their voice by offering to kill the ads for a fee. I am pretty certain that this would have been illegal if it were radio or broadcast TV airtime because of the rules around selling ad space.
If the position of Everytown is well reasoned and sourced, it seems that the NRA adds should be welcome, seeing as the NRA is essentially paying to put Everytown online (that is how ads work, they pay for the cost of distributing the content)...
However, if the NRA ads are well reasoned and effective, it seems like not only a disservice to the audience, but to our democracy by silencing 1 side of the debate. The days of the liberal media are numbered. They are revealed as fascist radicals at every turn. They don't foster debate and open dialog, they shout down or shut out the other perspectives because "only their perspective can possibly be right." While at the same time they at best have a high school level education regarding anything in the hard or applied sciences.
The same thing is true of academia, where professors lie to their ignorant students who are nothing but adult children and rile them up to go shout down the opposition, rather than listening and debating and becoming better informed on the controversy, and the general population is sick of all the little morally "superior" brown shirts shouting down any opposition.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I mean, there is a reason Google retired its corporate slogan "don't be evil". Making people pay for stuff they don't want is how intertube gangs operate in the world of organized advertising.
Alt-right is the latest pejorative of the weak minded liberal progressives who have become progressively shrill over the last 6 months as their paper thin arguments have been shredded in the truth filters of millions of Americans. 50 years ago they redrew the political spectrum because they were left wing nutjobs arguing against conservative centrists, and it was hard to get people to take them seriously arguing against the center from the far left.
The original political spectrum looked like this:
- Left Wing were for totalitarian government control: Fascists, socialists, communists, Nazis all fit in this category to various degrees
- Centrists were for limited government: conservatives typically fit this category (they want to continue the status quo existing limited government)
- Right Wing were for minimal or no government: Libertarians and Anarchists fit in this category to different degrees
Now, as the American population is seeing that the emperor has no clothes, the left wing progressive nutjobs have tried to further marginalize the centrist conservatives, because far right wasn't pejorative enough, so they have moved on to alt-right as the new insult for those with better, more reasonable positions and arguments that rely on facts instead of feelings.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The US uses a precedent-based court system. It's a pretty good system in most aspects, but one drawback is that it tends to polarise political issues because of a fear of incrimentalism. The NRA is obliged to oppose any form of gun control, no matter how reasonable, because once courts say that much gun control is allowable it becomes a great deal easier to then pass stricter gun control, and even stricter after that. The same thing goes on regarding abortion: Even pro-choice activists rarely support full abortion on demand under all circumstances, but they know that if ever they give even a little ground on that issue and the Supreme court says that restricting abortion is ok, the more conservative states will immediately run with it to the opposite extreme.
It's one of several reasons that US political cultures is so often dominated by the extremes, and compromise poses such difficulty.
More to the point, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they can always electrocute themselves, drown themselves, poison themselves, drive their car off an overpass (and into freeway traffic, killing innocent people in the process), blow themselves up (likely killing innocent people in the process), rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them, jump off a bridge or building, slit their wrists (down, not across, so the damage can't be repaired), or come up with much more creative ways of killing themselves. Guns aren't even the most popular method, and for good reason; you stand a better chance of becoming brain damaged than dying from a self inflicted shot to the head.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
the NRA has stifled any meaningful attempt at reasonable gun control reform.
The anti-gun crowd keeps changing the definition of "reasonable gun control". At one time the NRA backed extensive gun control laws and those laws passed. Then the anti-gun people moved the goal post. They keep moving the goal post. So the NRA finally said "enough is enough".
-- Will program for bandwidth
I'm curious. Could you name 10 of those "thousands of terrible things" that are more likely to happen to my wife and children, and that should be addressed before doing something as complex as buying a gun?
lucm, indeed.
rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them
I think if I was to consider suicide that's the one solution I'd pick because maybe, if the robbery is a success, I would give up on the second part of the plan and escape to Mexico or some other place where I could spend the rest of my life living like a king. Or at the very least, go to Vegas and have one hell of a nice weekend.
lucm, indeed.
