This inevitable increase in use of alternative energy is never taken into account by climate models that assume an ever increasing generation of CO2.
Do you understand that part of this move towards renewable energy sources is because of the danger of climate change? This is in response to it, and many of the models are there to show what would happen if we kept doing what we were doing. So, naturally, if we change how we do things, then we're going to change the outcome, aren't we?
You remember back when there was a big blowback against any aerosol product that contained CFCs, with all the nerds talking about how if we kept doing that then the ozone layer was going to be severely damaged or even destroyed? You remember that? So, why do we still have an ozone layer? Is it because we fucking took action to avoid the danger despite any random idiot who thought the nerds might not be right?
Anyway, a while back in a story about some stupid shit that Apple was doing, we were having a conversation and I made a couple points and then you just dropped out, no more replies. I was worried about you, thought that if you just ditched the conversation like that then you must have gotten hurt or sick. Glad to see you feeling better again, sport.
So what they are actually saying is the renewables, only on 2050, will only comprise 50% of the power.
Moving from 13% to 50% over 32 years in your mind is "only"? Power generation is a major part of the national and global economy, with a tremendous amount of existing (yet outdated) infrastructure, and there are many forces making a great deal of money on existing cheap, dirty energy sources that are trying to keep their hands in the pie. They are spending a great deal of money, for example on "public relations" attempts to do things like smear their opponents by calling them names like "envirowackos" or whatever other stupid term they come up with, hoping that they can get enough unintelligent or uneducated people to buy their bullshit. If we achieve 50% renewable generation in my lifetime in the face of their resistance then that's a major win.
they want to/are tearing down dams left and right
Can you cite a source for that? I'm looking to my left and my right and I don't see a lot of torn down dams. Assuming, of course, you don't count the recently publicized failures of new dams under construction.
Antisemitism is horrific and deplorable, but it is not racism.
Maybe so, but "ethnoreligious hatred" takes more typing. Regardless, I'm less concerned with applying specific labels to APK by definition, and more about pointing out the fact that he's an objectively bad person. I'm sure that he has good parts to him, but they never win in the fights in his head. Even if he has some sort of redeeming quality, he makes a choice to hide that from people and just spew out his shit instead.
Haven't you heard? If any reporter or journalist or anything like that is discussing an earthquake, they are required by law to use the word "temblor" at least once. In case you're wondering, the definition of "temblor" is "synonym for earthquake only used by journalists".
But hey, since it was from the "wrong party", he must now be cast a racist.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation (and many Republicans would suggest that Trump is not one of them), it has to do with the fact that he's a terrible American, person, and president. He's saluting North Korean generals and giving them everything they want while talking about what a great guy Kim is. He's got a policy of separating kids from parents, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's so bad that he's trying to force Democrats to buckle and give him his wall that he can't otherwise get. This is a policy that his wife has come out against. It is blatantly un-American. If Republicans want to claim Trump and his policies as their own, that's on them, but there's no reason to hate against an entire party when there's so much to hate in the man himself. And, don't worry, those things I brought up were just from last week, every week there's a new stupid thing he's done that we can talk about again. History books are not going to be kind to Trump and his un-American policies and attitudes, and those who support him.
Well, consider if it were you. If you're a coal miner from a coal mining family in the US, and all you know how to do is mine coal, then maybe you notice that in the US coal production has fallen off a cliff since the 70s. Since all you know how to do is take rocks out of the ground, you decide to go to China to work in a coal mine there. But you haven't left your nationalistic fervor at home, even when you're there you're wearing your American flag shorts, tank top, and hat since that's the only apparel you own. So, there you are, in another country because of work, but you still insist on wearing your flag clothes and drinking Bud Light. The Chinese locals insist that Bud Light is crap and Tsingtao is where it's at, but you can't understand them anyway because you never bothered to learn the language.
Right on man, use whatever you want. But if you decide to fire up OS/2 Warp, don't be super shocked that a lot of recent software doesn't run on it. Seriously, developers are not obligated to support any piece of software. Whatever they support, they choose to do so.
That being said, giving your (small share of) customers only 6 months to upgrade their OS is a little rough.
OK, but if the purpose is anonymity, like the person I replied to said "you never use your real name online", then how am I going to both stay anonymous and also protect my work? If I'm going to sue someone for infringement, don't I have to prove that I have the right to do so? How do I do that while staying anonymous?
