If someone threatens me with deadly force (a knife in this example), they have forfeited their right to life. As such, I can cause them no further harm than they have already caused themselves.
Mind you, I do meet force with force. If the mugger is coming at me, they'll get 2+1. If they simply brandish a weapon, I'll brandish mine in return.
Why on earth would I know this? Do you know that I have a degree in English and a dog named Copernicus?
Meh, while I made no assumption about the name or existence of your dog, I did make an assumption about your English skills.
That said, it seems that I am perfectly in my rights to request that you keep them away from me in my home.
Of course, that's your property and your free to impose your will to restrict who has access to set foot on your property. But you didn't specify "in your home" you stated "keep them away from me" which is a different thing entirely. You're free to say that nobody bearing a firearm can enter your property, but considering you will venture outside of your own property that's a long shot from "keep[ing] [guns] away from me"
Sure, I'll give you that the founding fathers apparently thought the "right to bear arms" was an inalienable right, but they also wrote it when there was no standing army, no support for a government military--or even a militia. Everything changed pretty quickly after the amendment was passed.
The Constitution is not a living document. That the founding fathers decided that the "right to bear arms" is an inalienable right, and codified so in the Constitution, is the law of the land until such time that an Amendment is passed to change the Constitution. It does not matter what laws beneath the Constitution have been passed since that time. The Constitution is not up for interpretation (because it is up for Amendment).
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was passed before the Militia Acts of 1792 [wikipedia.org], which stated that every "free able-bodied white male citizen," between the ages of 18-45 was conscripted into a state managed (i.e. REGULATED) milita
Quite interesting. But that never could have been the intent of the 2nd Amendment viewed in the context of the rest of the Constitution:
1.10.(p)3: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
As such, the militia in the 2nd Amendment could not have applied to a state regulated militia. It applied to the common people.
Someone else touched on this already, but here is my counter: the purpose of a table saw is not to injure or kill a thing. A gun is.
Actually, the purpose of a gun is to provide the potential for deadly force regardless of the physical size of the wielder. A gun can serve it's purpose without being fired, and even without being unholstered.
It's like speed limit signs. They don't keep you from speeding, but what will happen to you if you ignore them does.
This is stupid. Stop acting like you're on a battlefield, fighting the good fight. Don't insult soldiers who are actually trying to do something for their country with this type of misconception.
You realize I'm Ex-Army, correct? The 5.56 round was designed to maim/injure for specific reasons. It can kill, but it is unlikely to do so without multiple rounds. It's penetration and ballistic profile are, frankly, crap compared to the 7.62.
You want a gun that fires large bullets so you can feel better about yourself under the guise of patriotism or whatever you want to call it.
I want a larger caliber because if I am to personally use a firearm as a civilian, I'm not worried about questioning, pressuring support logistics, or any of the battlefield reasons that went into choosing the 5.56. I want the person at the end of my sights dead with little chance of counterattack.
All I care about is that you have to register said gun when you purchase it and that you keep it away from me.
Registration is infringement, as registration lists have already been used as seizure lists. Check the history of the AWB in California.
However, whenever one of those things gets in my hands, I get a little nauseous. I hate the idea of a gun and that there is a real use for it in the world and I know I'm not alone in this.
Because, frankly, you can't stomach the idea that "civilized" society still requires violence to function. It's just that in "civilized" society we appoint a segment of our society to perform the violence necessary for safety instead of each individual providing said violence themselves.
So feel free to call me a pansy or whatever you'd like, but at this point my aversion to guns is just as applicable as your desire for them.
Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.
But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.
MYTH: Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.
Fact: I lied, they have gone up, but we're going to blame other things instead. The usual misdirection we see from progressives.
MYTH: Supporting welfare is a burden causing financial hardship to working class Americans.
Fact: Yes, we could reduce taxes by 12% by reducing these programs, but look! Let's misdirect and blame the rich this time! That damn top 1% of earners are earning money! WAAAA!
MYTH: Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.
Fact: I never made this clam, and generally don't care if they're using the system (stealing my money) or abusing the system (stealing more of my money).
MYTH: Welfare dependency is the result of the moral failings of poor people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control.