The Supreme Court is also part of the problem. The stability of the court is both a benefit and a curse. It's a curse because once appointed, justices serve for life which means the court is glacially slow to turn over. In most cases, the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to either pass a constitutional amendment or appoint new justices with predictable ideological biases who then overrule past rulings.
Since amending the constitution is practically impossible, partisans have realized that by loading the court with ideological allies they can achieve lasting legislative goals through Supreme Court rulings.
Thus the legislative and democratic process has been bypassed in favor of what becomes a nearly ecclesiastical body. Americans have on many issues traded legislation by elected representatives for legislation by life-appointed jurists whose rulings are nearly completely permanent.
I think the simplest solution is to acknowledge the political nature of the court and overhaul the tenure of the court, requiring justices to retire after 10 years of service. This would cause the court to more closely align with the general political will of the country. This would mean court rulings would be more likely to align with the legislative process politically and ideologically, which, hopefully, would push issue resolution from the court system to the legislative system.
The most contentious issues benefit from legislative solutions where compromise can more easily be achieved. Judicial decisions tend to be more absolute, which in turn makes them inherently more partisan in nature. If dispute resolution is pushed back into the legislative arena, we might end up with a more compromise-focused set of policies which would also be less partisan.
There might be other solutions, too, such as allowing a supermajority of Congress 30-90 days to vacate Supreme Court decisions. Failure to affirmatively vacate them would allow them to stand as usual. This would prevent the court from issuing rulings which run counter to the general political will, while still setting the bar very high for overturning them.
Another option might be to make the Vice President the 9th member of the court, allowing an elected official to act as the tiebreaker for issues partisan within the court. This allows political influence on contentious court decisions, while still allowing the court to issue majority rulings for which the 9th vote would have no influence.
Everytown for Gun Safety's first mistake: Snapchat.
Next time a nutcase breaks into your house
If that's a common problem for you, perhaps you live in a different country, because that isn't a common problem in the US.
Of all murders/rapes during a home invasion for 2014 (the last year on which records are available) there were 128. Out of a population of over 380,000,000.
Now, think of the number of gun suicides or family violence. Much larger number than 128.
If you like guns, I don't have a problem with that. Most liberals do not have a problem with guns per se, despite what you are incessantly told. In fact, I like and own several. Liberals think "Yes, you may have a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun. No, I think the use of a mortar, tank, anti-aircraft gun in a residential neighborhood is some what questionable, and likely shouldn't be allowed." Yes, there are some loony tunes liberals. They are -not- the majority. What? Your party doesn't have loony toons supporters? I think they do.
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
What does that say about you being the sort of person who'd rather let people off themselves than go to the trouble of helping them find a reason to go on living?
"Respect", my ass.
There's another consequence of the stability of surpreme court decisions too: It leads to a lot of indirect laws, where legislators try to find creative ways to achieve indirectly things that they cannot achieve directly under the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court. This often leads to some really strange and convoluted laws, including laws that are intentionally impossible to comply with.
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
This is a shit argument because it is disingenuous, and you are being a hypocritical asshole because you know it is disingenuous. First, the breech-loading rifle existed at the time. They didn't ban it, even though it was essentially the assault rifle of its day. Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon. The entire point of the second amendment was to avoid the need for a standing militia. That meant that all the military weapons were meant to be in the hands of the people, and specifically as a hedge against tyranny. The authors and proponents of the 2a also believed in the right to self defense (a basic tenet of common law) and made that point very clear in their writings on the subject.
TL;DR: the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Seriously though, it's not about acting when the nutcase breaks in, it's about making the society such that the nutcases are exceptionally rare and these that happen get proper medical treatment before they turn violent.
You're arguing against flood prevention embankments (and pro every house having a dinghy in the attic) on basis "they won't help you when the water is up to your roof".
That is blackmail, the police should be involved. But the real question isn't about committing blackmail: The real question is, did the NRA have to pay money to avoid gun safety adverts in their communiques? If no, then SnapChat took sides and violated any 'safe harbour' law they were depending on.
Either they start taking political positions, or money talks. Gun ownership is legal. So this isn't about a corporation making money off of illegal activity. If you think it's immoral, then you can't expect them to pay for your moral judgements. Otherwise, you should expect them to take a moral stand of their choosing on any issue you may disagree with.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Mis-clicked mod. Undo that.
