Interestingly enough, I have the same problem with people who claim to be liberal: telling me how to live my life (no guns, can't defend yourself, take all my money in taxes). Last night I concluded Libertarians are the only group I can stand. The others suck more than Jenna Jameson trying to set a career record.
Do you have links to the sources of your claims, like:
1. ([I]n which case any argument that doesn't put an automatic weapon in the hands of a fourteen year old is a lie).
2. I will state emphatically that owning a gun is just a pointless danger, and is utterly unnecessary if you take the proper precautions I otherwise indicated.
3. Even if you don't buy the danger of having a gun present in a situation (it is a danger, but your entitlted to your opinion) you WILL be sued for damages if you shoot a trespasser in almost any state except Texas. In that case your brash gun ownership results in someone gaining the ability to sue you for your home instead of robbing something from it.
4. If someone lives in South-Central LA, why should the law-abiding have to run away from the criminals?
5. At the end of the day I own nothing that is even fractionally as valuable as me and mine, and I don't have any interest in buying a weapon that could pose even a minimal risk to them (accidental firing, intruder use, whatever). And before you evem talk about gun locks don't make me laugh. Almost every person who owns a gun that I've seen doesn't even USE a gun lock, despite what the NRA might argue to the contrary. (Note: the NRA courses that I've taken actively encourage the use of locks and safes.)
I'd also encourage you to add the, "This is a gun free home" sign to your lawn because, after all, guns only cause crime.
I live in NH, too... and I don't like the swing state label because the increased political ads are going to drive me insane for the next two months, and I hardly even watch TV! (If you don't mind me asking, which rough area are you in... always interested to see where Slashdotters live in NH. Me, I'm on the seacoast.)
Now, in response to your post: I don't believe my sentances are contradictory. If I elect someone to make decisions for me, I think it's still democratic. And I'm also not going to tell other states how to run their electoral college process. That'd be undemocratic;-)
I'd also add that the electoral college fits into the grand scheme of balance the FF strove for. The President's power is supposed to be offset by the frequently and completely democratically elected House, the protected-from-the-popular-passion-of-the-people Senate (with their six-year terms), and the appointed Judiciary (but you know all this, of course). Why is congress directly elected and not the president? Because they're different entities with different jobs and responsibilites.
If we all elect the president directly, why would there be a need for the Congress? Why would candidates pay attention to small states? At least in this case, they're forced to stop by Wyoming or VT instead of ignoring it.
Sorry for the babbeling, incoherent statements. Have a good one.
Doesn't corruption require malice? Have you ever been to Florida? The people are stupid. Really, really stupid (not the transplants, the home-growns). I'm surprised that many people in Florida can read the names of the people on the ballots.
>>[T]here is no serious effort to eliminate the Electoral College. That is highly indicative of a broken system.
Or, because 2/3 of the country won't vote to change it? I'd also argue it's not undemocratic, as the representatives are simply voting for who their state voted for. Very few states give their representatives the power to choose on their own.
Besides, is there really a reason to change it? It forces candidates to go to the small, toss-up states (like NH) instead of just going for the big-cheese states (NY or CA). Do you really want the outright tyranny of the majority? After all, in a democracy, it's the minority that needs to be looked after, not the majority.
I believe some smart gentleman also said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
I recommend the George Will article at the end of the Newsweek with the fat cells on the cover, that came out a week and a half ago, for some pretty good reasoning behind why the electoral college should stay. But hey, if you don't like it, there are provisions in the Const. for changing it. Good luck to you!
Re:Why supercarriers and nukes and spacelasers?
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Would you rather the US do nuclear tests using real bombs? Me, neither.
And, I thought the UN was supposed to be the arbiter of world affairs, not a ruler.
Isn't it the President* who orders the launch but the Generals who press the buttons? Many would argue that since the US didn't use nukes after 9/11 (Thank God), it'd be pretty unlikely they'd be used for anything short of a retaliatory strike.
* Assuming one thinks the Prez is a religious fundamentalist
I thought it was the Senate who chose not to ratify the treaty. If so, wouldn't they need to change their biz model to, "Let's bribe the whole Senate?"