Fact: It's cause by 1) living beyond your means and not making a safety net 2) poor planing 3) bad impulse control.
MYTH: People are poor because they are lazy.
"Single parents on welfare are certainly not lazy: ask any parent how "restful" it is to be at home with a small child!"
Considering that I've been both a full time worker and a stay at home parent... I'd take stay at home parent any day. Damn easiest "job" I've ever had.
"All parents, not only welfare mothers, should have the choice of staying home to care for their own children"
Only if they can afford to do so. Otherwise they should do what they need to do to support the family, or manage to live more within their means.
MYTH: Welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character.
"A study by the Cato Institute claimed to prove that welfare paid better than work (at least, low-wage work) therefore logically no one would choose to work if they could go on welfare! The study, however, was later shown to be flawed."
The flawed link no longer works. And I agree that some would still work (just as some will always take advantage), basic human behavior dictates that those between the extremes will shift towards accepting welfare.
"In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup""
The black family would have much to say about that. Oh, wait, they don't break up because they were never married in the first place. But momma does kick daddy out of the house because it is in her best financial interest to do so (he can't earn enough to replace the government subsidies).
So, they US is going to see what the UK already does (from my link, which you apparently ignored):
Back in the mists of time before the Pill, all-women short-lists and Harriet Harman, relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given.
Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up.
In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful.
Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men.
The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent. Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men.
In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished. Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition.
Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies' fathers.
There's all kinds of people in the world, and there will always be a few who game the system practically for the sake of getting something they don't deserve. It's seldom worth the effort.
Yes, there will always be those who game the system, and there will always be those who refuse to game.
But what about the masses between those two extremes?
The easier it becomes to game the system and the harder it becomes to "play fair" by doing ones own work, more and more people will begin to game the system.
Think about it as similar to the history of divorce. (Virtually) Nobody got divorced 60 years ago. There was a huge social stigma against it and the laws did not make it easy to do; therefore most married couples worked through tough times in their marriages. Later the social stigma relaxed (the social pressure to remain married lessened) and more people took the route of divorce (gamed the system) rather than do things the right way and working though tough marital patches. Today, the only reason the divorce rate isn't exponential is because so few people are even getting married in the first place. People are so lax in their though of marriage that young people will talk about their "Starter husband/wife"
So yes, after this change there will be those who will game the system no matter what and those who will support themselves no matter what; but there will also be a much larger portion of those between deciding it is in their best interests to game the system and live off of other's labor.
It's akin to when the Serfs worked just to support a single master. It was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now. Your neighbors should be allowed to keep the product of their labor, without someone taking it away from them.
Should be, but won't be.
Why? Because the majority of voters have decided that they want to take their neighbors money. And our government is going to do what gets them reelected.
1) Perhaps you should: A) Find out what "well regulated militia" means (it's not what you think it is). B) Find out who was in the militia at the time of the 2nd Amendment (hrm.. every man over the age of 18). C) Explain how "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" uses "people" in a different meaning than the rest of the bill of rights. D) Talk to an English teacher sometime and have them remove the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Everything before the comma is the explanation WHY this right is so important. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we were always citizens and never subjects.
2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw. Either one can cause great harm when used improperly, but rarely causes harm when used properly.
3) Damn straight I prefer 7.62 over 5.56. 5.56 is designed to wound. 7.62 is designed to kill. If I need to use my rifle I'm not concerned with creating battlefield casualties to strain the logistics and support of the enemy, I'm concerned with killing people dead so they can't counterattack.
A simple version (at the expense of losing some realism): Transmit sound from other avatars in monaural mode, that way there is no directional information in the signal.
Oh dear god no. There's a reason I use 5.1-channel headphones, and the reason IS to get directional information based on sound location!
2) The sound effects could be somewhat distorted to prevent calculating the position of the other player from the sound. If there is no clear line of sight between both players, that may even be more realistic than unmodified sound.
WTB SoundPhysics card upgrade;) I wouldn't have a problem with this solution.
I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either.
We'll have to disagree here. SS will go away long before government bonds. And by that i mean either the program will be removed or the "retirement" age raised drastically to the point where 60+% of workers will die before ever seeing a dime on their investments. Government bonds, on the other hand, can be cashed in at 62 (or 50 if you want to retire early).