One doesn't need to "poll the majority" to be able to make statistically sound assertions about a group. Do you think 50% of manufactured hard drives are run to failure to determine MTBF?
claim: "a majority of people are right handed"
naïve rebuttal:" WHOA there... we gotta individually count 4 billion righties before you can make that claim!"
Be honest, it's not just the colonized part, it's the genocide during the civil war that continues today, and the socially acceptable bigotry. The Appalachian people are a minority, but not a protected one. It's completely legal, and a good re-election strategy, for big city liberals to demonstrate their bigotry when voting for things that continue to suppress rural, and particularly southern economies.
If this is your argument, you already lost in the 1930s and 40s when the national guard was established.
"at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon."
On both sides, so armed citizens were on an equitable basis with government troops. Private ownership of the big weapons of the day, heavy cannon, wasn't uncommon (privateers).
Now you're arguing that although the weapons available to the government have improved, those available to citizens shouldn't.
Of course, also at the time, there were no electronic communications, no high speed printing presses, no photography, etc. So by your logic, a reasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment would allow modern government to limit speech to unamplified human speech, handwriting, and the output of Gutenberg presses.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"What is the metric for whether a proposed gun control measure is 'reasonable'? "
The NRA is willing to accept the following gun control measures, so apparently this is what they consider "reasonable".
- National Firearms Act of 1934
- Federal Firearms Act of 1968
- National Instant Checks System(NICS)
- State level permitting procedures
Anti-gun groups like "Everytown" & "The Brady Campaign" will never give you a precise definition because they consider ALL anti-gun laws "reasonable". They will never stop unless they achieve complete civilian disarmament. They know that they can't achieve this in one fell swoop, so they pursue an incremental strategy claiming that each little step is "reasonable".
2nd amendment ... muzzle loader flintlocks
If that's the standard, then "freedom of the press" only covers operators of hand-cranked printing presses. Obviously, that's not the standard.
If this is your argument, you already lost in the 1930s and 40s when the national guard was established.
That was a major setback, but it's no reason to give up.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, then they probably won't kill themselves. If they do try anyways, they use a method that's less likely to be fatal.
You're whole argument is based upon bad logic. We already know from when coal stoves were displaced by safer stoves that the suicide rates went down as a significant portion of the people who had been putting their head in an oven had to take additional steps in order to kill themselves. Guns are no different. Guns are very fast and very effective and if you do it right, there's no suffering for the person killing themselves.
And no, you don't stand a better chance of brain damage than death if you shoot yourself in the head. Only fucking morons survive shooting themselves in the head. It means they missed. If you're going to shoot yourself in the head, you always put the gun in your mouth. That is 100% fatal. Those morons that put the gut to the side or top of their heads have a slight possibility of surviving with serious brain damage.
As for those other methods, yes, they do exist, but it isn't an efficient substitution. The more work a person has to do to kill themselves, the more likely it is that they'll pass through that moment and not go through with it. It's why there are suicide phones on one of our bridges here. People actually use the phones rather than jump. Some people do still jump, but it's a smaller number than would otherwise jump.
you lost that power when modern militaries became so large, powerful and well trained/supplied. You can't stand up to a modern military. You just can't and you're kidding yourself if you think you can. You won't be able to get enough of the kind of high power guns meant for killing men that a military has (fun fact: the M-16 was designed from the ground up to kill people. It's range, power, etc is optimized for it).
I suppose you could hope the military sides with the people, but I've yet to see that happen and not end in a Junta. Your only real hope is to maintain real democracy. The way you do that is by leaving nobody behind. Don't let there be disenfranchised and abused people. Even if they deserve it (e.g. "lazy" folks who don't work enough for your tastes). They'll be turned against you eventually, like they have for always.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you like guns, I don't have a problem with that. Most liberals do not have a problem with guns per se, despite what you are incessantly told.
I'm a liberal who likes guns, too; that is bullshit. Most liberals' experience with guns is within the context of fiction and the news (but I repeat myself, hyuk hyuk)
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
Did you really not see how this argument could be flipped on the first amendment?