You're saying that if he registered and did business under a company called Substack, Inc., then he wouldn't be protected against someone else starting a company called Substack? That's great news. As a developer of software for microcomputers, I'm going to start a company called Micro-Soft. Sounds pretty catchy.
But he's already using his name. It says "James Halliday" right on his Github page. The headline says "well-known OSS developer". He's not interested in anonymity, in fact quite the opposite, it sounds like he wants credit for his work, like a lot of people. There's not much reason to use a handle at all. Especially if he's trying to protect his work. If I put "copyright amicusNYCL" on something, I really doubt that would hold up in court.
Would you say that only the disciplined should be armed?
I think that you're expecting me to defend a point that I'm not trying to defend. I'm not arguing that arbitrary people in the US should not be allowed to own guns. I own guns, both for hunting and protection. I'm not trying to suggest that this needs to change. What I'm trying to suggest, and the law appears to agree with me, is that the second amendment does not necessarily guarantee the unrestricted access and use of any weapon. There are plenty of classes of guns and other weapons which have special requirements for private ownership, and I think that is reasonable. In fact, I think it is completely unreasonable to assert that the second amendment gives free access to any weapon, or, just as importantly, that since it does not restrict weapons, then no weapons should be restricted.
I think it's reasonable and correct to believe that the founders believed that we would need to make hard decisions based on things that they didn't think of. One of those things is classes of weapons. If they saw the fact that today someone could enter a tall building and fire several hundred rounds into a crowd of free people who are freely associating, and this person can kill dozens and wound hundreds by himself with that 1 weapon in minutes, for any arbitrary reason (or no reason at all), and that the free people themselves are under attack from domestic threats like these, that we would want to take some action to protect ourselves. I do not believe the second amendment stops us from being able to take those actions, I don't think that they intended to limit us in that way. I do not think they intended to say that we are not allowed to pass laws to restrict private ownership of any weapon, in perpetuity. I think it is perfectly reasonable and rational for us to restrict ownership of the kinds of weapons that can quickly cause mass casualties, because if you think otherwise then it sounds like you think the founders wanted to trade the tyranny of kings for the tyranny of individuals attacking the free people at will (literally - any time they want, in a school for example) and doing tremendous damage. I do not think they wanted that to happen. I have serious doubts that Madison and Washington wanted to see unhinged individuals on the margins of society gain access to a relatively small quantity of weapons and ammunition and use that to inflict dozens or hundreds of citizen casualties in minutes before any good guy with a gun can respond. Or, I don't think they intended for our legitimate foreign enemies to be able to enter the US under peaceful intentions, and then arm themselves here (again, with weapons capable of causing a tremendous amount of casualties in a very short time) and then attack us when we aren't expecting it, due to the fact that we do not in fact all walk around armed all the time. It is not reasonable to expect a population to do that.
I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns, or that only certain people should, or whatever. I'm saying that we have the right to limit the weapons that we want to be legally privately owned. I do not see anything in the Constitution or the amendments which restricts our ability to say which weapons we do and do not want in public. "Keep and bear arms" does not necessarily mean any arm, any time. It does not mean unrestricted access. I have guns, and I'm going to keep and bear them if necessary, but it's also pretty fucking common sense to suggest that maybe it's a bad idea to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a M249 or M134 and head over to the elementary school or hospital or concert and fire it up.
We have decided that there are locations where guns are unlawful, and we have decided that certain kinds of guns are unlawful to own privately without additional permits and documentation. This is reasonable, and Constitutional. It should be expanded to include additional classes of guns that people have consistently and repeatedly used to attack the free people.
No, the militia is the whole of the people. They don't use "everyone" because of word choice.
While I appreciate your ability to bend things to fit your ideas, I'm skeptical that there is any evidence to back up either of your claims. I don't think that's what they meant when they said "well-regulated militia." I don't think that they intended everyone to be running around with weapons all the time, I think they meant that each city, county, state, etc should be able to defend itself with a recognized designated fighting force that is actually regulated (regulated as in actually regulated, not what you think regulated means; I mean a leadership structure, rules, etc).
I'm a gun owner, and I think we need more restrictions. I'll talk about it with my family in Texas when I'm there in a few weeks, they own guns too. Doesn't stop you from calling me "soy boy" or whatever else you think will get a reaction, but the fact is that many gun owners want increased control as well.
They can't ban or restrict guns because there is insufficient political support for that. They can't increase spending on mental health because there is no political support for that either.