You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return.
Yes, but even with that very very low return, I get a better return than with SS. And more safety (in my eye at least). The safety is more of the argument than the return.
Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.
So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish? I just don't buy that. That's why I felt it was "partisan buzzwords" rather than a real argument.
SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.
For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away.
Now, I'm not against everything FDR did. In fact, I think the TVA was a wonderful idea to stimulate the economy and get people working again. Even if it was piddle-work, it gave people jobs to work at and job skills to grow with. It was also an investment in infrastructure. This is double good because 1) it enhances our industry by having the infrastructure available and 2) it has an end point and cannot become a perpetual government program.
And trust me that I know utopias can't exist. That's my big problem with a lot of groups and ideologies that they are attempting to sell a utopia. A utopia to work would require perfect people. If we had perfect people, then we would already be in a utopia. We are not in a utopia. Ergo, people are not perfect. Ergo, we cannot have a utopia.
So for what's practical: the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)". The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery.
I understand that there will be cases where a large portion of our population needs help. I am not against government providing some level of help. But I am against creating a perpetual government program to remove sticks and carrots. Temporary is one thing, perpetuity is a society destroyer as it obliterates the natural laws that made civilization work in the first place.
our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.
Our middle class is dying because our government, measured as a percentage of GNP, has gone from 3% (1776 to 1920) to nearly 40% today. The middle class is being crushed by the amount of taxes they have to pay to support the government the poor have voted into place. Either they make it, and move up to the rich, or are crushed and fall into the poor.
The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable.
The idea that a 50% voting block that votes as a block (More for me!) has no power is laughable.
You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".
Strange that you would pick "welfare queens" because it IS the woman's vote that has turned our government from "We'll let you take care of yourself" to "We'll force you to take care of everyone!"
Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash.
Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC). It is entirely a ponzi scheme.
I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok.
Well, if it was my money I could put it anywhere. But the biggest complaints I've seen against going away from SS seem to focus on "Well SS is safe! You can't lose your retirement in the stock market when your retirement is SS!" So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security.
if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once.
Please.. Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords.
But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so.
What a good idea, in fact you could set it up so the more tax you pay the more of a vote you have.
That's not necessary. Just make it so if you don't pay a certain level of taxes, you don't get to vote. Or else institute a flat-tax so everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Flat tax is fine with me, even if the poor will pay "less", because at least then when they vote for social programs it will hit their own pocketbooks as well.
The rich deserve to rule us after all!
The poor don't deserve to rob me at government's gunpoint. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes. The top 5% pay 30% of income taxes. The current progressive tax system is little more than legalized robbery where the poor get to turn the government into Robin Hood in order to fund programs to support them because they don't want to support themselves.
Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.
Giving 'tax breaks' doesn't seem to be sustainable long term for states.
It's sustainable as long as the voters don't vote themselves enough "gifts" from other people's money to the point where the state can no longer afford to give tax breaks to attract business/wealthy individuals.
Unfortunately, "Take some damn responsibility for yourself" buys less votes than "I'll give you more gifts from the public treasury!"
The Tea Party should adopt a new slogan: "No representation without taxation" Honestly, if you're not paying for the government you vote for, do you deserve to influence it's direction?
So you're saying that women are different, think different and behave differently and that that specific diversity is valuable and should be considered when appointing humans to fulfil working responsibilities.
Why is diversity valuable?
I've always heard that "diversity is valuable" but nobody ever explains why.
Perhaps we should have more midgets in the NBA. That would increase diversity and make the teams better, right?
This is very true. It's all part of the dominance hierarchy.
The alphas are alphas. The betas are worried about their position and therefore often turn to bullying those beneath them to keep them down. The deltas, gammas, and omegas are below.
I wish I could remember the studies offhand, but there were a handful where the did some social experimentation by taking groups of bullies and isolating them together as a social group: Some stayed bullies, some got bullied. The more interesting study was when they took the bullied kids and isolated them together: new bullies formed while others remained on the bottom.