The US is a sad joke compared to the rest of the developed world. Gun deaths of all kinds are a multiple of what they are in Canada, Australia, western Europe, and Japan. Americans are not more "free" in any useful sense of the word than people who live in those countries. Apart from being more "free" to get shot, of course.
Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon.
And the ships to put them on...
The number of guns on privateers outnumbered the fledgeling US navy's by more than ten to one. That's not only a lot of fire power in private hands, it's the majority of fire power in private hands.
Stefan Axelsson
Lol its the bullshit musket thing, always a clear identifier of either the indoctrinated idiot or an intentional insurgent trying to remove our hard won freedoms.
Hell, private citizens (literally those who refused to be subjects) owned fucking warships and crewed them. Repeal the blatantly unconstitutional NFA and all the other later tack-on bills, it was null and void the second they passed it.
hypocritical asshole because you know it is disingenuous.
Oh, triggered did you cupcake? Well, go back and get your comprehension back on snowflake because I did not say breach loaders didn't exist, because I most certainly know they did. What I said was muzzle loaders were more prevalent, which is true.
Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon. Citation? Because that sure sounds like a load of Grump to me. Cannon were not something the "average citizen" could afford to buy with a lifetime of earnings.
TL;DR: the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
I never said it wasn't at the time. But these days a military weapon is a AIM 120 or a nuclear weapon, which is illegal as hell for you to own. And if you are jutnob enough to think you can have a stand up fight with LEO/government and win, let me remind you that is the attempt of violent overthrow of the government, which is treason, and I don't care if your beer buddies come over to help you out, the Army will have more, and bigger weapons. Yeah, being armed isn't going to help you at all in that case.
You might try moderating your alcohol intake, because you are acting like a complete jerk.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
So... does the 2nd Amendment protect the right of private citizens to enrich uranium and build nukes?
Actually, while smoothbore muskets were the primary arm of the regular troops, much of the private citizenry owned Kentucky long rifles, which were the most sophisticated small arms of the day (capable of much faster firing rates and unprecedented accuracy). The small arms owned by private individuals were considerably better than what was commonly used by the military.
Looney tunes? Nah. Utterly misinformed and pants-shittingly terrified? Absolutely. As a liberal with liberal friends I can tell you that the amount of complete bullshit that people believe about guns is extremely vast. Liberals aren't quite as bad as what most pro-gunners think, but they're pretty close, because even if they don't constantly demand shitty laws, they tend to approve of them when they come up. The end result is the same.
Also as others have stated the "But flintlocks!!!" argument is both stupid and extremely dangerous. Hope you don't mind the 4th Amendment not applying to your computer.
At the time, the states were concerned that a federal standing army might take away their state sovereignty. This actually occurred during the US Civil War, when the southern states attempted to secede from the union and were overwhelmed by military forces. Some of the uses of military power against US civilians have been more clearly unconstitutional, such as the imprisonment of Japanese American in concentration camps during WW II: that internment should actually be mentioned more as people review President Trump's policies on immigration.
However, at the time the Constitution was written, private citizens did not typically maintain an _armory_. Black powder was much more dangerous to store in bulk, so even quite small communities maintained a common reserve where gun owners would share the cost and maintenance and bulk resupply. Circulating through a bulk supply, rather than maintaining your own long-term reserve, was safer and far more cost effective. The result was that the ammunition for mass murder or military resistance was in short supply for most gun owners. Some historical review shows that even an infantryman of that era might have roughly 60 rounds:
By nonviolence I make an exception for provocation and don't recommend disarmament. Recreational violence where both parties agree to some form of wailing on each other, doesn't count againt the sort of non-violence I propose, either.
Diplomacy should be used though and with North Korea we've left them up to their own devices too much. We treat them like they should have sovereignty. The UN in its current form is an absurdity. Until nations can adopt a culture of understanding their citizens, they should not be considered friendly participants in a proper world government. Rulers of such countries should be notified that if they attack the world community,retaliation will be swift and certain. Constant in your face diplomacy should be used. In some situations air dropping or otherwise smuggling foodand in some circumstances weapons to the citizens should be in order so that they are not so sympathetic to their inappropriate rulers. Something along the lines of character assassination should be done. Whatever someone who behaves without understanding of his fellow man enough should be learned about him that appropriate rewards/punishments for good/bad behavior can be devised.