Actually, my state (NH) has crime rates as low as W. Europe and lots of guns. The NH Constitution also recognizes our right to armed revolution. I'd also point out that tanks and tear gas don't hold territory, soldiers do (see Iraq, Somalia). I'd also expect many soldiers to, ya know, uphold the Constitution. Besides, many of the people who die as a result of firearms are criminals killing themselves. Not that I'm saying it's a good thing (trials are), but that it's not like innocent school children are getting blown away by the thousands.
There are eighty million gun owners in the US, and about 250 million guns in the US. Most shoot paper and clay pigeons. I'd argue that it's the people who are the instruments of death, not an inanimate object.
>>There are many lessons for Americans to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these is this: Allowing each household to own a fully automatic AK-47 does not seem to have created an orderly or peaceful society.
One could argue one would have to have some sort of semblance of a peaceful and orderly society (not held together by a dictator but by choice) before the AKs are handed out. But the dudes with the AKs sure are giving their perceived enemies some headaches.
I'd also argue that some of Sen. Feinstein's quotes lead me to believe SHE REALLY DOES WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE GUNS.
I'm a reasonably technical person and I frequently buy service plans on many items I purchase. Why? Because I'm chronically unlucky. LL Bean loses money on almost every purchase I make, because stuff just breaks on me. I think I go through more zippers than John Holmes and Ron Jeremy put together. Back when Gateway was still good, we got the plan. And we used it. A lot.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. The problem is that you have to cut spending as well. Mr. Bush didn't have the balls to do it. Neither did Congress.
Interestingly enough, I have the same problem with people who claim to be liberal: telling me how to live my life (no guns, can't defend yourself, take all my money in taxes). Last night I concluded Libertarians are the only group I can stand. The others suck more than Jenna Jameson trying to set a career record.
How about NH? Super-low murder rate, lots of guns. And, it'd be even lower if people from MA weren't streaming across the border.
Do you have links to the sources of your claims, like:
1. ([I]n which case any argument that doesn't put an automatic weapon in the hands of a fourteen year old is a lie).
2. I will state emphatically that owning a gun is just a pointless danger, and is utterly unnecessary if you take the proper precautions I otherwise indicated.
3. Even if you don't buy the danger of having a gun present in a situation (it is a danger, but your entitlted to your opinion) you WILL be sued for damages if you shoot a trespasser in almost any state except Texas. In that case your brash gun ownership results in someone gaining the ability to sue you for your home instead of robbing something from it.
4. If someone lives in South-Central LA, why should the law-abiding have to run away from the criminals?
5. At the end of the day I own nothing that is even fractionally as valuable as me and mine, and I don't have any interest in buying a weapon that could pose even a minimal risk to them (accidental firing, intruder use, whatever). And before you evem talk about gun locks don't make me laugh. Almost every person who owns a gun that I've seen doesn't even USE a gun lock, despite what the NRA might argue to the contrary. (Note: the NRA courses that I've taken actively encourage the use of locks and safes.)
I'd also encourage you to add the, "This is a gun free home" sign to your lawn because, after all, guns only cause crime.
I'd say it's pretty horrible that a "proud Canadian" would believe anybody deserves a "Police State."
Interestingly enough, Fox News gave F9/11 rave reviews ;-)
I live in NH, too... and I don't like the swing state label because the increased political ads are going to drive me insane for the next two months, and I hardly even watch TV! (If you don't mind me asking, which rough area are you in... always interested to see where Slashdotters live in NH. Me, I'm on the seacoast.)
;-)
Now, in response to your post: I don't believe my sentances are contradictory. If I elect someone to make decisions for me, I think it's still democratic. And I'm also not going to tell other states how to run their electoral college process. That'd be undemocratic
I'd also add that the electoral college fits into the grand scheme of balance the FF strove for. The President's power is supposed to be offset by the frequently and completely democratically elected House, the protected-from-the-popular-passion-of-the-people Senate (with their six-year terms), and the appointed Judiciary (but you know all this, of course). Why is congress directly elected and not the president? Because they're different entities with different jobs and responsibilites.
If we all elect the president directly, why would there be a need for the Congress? Why would candidates pay attention to small states? At least in this case, they're forced to stop by Wyoming or VT instead of ignoring it.
Sorry for the babbeling, incoherent statements. Have a good one.