Wow, it's like you understood when I said there's no willpower. Yes, there is no political willpower to do anything about guns in the United States. What do I propose? I propose learning how to live with that fact, because it doesn't appear like it's going to change any time soon. The gun crowd has won, try not to get too upset when people die in a mass shooting every week or so.
Yeah, wow, you really gave it to that Anonymous Coward. At least you're not using some random idiot's words to paint an entire half of the population that you disagree with.
Well, given the obvious meaning of well-regulated: http://constitution.org/cons/w... [constitution.org] And the fact that the militia is the whole of the people, then yes, definitely.
Good one. "The entire citizenry is a well-regulated militia." Shit, I guess if definitions can be stretched like that then what's the point in even having a discussion?
Although: here's a thought. If the entire citizenry is a "well-regulated militia", then why do you think they included the phrase "well-regulated militia" instead of just saying "everyone"?
Good, as long as you're part of a well-regulated militia then I'll believe you're trying to adhere to the Constitution. If you just want to keep a gun in your house because it makes you feel powerful then I don't think you can use the Constitution as a crutch. Also, like the other poster said, if you believe in a person's right to bear any and all weapons they choose, good for you for being consistent. If you think people shouldn't be allowed to own fighter planes with bombs and missiles or a mini gun or hand grenades, then we're only arguing about where the line should be drawn.
Unless the government sold you the gun, it's not a buyback.
What you want to call it is completely irrelevant.
How? What about the millions of that sort already in circulation which you are never going to see bought back?
Well, I would assume any such law would have a deadline, and unlicensed guns after that deadline would be illegal. It's not a hard concept.
Not to mention the fact it is getting increasingly easy to build your own.
Sure, like drugs, or bombs, or anything else that we say is illegal.
Given most pistols are semi-automatic, you are going to be hard pressed to legislate such a thing
I never even mentioned pistols. It's not hard to legislate that. Start with barrel length, maybe explosive force. Really, these barriers you're throwing up aren't difficult to work around.
let alone the simple 'fun' argument for plinking.
Whoa there, pal, buddy, it's not called the "Bill Of Fun." Last I checked it wasn't the "Bill Of Plinking."
Depends on what you are hunting, sometimes semi-auto is more apt.
Wow, it's almost like you understood when I said there were niche cases. The 1 I can think of is hunting wild hogs. I'm sure there are others. But, again, the vast, vast majority of people do not need this. In fact, I bet the vast majority of gun owners in this country have never fired their weapon at an animal they are legally hunting.
Want to change that? Then let's talk about amending the constitution, which is the only real answer
I agree, the pro-gun crowd has won, they won a long time ago. School shootings and other things like that are just the price we pay. A constitutional amendment would be the only way forward. But feel free to look at the post I was replying to. I'm not talking about the path to get an amendment repealed and replaced, I'm talking about what the new law might say.
Saying "we accept they are fruits" but then judge they don't fall under fruits when it comes to taxation just does NOT make sense.
It definitely does, I don't understand your issue with this. "We accept that tomatoes are fruits, but we believe the author of the law meant for them to be taxed." I don't see why you have some issue with that statement. It is not a contradictory statement.
Imagine a law about whether blacks should be considered people or animals
Yikes. I'm going to skip the loaded appeal-to-emotion example if you don't mind.
The court SAYING they acknowledge it, but then not applying it, means they're NOT acknowledging it where it matters most; not in their words, but in their actions.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite. I believe that what the court is acknowledging is the intention of the law to tax tomatoes. They simply accept that tomatoes are fruits, that is not the legal opinion they were asked to rule on, and then they rule that the law should tax tomatoes. The takeaway from the case should be that tomatoes are taxed as vegetables, not that tomatoes are not fruit.
Do you understand what I'm saying, here?
Yes I do, I just think you're focusing on a minor mundane detail and missing the purpose of the lawsuit. You're too focused on the definition of a tomato instead of whether or not they were supposed to be taxed. The issue is whether or not they were supposed to be taxed, not adjudicating whether a tomato is a mineral or animal or whatever else.
For some reason, you seem to think what the court says about it ways heavier than how they actually have judged it to be. I disagree. You would too - presumably - if it was a case of high moral stake as the example I gave - but now you're just content arguing differently.