The 169 sample size in this case, with 74% of respondents making choice A over choice B, gives a 99.9% confidence interval that if you polled the ENTIRE population, between 63% to 85% of respondents (a majority) would make choice A.
Your argument about insufficient sample size is invalid. Ask a trusted friend who knows stats.
For the Left literally every gun law is not only "reasonable" but essential.
For the right only laws that primarily effect criminals are reasonable, and not all of them.
Ok so why don't you fix society and until you have a good handle on nutcases people keep their guns?
lucm, indeed.
So what you're proposing is a worldwide police state where countries and/or people who don't follow your vision are punished. Sounds like dictatorship to me, minus the positive aspects like less money spent on elections.
lucm, indeed.
The average bank robber gets a few thousand and ten or more years. It's a true idiots crime.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What is the big deal? The US military has THOUSANDS of nukes. I only have three.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Slower firing, but much greater accuracy. One thing redcoats were good at, was reloading and firing rapidly, but no generally accurately. They trained at it constantly, IIRC 3 shots/minute was their standard.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're such a party pooper. Can't you let suicidal people dream a bit?
lucm, indeed.
it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon.
Citation? Because that sure sounds like a load of Grump to me. Cannon were not something the "average citizen" could afford to buy with a lifetime of earnings.
Let me explain to you how quotation marks work, son. You put them around things which are actually quotations, not things you imagined people said. In the meantime, google is your friend. Learn to internet.
the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
I never said it wasn't at the time.
Ha! "wasn't at the time" — guess what? That intent never changed, and it's still a good idea.
But these days a military weapon is a AIM 120 or a nuclear weapon, which is illegal as hell for you to own.
Nobody has any business actually using nuclear weapons, so that is a stupid argument we're all tired of hearing. And I am not happy that the baby-killing industry is sitting on so many missiles, rockets, and bombs, either.
And if you are jutnob enough to think you can have a stand up fight with LEO/government and win,
That was the whole point of the second amendment. To keep the arms in the hands of the citizens, so that the government couldn't have a fight with the citizenry, because the military was the citizenry.
and I don't care if your beer buddies come over to help you out, the Army will have more, and bigger weapons. Yeah, being armed isn't going to help you at all in that case.
This really isn't about overthrow of the government in times of peace. It's more about things like resisting being rounded up into concentration camps in time of war, if you happen to be one of the unpopular kids. Why don't you go talk to your local enlisted and ask them how they would like to go street to street and door to door in their own country hunting down people who haven't done anything wrong, who oh by the way are also going to be shooting at them, rigging up IEDs, etc.
You might try moderating your alcohol intake, because you are acting like a complete jerk.
You might try not being a disingenuous douchebag.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon
And do you apply that same reasoning to the 1st Amendment? Are color magazines and DVDs and computers not protected under the 1st Amendment? After all, at the time all they had was quill pens and parchment and very simple manual printing presses.
Do you see how stupid that reasoning is?
Sure, until the embankments are in place, the dinghies are a good idea. But goddammit, don't protest against the embankments arguing that dinghies are a better solution!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Please stop with those analogies. They don't work.
lucm, indeed.
Too bad it's completely moot, since
A) the days when armed civilians actually stood some kind of chance against a modern army is long gone and
B) The "tyranny" referred to would be the British royal family... hardly a relevant threat anymore.
Just face it, gun nuts are compensating for some physical and/or mental deficiency, and that's why they go crazy when you threaten to take their guns away; you might as well threaten to cut their dicks off.
Do you need a doctor? Every bone in your body must be broken after the fucked up pretzel you twisted yourself into to make that logic work!
Does using all those italics mean the statements are accurate and valid citations providing evidence to your claims instead of marking areas of your statements that are conjecture and opinion?
It's an idiot's crime unless it is your retirement plan. Wait until you are 65 or so or cannot keep a job any longer, Go on bank robbing spree, spending and enjoying yourself until you get caught, then have the state give you 3 hots and a cot for the rest of your natural life. If they release you earlier, rinse and repeat.