School seems to be one of the worst environments for bullying, and there's a good reason for that: There are no alphas in the crowd. Instead, the role of alpha is taken by the teachers/administration (the ones with real power) and because they are "separate" from the kids in High Security (erm.. high school) it's next to impossible for the deltas-gammas to bond with the alphas in order to become safe from the actions of the betas.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's a philosophical difference as well.
If someone threatens me with deadly force (a knife in this example), they have forfeited their right to life. As such, I can cause them no further harm than they have already caused themselves.
Mind you, I do meet force with force. If the mugger is coming at me, they'll get 2+1. If they simply brandish a weapon, I'll brandish mine in return.
There is a significant difference between the meanings of "Dangerous" and "Lethal."
Firearms are no more dangerous than a table saw.
However, Firearms are much more lethal than a table saw, which is why they are commonly used to project force.
Why on earth would I know this? Do you know that I have a degree in English and a dog named Copernicus?
Meh, while I made no assumption about the name or existence of your dog, I did make an assumption about your English skills.
That said, it seems that I am perfectly in my rights to request that you keep them away from me in my home.
Of course, that's your property and your free to impose your will to restrict who has access to set foot on your property. But you didn't specify "in your home" you stated "keep them away from me" which is a different thing entirely. You're free to say that nobody bearing a firearm can enter your property, but considering you will venture outside of your own property that's a long shot from "keep[ing] [guns] away from me"
Sure, I'll give you that the founding fathers apparently thought the "right to bear arms" was an inalienable right, but they also wrote it when there was no standing army, no support for a government military--or even a militia. Everything changed pretty quickly after the amendment was passed.
The Constitution is not a living document. That the founding fathers decided that the "right to bear arms" is an inalienable right, and codified so in the Constitution, is the law of the land until such time that an Amendment is passed to change the Constitution. It does not matter what laws beneath the Constitution have been passed since that time. The Constitution is not up for interpretation (because it is up for Amendment).
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was passed before the Militia Acts of 1792 [wikipedia.org], which stated that every "free able-bodied white male citizen," between the ages of 18-45 was conscripted into a state managed (i.e. REGULATED) milita
Quite interesting. But that never could have been the intent of the 2nd Amendment viewed in the context of the rest of the Constitution:
1.10.(p)3:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
As such, the militia in the 2nd Amendment could not have applied to a state regulated militia. It applied to the common people.
Someone else touched on this already, but here is my counter: the purpose of a table saw is not to injure or kill a thing. A gun is.
Actually, the purpose of a gun is to provide the potential for deadly force regardless of the physical size of the wielder. A gun can serve it's purpose without being fired, and even without being unholstered.
It's like speed limit signs. They don't keep you from speeding, but what will happen to you if you ignore them does.
This is stupid. Stop acting like you're on a battlefield, fighting the good fight. Don't insult soldiers who are actually trying to do something for their country with this type of misconception.
You realize I'm Ex-Army, correct? The 5.56 round was designed to maim/injure for specific reasons. It can kill, but it is unlikely to do so without multiple rounds. It's penetration and ballistic profile are, frankly, crap compared to the 7.62.
You want a gun that fires large bullets so you can feel better about yourself under the guise of patriotism or whatever you want to call it.
I want a larger caliber because if I am to personally use a firearm as a civilian, I'm not worried about questioning, pressuring support logistics, or any of the battlefield reasons that went into choosing the 5.56. I want the person at the end of my sights dead with little chance of counterattack.
All I care about is that you have to register said gun when you purchase it and that you keep it away from me.
Registration is infringement, as registration lists have already been used as seizure lists. Check the history of the AWB in California.
However, whenever one of those things gets in my hands, I get a little nauseous. I hate the idea of a gun and that there is a real use for it in the world and I know I'm not alone in this.
Because, frankly, you can't stomach the idea that "civilized" society still requires violence to function. It's just that in "civilized" society we appoint a segment of our society to perform the violence necessary for safety instead of each individual providing said violence themselves.
So feel free to call me a pansy or whatever you'd like, but at this point my aversion to guns is just as applicable as your desire for them.
Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.
But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.
Yeah.. that damn cognitive dissonance again.
That's a semantics difference. I don't consider "shooting the mugger who was coming at me with a knife" as "harm".