If you want to use extreme examples, allow me to present one. We have a law that says that we aren't allowed to kill people, that's murder. Now all of a sudden a population of Neanderthals turns up. They have a culture, a language, the whole nine, things we think of when we think of "people". Someone kills one of them. In his legal defense, he's trying to argue that Neanderthals are not "people", because "people" would refer to Homo Sapiens, therefore he can't "murder" one of them. What do you think the judge is going to do? Is the judge going to sit there and have an entire courtroom argument over the definition of "person", or is the judge going to conclude that the people who wrote the law weren't necessarily trying to limit the protections to only hominids of Homo Sapiens, and that a group with a clearly defined culture, language, spirituality, morphology which is so similar to ours that most common people probably couldn't tell the difference, making and using tools, building houses, cooking food, could reasonably be included in the group of "people", and that the person who said "don't kill people" probably would have meant them too. It doesn't matter what the specific morphology and phylogeny of these people is, don't fucking kill them. Easy. It doesn't matter what the nature of a tomato is. Pay your taxes. Stop trying to weasel out of it because you don't want to pay when everyone else is.
Saying "The world is round, but because people think it's flat (or the lawmaker thought it was flat) we're going to agree to a flat-earth tax" is stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, and grates with what one first said, namely that the Earth was round.
1) I agree 2) I don't see the connection between that and this.
If they KNOW the Earth is round, or a black a human, or a tomato a fruit, they need to be consistent and logical, REGARDLESS of intent or what trade-people think about it, and make a judgement in accordance with reality, as they - in fact - know it is.
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
You think? What about the complete disparity between people getting angry about a game involving school shootings, while also having absolutely no willpower to actually do anything about real school shootings?
I might suggest looking to Australia for examples we can use, regarding gun turn-in or buy-back programs. Maybe a start would be to further limit the kinds of guns that most people can buy. The vast majority of the public, for example, does not require a semi-automatic rifle of any kind. Every time any member of my family in Texas has gone hunting, the rifle was bolt-action. There are very niche use cases for semi-automatic rifles where special permits could be issued, but there's no reason they need to be generally available.
Slashdot Mirror
This inevitable increase in use of alternative energy is never taken into account by climate models that assume an ever increasing generation of CO2.
Do you understand that part of this move towards renewable energy sources is because of the danger of climate change? This is in response to it, and many of the models are there to show what would happen if we kept doing what we were doing. So, naturally, if we change how we do things, then we're going to change the outcome, aren't we?
You remember back when there was a big blowback against any aerosol product that contained CFCs, with all the nerds talking about how if we kept doing that then the ozone layer was going to be severely damaged or even destroyed? You remember that? So, why do we still have an ozone layer? Is it because we fucking took action to avoid the danger despite any random idiot who thought the nerds might not be right?
Anyway, a while back in a story about some stupid shit that Apple was doing, we were having a conversation and I made a couple points and then you just dropped out, no more replies. I was worried about you, thought that if you just ditched the conversation like that then you must have gotten hurt or sick. Glad to see you feeling better again, sport.
So what they are actually saying is the renewables, only on 2050, will only comprise 50% of the power.
Moving from 13% to 50% over 32 years in your mind is "only"? Power generation is a major part of the national and global economy, with a tremendous amount of existing (yet outdated) infrastructure, and there are many forces making a great deal of money on existing cheap, dirty energy sources that are trying to keep their hands in the pie. They are spending a great deal of money, for example on "public relations" attempts to do things like smear their opponents by calling them names like "envirowackos" or whatever other stupid term they come up with, hoping that they can get enough unintelligent or uneducated people to buy their bullshit. If we achieve 50% renewable generation in my lifetime in the face of their resistance then that's a major win.
they want to/are tearing down dams left and right
Can you cite a source for that? I'm looking to my left and my right and I don't see a lot of torn down dams. Assuming, of course, you don't count the recently publicized failures of new dams under construction.
Yes, when I have heard the name PopeRatzo, it is other people praising the power of your love. Hopefully you can make the turd that is APK shine.
Antisemitism is horrific and deplorable, but it is not racism.
Maybe so, but "ethnoreligious hatred" takes more typing. Regardless, I'm less concerned with applying specific labels to APK by definition, and more about pointing out the fact that he's an objectively bad person. I'm sure that he has good parts to him, but they never win in the fights in his head. Even if he has some sort of redeeming quality, he makes a choice to hide that from people and just spew out his shit instead.
Haven't you heard? If any reporter or journalist or anything like that is discussing an earthquake, they are required by law to use the word "temblor" at least once. In case you're wondering, the definition of "temblor" is "synonym for earthquake only used by journalists".