Truthfully, its a more sound retirement strategy than social security and the lottery that a lot of people rely on. You will likely have a better quality of life in the process if you don't mind a girlfriend named Chad.
If a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, then they probably won't kill themselves.
Assuming that nearly 100% of people who use guns to commit suicide would not do so absent the gun, then yes, just barely "probably". Like, 50.9% "probably".
Let's take a look at the reality of the situation.
Only 50.9% of suicides in the US make use of a gun. Are you telling me that at least 20,300 of the 20,666 people who committed suicide by gun in 2012 would not have killed themselves had they not had a gun? Do you really not think at least 366 of them would have fallen back on suffocation, poisoning, or hanging, which account for 41.4% of suicides?
I'd say, statistically speaking, 41.4% (8,349) of them would have. That's 20.6% of all suicides in the US, which drops the incidence of suicide that would be prevented by the absence of guns to a mere 30.3%, if you also ignore the remaining forms of suicide, which make up another 7.7% of suicides in the US.
When you consider those other methods methods, you must admit that the difference between guns suicides and non-gun suicides is only 1.8%; that hardly makes guns more effective; it just indicates that they're more typically chosen.
That 1.8% variance represents the suicides which would likely be prevented if there were no guns. That's 730 suicidal lives which would have been saved in 2012; how many lives did guns save in that time?
Then, there's the fact that guns exist and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Even if we restrict gun ownership to police and military, you need to realize that police and military suicides are not uncommon. In 2012, 126 police officers and 349 soldiers committed suicide. That further reduces the number of gun suicides we can prevent from 730 to 255. That's just 0.6%.
Furthermore, as long as guns and/or the knowledge, tools, and materials required to build them exist, even if restricted to police and military, criminals will be able to get their hands on them (theft, illegal manufacture, etc); and if a criminal can get one, so can a suicidal person, which leaves the door open to suicide by gun for any of the remaining 255 souls who are so inclined.
If guns could disappear tomorrow, along with the knowledge required to make them, I'd be fine with that happening. I mean, I'd want the $2000+ I've spent on them back, but other than that, yes, I think we'd be better off. But, as long as they exist, I'm going to hit the range at least twice a month and make loud noises while putting holes in paper targets at a distance.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I cut off my 2nd to last paragraph too soon. It should continue thus:
Statistically speaking, 50.9% of them would be so inclined; therefore, banning guns would only, in all likelihood, have prevented 125 suicides in 2012. Again, how many lives did guns save that year? We don't have those statistics, because when a criminal turns and runs away at the sight of a gun, the person who didn't have to pull the trigger doesn't typically report it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Also, as a courtesy, my sources: military suicides in 2012 and police suicides in 2015 (2012 total is provided within).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Do you have any idea what kind of life US social security can bring you in the third world. That assumes SS will be there, I'm not so sure, but still. At this point, you'd be a fool not to seriously consider 'globalizing' your retirement (but leave your funds out of reach of local keptocrats), having been beaten with the same stick for decades.
You have obviously had a white bread upbringing. Nobody you know has ever gone up? If they had, you would realize that prison doctors are among the worst and a prisoner's best bet is to not get sick. Because the doctors will usually make it worse. Fed might be better, but I bet it's not much better.
Bank robbers don't go to minimum security farms ether.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A) Yep. That's why asymmetric warfare is not a problem. NOT!
B) By the time the second amendment was written, the British were no longer in control of what had been their colonies.
Just face it, you don't really know all that much about this.
If only a US social security recipient lived in the third world.... Well that would be kind of pointless because if it didn't exist, the third world country would be recreated within a sub part of the US.
As for the " white bread upbringing".. You must be delusional. Sure people have gone up but it doesn't mean everyone has. I have had more opportunities when I was younger to find work than kids today mostly due to increased regulation and child labor laws and general work ethics. Even then, I know a lot of people who didn't make out as well as I did and will be relying on the old SSI and the lottery for their retirement if they live long enough.
Doctors aren't really an issue either. In my 40+ years of life, I have only went to a doctor for broken bones and stitches until recently when I decided to control my blood pressure and sugar. Prison doctors can handle that just fine and it will likely be more than they get now without a charge.