Hrm, let's look that over:
MYTH: Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.
Fact: I lied, they have gone up, but we're going to blame other things instead. The usual misdirection we see from progressives.
MYTH: Supporting welfare is a burden causing financial hardship to working class Americans.
Fact: Yes, we could reduce taxes by 12% by reducing these programs, but look! Let's misdirect and blame the rich this time! That damn top 1% of earners are earning money! WAAAA!
MYTH: Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.
Fact: I never made this clam, and generally don't care if they're using the system (stealing my money) or abusing the system (stealing more of my money).
MYTH: Welfare dependency is the result of the moral failings of poor people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control.
Fact: It's cause by 1) living beyond your means and not making a safety net 2) poor planing 3) bad impulse control.
MYTH: People are poor because they are lazy.
"Single parents on welfare are certainly not lazy: ask any parent how "restful" it is to be at home with a small child!"
Considering that I've been both a full time worker and a stay at home parent... I'd take stay at home parent any day. Damn easiest "job" I've ever had.
"All parents, not only welfare mothers, should have the choice of staying home to care for their own children"
Only if they can afford to do so. Otherwise they should do what they need to do to support the family, or manage to live more within their means.
MYTH: Welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character.
"A study by the Cato Institute claimed to prove that welfare paid better than work (at least, low-wage work) therefore logically no one would choose to work if they could go on welfare! The study, however, was later shown to be flawed."
The flawed link no longer works. And I agree that some would still work (just as some will always take advantage), basic human behavior dictates that those between the extremes will shift towards accepting welfare.
"In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup""
The black family would have much to say about that. Oh, wait, they don't break up because they were never married in the first place. But momma does kick daddy out of the house because it is in her best financial interest to do so (he can't earn enough to replace the government subsidies).
So, they US is going to see what the UK already does (from my link, which you apparently ignored):
Back in the mists of time before the Pill, all-women short-lists and Harriet Harman, relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given.
Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up.
In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful.
Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men.
The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent. Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men.
In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished. Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition.
Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies' fathers.
There's all kinds of people in the world, and there will always be a few who game the system practically for the sake of getting something they don't deserve. It's seldom worth the effort.
Yes, there will always be those who game the system, and there will always be those who refuse to game.
But what about the masses between those two extremes?
The easier it becomes to game the system and the harder it becomes to "play fair" by doing ones own work, more and more people will begin to game the system.
Think about it as similar to the history of divorce. (Virtually) Nobody got divorced 60 years ago. There was a huge social stigma against it and the laws did not make it easy to do; therefore most married couples worked through tough times in their marriages. Later the social stigma relaxed (the social pressure to remain married lessened) and more people took the route of divorce (gamed the system) rather than do things the right way and working though tough marital patches. Today, the only reason the divorce rate isn't exponential is because so few people are even getting married in the first place. People are so lax in their though of marriage that young people will talk about their "Starter husband/wife"
So yes, after this change there will be those who will game the system no matter what and those who will support themselves no matter what; but there will also be a much larger portion of those between deciding it is in their best interests to game the system and live off of other's labor.
the “welfare queen/king” myth is, at best disingenuous.
Really?
It's akin to when the Serfs worked just to support a single master. It was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now. Your neighbors should be allowed to keep the product of their labor, without someone taking it away from them.
Should be, but won't be.
Why? Because the majority of voters have decided that they want to take their neighbors money. And our government is going to do what gets them reelected.
1) Perhaps you should:
A) Find out what "well regulated militia" means (it's not what you think it is).
B) Find out who was in the militia at the time of the 2nd Amendment (hrm.. every man over the age of 18).
C) Explain how "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" uses "people" in a different meaning than the rest of the bill of rights.
D) Talk to an English teacher sometime and have them remove the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Everything before the comma is the explanation WHY this right is so important. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we were always citizens and never subjects.
2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw. Either one can cause great harm when used improperly, but rarely causes harm when used properly.
3) Damn straight I prefer 7.62 over 5.56. 5.56 is designed to wound. 7.62 is designed to kill. If I need to use my rifle I'm not concerned with creating battlefield casualties to strain the logistics and support of the enemy, I'm concerned with killing people dead so they can't counterattack.