But hey, since it was from the "wrong party", he must now be cast a racist.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation (and many Republicans would suggest that Trump is not one of them), it has to do with the fact that he's a terrible American, person, and president. He's saluting North Korean generals and giving them everything they want while talking about what a great guy Kim is. He's got a policy of separating kids from parents, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's so bad that he's trying to force Democrats to buckle and give him his wall that he can't otherwise get. This is a policy that his wife has come out against. It is blatantly un-American. If Republicans want to claim Trump and his policies as their own, that's on them, but there's no reason to hate against an entire party when there's so much to hate in the man himself. And, don't worry, those things I brought up were just from last week, every week there's a new stupid thing he's done that we can talk about again. History books are not going to be kind to Trump and his un-American policies and attitudes, and those who support him.
The real APK may be many things, but he is not a racist.
That's simply untrue, I've seen him rail against Jews on more than one occasion.
Well, consider if it were you. If you're a coal miner from a coal mining family in the US, and all you know how to do is mine coal, then maybe you notice that in the US coal production has fallen off a cliff since the 70s. Since all you know how to do is take rocks out of the ground, you decide to go to China to work in a coal mine there. But you haven't left your nationalistic fervor at home, even when you're there you're wearing your American flag shorts, tank top, and hat since that's the only apparel you own. So, there you are, in another country because of work, but you still insist on wearing your flag clothes and drinking Bud Light. The Chinese locals insist that Bud Light is crap and Tsingtao is where it's at, but you can't understand them anyway because you never bothered to learn the language.
Right on man, use whatever you want. But if you decide to fire up OS/2 Warp, don't be super shocked that a lot of recent software doesn't run on it. Seriously, developers are not obligated to support any piece of software. Whatever they support, they choose to do so.
That being said, giving your (small share of) customers only 6 months to upgrade their OS is a little rough.
OK, but if the purpose is anonymity, like the person I replied to said "you never use your real name online", then how am I going to both stay anonymous and also protect my work? If I'm going to sue someone for infringement, don't I have to prove that I have the right to do so? How do I do that while staying anonymous?
You're saying that if he registered and did business under a company called Substack, Inc., then he wouldn't be protected against someone else starting a company called Substack? That's great news. As a developer of software for microcomputers, I'm going to start a company called Micro-Soft. Sounds pretty catchy.
It costs hardly anything to set up a company, just set up a company with your name and do your work under that.
But he's already using his name. It says "James Halliday" right on his Github page. The headline says "well-known OSS developer". He's not interested in anonymity, in fact quite the opposite, it sounds like he wants credit for his work, like a lot of people. There's not much reason to use a handle at all. Especially if he's trying to protect his work. If I put "copyright amicusNYCL" on something, I really doubt that would hold up in court.
First, I'll respond with a link:
You already posted that, and I already read it.
They should be "not only armed, but disciplined".
Would you say that only the disciplined should be armed?
I think that you're expecting me to defend a point that I'm not trying to defend. I'm not arguing that arbitrary people in the US should not be allowed to own guns. I own guns, both for hunting and protection. I'm not trying to suggest that this needs to change. What I'm trying to suggest, and the law appears to agree with me, is that the second amendment does not necessarily guarantee the unrestricted access and use of any weapon. There are plenty of classes of guns and other weapons which have special requirements for private ownership, and I think that is reasonable. In fact, I think it is completely unreasonable to assert that the second amendment gives free access to any weapon, or, just as importantly, that since it does not restrict weapons, then no weapons should be restricted.
I think it's reasonable and correct to believe that the founders believed that we would need to make hard decisions based on things that they didn't think of. One of those things is classes of weapons. If they saw the fact that today someone could enter a tall building and fire several hundred rounds into a crowd of free people who are freely associating, and this person can kill dozens and wound hundreds by himself with that 1 weapon in minutes, for any arbitrary reason (or no reason at all), and that the free people themselves are under attack from domestic threats like these, that we would want to take some action to protect ourselves. I do not believe the second amendment stops us from being able to take those actions, I don't think that they intended to limit us in that way. I do not think they intended to say that we are not allowed to pass laws to restrict private ownership of any weapon, in perpetuity. I think it is perfectly reasonable and rational for us to restrict ownership of the kinds of weapons that can quickly cause mass casualties, because if you think otherwise then it sounds like you think the founders wanted to trade the tyranny of kings for the tyranny of individuals attacking the free people at will (literally - any time they want, in a school for example) and doing tremendous damage. I do not think they wanted that to happen. I have serious doubts that Madison and Washington wanted to see unhinged individuals on the margins of society gain access to a relatively small quantity of weapons and ammunition and use that to inflict dozens or hundreds of citizen casualties in minutes before any good guy with a gun can respond. Or, I don't think they intended for our legitimate foreign enemies to be able to enter the US under peaceful intentions, and then arm themselves here (again, with weapons capable of causing a tremendous amount of casualties in a very short time) and then attack us when we aren't expecting it, due to the fact that we do not in fact all walk around armed all the time. It is not reasonable to expect a population to do that.