Doesn't corruption require malice? Have you ever been to Florida? The people are stupid. Really, really stupid (not the transplants, the home-growns). I'm surprised that many people in Florida can read the names of the people on the ballots.
>>[T]here is no serious effort to eliminate the Electoral College. That is highly indicative of a broken system.
Or, because 2/3 of the country won't vote to change it? I'd also argue it's not undemocratic, as the representatives are simply voting for who their state voted for. Very few states give their representatives the power to choose on their own.
Besides, is there really a reason to change it? It forces candidates to go to the small, toss-up states (like NH) instead of just going for the big-cheese states (NY or CA). Do you really want the outright tyranny of the majority? After all, in a democracy, it's the minority that needs to be looked after, not the majority.
I believe some smart gentleman also said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
I recommend the George Will article at the end of the Newsweek with the fat cells on the cover, that came out a week and a half ago, for some pretty good reasoning behind why the electoral college should stay. But hey, if you don't like it, there are provisions in the Const. for changing it. Good luck to you!
Would you rather the US do nuclear tests using real bombs? Me, neither.
And, I thought the UN was supposed to be the arbiter of world affairs, not a ruler.
Yeah, I found it to be about 900 feet long, which I considered close enough. I mean, if it was 500 feet long that would have been one thing...
I'm just waiting for the 1,500 foot long carrier called the USS Ron Jeremy.
I'm waiting for the civilian version for use against moles and gophers in my lawn!
Isn't it the President* who orders the launch but the Generals who press the buttons? Many would argue that since the US didn't use nukes after 9/11 (Thank God), it'd be pretty unlikely they'd be used for anything short of a retaliatory strike.
* Assuming one thinks the Prez is a religious fundamentalist
For France to have supercarriers, don't they need to have more than one? The only carrier I could find was the Charles de Gaul.
I don't think any of those countries signed the NNPT. Why not Russia and China, too*? After all, it's a pretty small club.
* Also not signatories of the NNTP, I think.
Because they don't have nuclear weapons or programs to obtain them (to my knowledge, anyway), which I believe was the topic at hand.
I thought it was the Senate who chose not to ratify the treaty. If so, wouldn't they need to change their biz model to, "Let's bribe the whole Senate?"
Actually, my state (NH) has crime rates as low as W. Europe and lots of guns. The NH Constitution also recognizes our right to armed revolution. I'd also point out that tanks and tear gas don't hold territory, soldiers do (see Iraq, Somalia). I'd also expect many soldiers to, ya know, uphold the Constitution. Besides, many of the people who die as a result of firearms are criminals killing themselves. Not that I'm saying it's a good thing (trials are), but that it's not like innocent school children are getting blown away by the thousands.
Aren't people at the county level responsible for the voting lists? Aren't those people all over the political spectrum?
We don't trust our government. Do you blindly trust yours? Also, few other "developed" countries recognize their citizens rights of self-defense.
Was the USSR a developed nation? How many people did Stalin kill? Who wants to be a gov't statistic?
There are eighty million gun owners in the US, and about 250 million guns in the US. Most shoot paper and clay pigeons. I'd argue that it's the people who are the instruments of death, not an inanimate object.
;-)
Or you could ask the Swiss
>>There are many lessons for Americans to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these is this: Allowing each household to own a fully automatic AK-47 does not seem to have created an orderly or peaceful society.
One could argue one would have to have some sort of semblance of a peaceful and orderly society (not held together by a dictator but by choice) before the AKs are handed out. But the dudes with the AKs sure are giving their perceived enemies some headaches.
I'd also argue that some of Sen. Feinstein's quotes lead me to believe SHE REALLY DOES WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE GUNS.
You're right, the (whacko) liberals are paragons of virtue, and would never lie, ever! :-)
Wow, three people. I didn't realize the Hollywood actor pool had shrunk down to five people (giving the Rs the lead).
I'm a reasonably technical person and I frequently buy service plans on many items I purchase. Why? Because I'm chronically unlucky. LL Bean loses money on almost every purchase I make, because stuff just breaks on me. I think I go through more zippers than John Holmes and Ron Jeremy put together. Back when Gateway was still good, we got the plan. And we used it. A lot.