Lots of US SS recipients live in the third world. They live like kings instead of on cat food.
If you had been around half as much as you claim, somebody you know would have experienced 'prison medical care' and you would know just how out of your ass you are speaking.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You are comparing the king of a third world country to the meager existence of a poor person with no assets trying to get by on Social Security. It doesn't matter that you used words like King- it is still the same shit experience sometimes. We are not the third world and we become accustomed to better qualities of life. It really is that simple. Even in prison in the US, people live better quality of life than some third world people have it.
As for Prison medical care, for the working poor in the US, it can still be better or more medical care then they currently receive. Even with Obamacare, the plans have deductibles so high that almost no one uses it to the point of benefiting them unless something major happens. They either walk it off or wait until they cannot ignore it any more just like they did before Obamacare except now they either pay for something they do not use or have their tax refunds confiscated for the privilege of being a citizen. Prison medical care is likely more than they get currently or no different than they would normally receive.
Obamacare did little to change access to care for a lot of working people. It mostly changed access to coverage which in some cases hurt more than it helped.
Am I to suppose the BSA represents me because I own a computer? Or that the MPAA represents me because I own a few DVDs? Or that FSF represents me because I sometimes code in emacs? Or that various eco-terrorists represent me because I think than many of their chosen targets actually are assholes?
You seriously need to rethink that small word "represents".
Alt-right is
actually....a self-adopted term.
Not that it's an entirely new group, you are correct in that they are just a subset of the far right, it's just developed over time in some different manifestations, and prefers to have its own identity for various reasons.
The original political spectrum looked like this:
Nope!
Left-Right Politics:
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.[6]
The terms "Right" and "Left" refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics.
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties.[4] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left, because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy; but outside of parliamentary politics, these views are often characterized as being on the Right.
Look, you're not going to win points by using your emotional anger to drive you to lie. Stick with actual facts, not your latest ravings from the toilet. Nobody pays attention to just another kook whining about things that aren't even remotely factual.
Besides, if you want to talk political spectrum try to get a bit more informed. There are several variants that can be used, you don't need to falsely pretend towards accuracy that you don't possess. You can pursue a more legitimate course.
Never seen " fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more ". Please cite!
The Supreme Court case that banned sawed-off shotguns in the 1930's was U.S. v Miller. Miller had no advocate arguing his case, so it was pretty one-sided. The decision banning short-barreled shotguns was because the government argued they had no military purpose, despite them having been used pretty extensively in war prior to and after this. The current US Army shotgun is often issued with a barrel well under the 16-inch minimum required for civilians, as are the rifles.
Let me rephrase this: According to US v Miller, a Supreme Court case from the 1930's, only military-style weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. If a weapon has no military purpose, the 2nd Amendment does not apply.
I'm certain that I have encountered vegetables with a larger capacity for reasoning and logic than you.
Excepta wider range of activities are explicitly allowed than in any currently existing state.
People who don't follow the "vision" enshrined in our laws are already punished, so there's no real difference on that particular element.
Actually, yes.
The original intention of the second amendment was that the citizens should own the weapons of war, that would tend to include nuclear weapons.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Am I to suppose the BSA represents me because I own a computer? Or that the MPAA represents me because I own a few DVDs? Or that FSF represents me because I sometimes code in emacs? Or that various eco-terrorists represent me because I think than many of their chosen targets actually are assholes?
I get what you are trying to say (though most of those organizations represent corporations who are fighting with their customers, as opposed to the gun industry who are pretty well aligned with their customers). In the case of the NRA, lets change the example to one that more closely resembles the situation with the NRA: if there were a large contingent of politicians who wanted to take away or dramatically infringe on your right to own a computer or have online access because, while admittedly useful to you, "many children are being damaged by online porn and child predators", so we need "computer and internet regulation and controls," to ensure "internet safety." (I basically just transposed for the word gun) I am pretty sure you would donate to the EFF or some other similar organization to fight for your personal freedom and rights, and most people who want to own computers/have online access would feel that the EFF or similar represented them, whether they donated to it or not, and computer ownership/internet access is not even a right spelled out in the constitution.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like