I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns, or that only certain people should, or whatever. I'm saying that we have the right to limit the weapons that we want to be legally privately owned. I do not see anything in the Constitution or the amendments which restricts our ability to say which weapons we do and do not want in public. "Keep and bear arms" does not necessarily mean any arm, any time. It does not mean unrestricted access. I have guns, and I'm going to keep and bear them if necessary, but it's also pretty fucking common sense to suggest that maybe it's a bad idea to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a M249 or M134 and head over to the elementary school or hospital or concert and fire it up.
We have decided that there are locations where guns are unlawful, and we have decided that certain kinds of guns are unlawful to own privately without additional permits and documentation. This is reasonable, and Constitutional. It should be expanded to include additional classes of guns that people have consistently and repeatedly used to attack the free people.
No, the militia is the whole of the people.
They don't use "everyone" because of word choice.
While I appreciate your ability to bend things to fit your ideas, I'm skeptical that there is any evidence to back up either of your claims. I don't think that's what they meant when they said "well-regulated militia." I don't think that they intended everyone to be running around with weapons all the time, I think they meant that each city, county, state, etc should be able to defend itself with a recognized designated fighting force that is actually regulated (regulated as in actually regulated, not what you think regulated means; I mean a leadership structure, rules, etc).
I'm a gun owner, and I think we need more restrictions. I'll talk about it with my family in Texas when I'm there in a few weeks, they own guns too. Doesn't stop you from calling me "soy boy" or whatever else you think will get a reaction, but the fact is that many gun owners want increased control as well.
They can't ban or restrict guns because there is insufficient political support for that. They can't increase spending on mental health because there is no political support for that either.
Wow, it's like you understood when I said there's no willpower. Yes, there is no political willpower to do anything about guns in the United States. What do I propose? I propose learning how to live with that fact, because it doesn't appear like it's going to change any time soon. The gun crowd has won, try not to get too upset when people die in a mass shooting every week or so.
Yeah, wow, you really gave it to that Anonymous Coward. At least you're not using some random idiot's words to paint an entire half of the population that you disagree with.
Well, given the obvious meaning of well-regulated: http://constitution.org/cons/w... [constitution.org]
And the fact that the militia is the whole of the people, then yes, definitely.
Good one. "The entire citizenry is a well-regulated militia." Shit, I guess if definitions can be stretched like that then what's the point in even having a discussion?
Although: here's a thought. If the entire citizenry is a "well-regulated militia", then why do you think they included the phrase "well-regulated militia" instead of just saying "everyone"?
Good, as long as you're part of a well-regulated militia then I'll believe you're trying to adhere to the Constitution. If you just want to keep a gun in your house because it makes you feel powerful then I don't think you can use the Constitution as a crutch. Also, like the other poster said, if you believe in a person's right to bear any and all weapons they choose, good for you for being consistent. If you think people shouldn't be allowed to own fighter planes with bombs and missiles or a mini gun or hand grenades, then we're only arguing about where the line should be drawn.
Unless the government sold you the gun, it's not a buyback.
What you want to call it is completely irrelevant.
How? What about the millions of that sort already in circulation which you are never going to see bought back?
Well, I would assume any such law would have a deadline, and unlicensed guns after that deadline would be illegal. It's not a hard concept.
Not to mention the fact it is getting increasingly easy to build your own.
Sure, like drugs, or bombs, or anything else that we say is illegal.
Given most pistols are semi-automatic, you are going to be hard pressed to legislate such a thing
I never even mentioned pistols. It's not hard to legislate that. Start with barrel length, maybe explosive force. Really, these barriers you're throwing up aren't difficult to work around.
let alone the simple 'fun' argument for plinking.
Whoa there, pal, buddy, it's not called the "Bill Of Fun." Last I checked it wasn't the "Bill Of Plinking."
Depends on what you are hunting, sometimes semi-auto is more apt.
Wow, it's almost like you understood when I said there were niche cases. The 1 I can think of is hunting wild hogs. I'm sure there are others. But, again, the vast, vast majority of people do not need this. In fact, I bet the vast majority of gun owners in this country have never fired their weapon at an animal they are legally hunting.
Want to change that? Then let's talk about amending the constitution, which is the only real answer
I agree, the pro-gun crowd has won, they won a long time ago. School shootings and other things like that are just the price we pay. A constitutional amendment would be the only way forward. But feel free to look at the post I was replying to. I'm not talking about the path to get an amendment repealed and replaced, I'm talking about what the new law might say.
Saying "we accept they are fruits" but then judge they don't fall under fruits when it comes to taxation just does NOT make sense.
It definitely does, I don't understand your issue with this. "We accept that tomatoes are fruits, but we believe the author of the law meant for them to be taxed." I don't see why you have some issue with that statement. It is not a contradictory statement.
Imagine a law about whether blacks should be considered people or animals
Yikes. I'm going to skip the loaded appeal-to-emotion example if you don't mind.
The court SAYING they acknowledge it, but then not applying it, means they're NOT acknowledging it where it matters most; not in their words, but in their actions.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite. I believe that what the court is acknowledging is the intention of the law to tax tomatoes. They simply accept that tomatoes are fruits, that is not the legal opinion they were asked to rule on, and then they rule that the law should tax tomatoes. The takeaway from the case should be that tomatoes are taxed as vegetables, not that tomatoes are not fruit.
Do you understand what I'm saying, here?
Yes I do, I just think you're focusing on a minor mundane detail and missing the purpose of the lawsuit. You're too focused on the definition of a tomato instead of whether or not they were supposed to be taxed. The issue is whether or not they were supposed to be taxed, not adjudicating whether a tomato is a mineral or animal or whatever else.
For some reason, you seem to think what the court says about it ways heavier than how they actually have judged it to be. I disagree. You would too - presumably - if it was a case of high moral stake as the example I gave - but now you're just content arguing differently.
If you want to use extreme examples, allow me to present one. We have a law that says that we aren't allowed to kill people, that's murder. Now all of a sudden a population of Neanderthals turns up. They have a culture, a language, the whole nine, things we think of when we think of "people". Someone kills one of them. In his legal defense, he's trying to argue that Neanderthals are not "people", because "people" would refer to Homo Sapiens, therefore he can't "murder" one of them. What do you think the judge is going to do? Is the judge going to sit there and have an entire courtroom argument over the definition of "person", or is the judge going to conclude that the people who wrote the law weren't necessarily trying to limit the protections to only hominids of Homo Sapiens, and that a group with a clearly defined culture, language, spirituality, morphology which is so similar to ours that most common people probably couldn't tell the difference, making and using tools, building houses, cooking food, could reasonably be included in the group of "people", and that the person who said "don't kill people" probably would have meant them too. It doesn't matter what the specific morphology and phylogeny of these people is, don't fucking kill them. Easy. It doesn't matter what the nature of a tomato is. Pay your taxes. Stop trying to weasel out of it because you don't want to pay when everyone else is.
Saying "The world is round, but because people think it's flat (or the lawmaker thought it was flat) we're going to agree to a flat-earth tax" is stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, and grates with what one first said, namely that the Earth was round.
1) I agree 2) I don't see the connection between that and this.
If they KNOW the Earth is round, or a black a human, or a tomato a fruit, they need to be consistent and logical, REGARDLESS of intent or what trade-people think about it, and make a judgement in accordance with reality, as they - in fact - know it is.
OK, great. The vast majority of things sold as
Wolves.
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
You think? What about the complete disparity between people getting angry about a game involving school shootings, while also having absolutely no willpower to actually do anything about real school shootings?
I might suggest looking to Australia for examples we can use, regarding gun turn-in or buy-back programs. Maybe a start would be to further limit the kinds of guns that most people can buy. The vast majority of the public, for example, does not require a semi-automatic rifle of any kind. Every time any member of my family in Texas has gone hunting, the rifle was bolt-action. There are very niche use cases for semi-automatic rifles where special permits could be issued, but there's no reason they need to be generally available.