A simple version (at the expense of losing some realism): Transmit sound from other avatars in monaural mode, that way there is no directional information in the signal.
Oh dear god no. There's a reason I use 5.1-channel headphones, and the reason IS to get directional information based on sound location!
2) The sound effects could be somewhat distorted to prevent calculating the position of the other player from the sound. If there is no clear line of sight between both players, that may even be more realistic than unmodified sound.
WTB SoundPhysics card upgrade ;) I wouldn't have a problem with this solution.
examples to us all as to what we can achieve.
But we can't achieve that no matter how much work we put in... we don't have the genetics like they do.
Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.
Governments tend to work better on the local level. More direct influence, more accountability.
So, in a strange quirky way... he's correct.
you have a limit on the length of a 10Base2 coax ;)
200m, which is 100m longer than Ethernet over 5e
There was also 10b5 which used a thicker coax and could make a 500m run.
I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either.
We'll have to disagree here. SS will go away long before government bonds. And by that i mean either the program will be removed or the "retirement" age raised drastically to the point where 60+% of workers will die before ever seeing a dime on their investments. Government bonds, on the other hand, can be cashed in at 62 (or 50 if you want to retire early).
You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return.
Yes, but even with that very very low return, I get a better return than with SS. And more safety (in my eye at least). The safety is more of the argument than the return.
Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.
So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish? I just don't buy that. That's why I felt it was "partisan buzzwords" rather than a real argument.
SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.
For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away.
Now, I'm not against everything FDR did. In fact, I think the TVA was a wonderful idea to stimulate the economy and get people working again. Even if it was piddle-work, it gave people jobs to work at and job skills to grow with. It was also an investment in infrastructure. This is double good because 1) it enhances our industry by having the infrastructure available and 2) it has an end point and cannot become a perpetual government program.
And trust me that I know utopias can't exist. That's my big problem with a lot of groups and ideologies that they are attempting to sell a utopia. A utopia to work would require perfect people. If we had perfect people, then we would already be in a utopia. We are not in a utopia. Ergo, people are not perfect. Ergo, we cannot have a utopia.
So for what's practical: the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)". The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery.
I understand that there will be cases where a large portion of our population needs help. I am not against government providing some level of help. But I am against creating a perpetual government program to remove sticks and carrots. Temporary is one thing, perpetuity is a society destroyer as it obliterates the natural laws that made civilization work in the first place.
our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.
Our middle class is dying because our government, measured as a percentage of GNP, has gone from 3% (1776 to 1920) to nearly 40% today. The middle class is being crushed by the amount of taxes they have to pay to support the government the poor have voted into place. Either they make it, and move up to the rich, or are crushed and fall into the poor.
The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable.
The idea that a 50% voting block that votes as a block (More for me!) has no power is laughable.
You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".
Strange that you would pick "welfare queens" because it IS the woman's vote that has turned our government from "We'll let you take care of yourself" to "We'll force you to take care of everyone!"
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html <---- the US example.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/ <----Swizerland (women's suffrage in 1971).
Want to increase your take-home pay by 35%? Repeal the 19th Amendment.
Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash.
Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC). It is entirely a ponzi scheme.
I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok.
Well, if it was my money I could put it anywhere. But the biggest complaints I've seen against going away from SS seem to focus on "Well SS is safe! You can't lose your retirement in the stock market when your retirement is SS!" So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security.
if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once.
Please.. Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords.
But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so.
What a good idea, in fact you could set it up so the more tax you pay the more of a vote you have.
That's not necessary. Just make it so if you don't pay a certain level of taxes, you don't get to vote. Or else institute a flat-tax so everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Flat tax is fine with me, even if the poor will pay "less", because at least then when they vote for social programs it will hit their own pocketbooks as well.
The rich deserve to rule us after all!
The poor don't deserve to rob me at government's gunpoint. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes. The top 5% pay 30% of income taxes. The current progressive tax system is little more than legalized robbery where the poor get to turn the government into Robin Hood in order to fund programs to support them because they don't want to support themselves.
> Typical liberal. Can't support your own needs. Need someone who knows how to handle their own money to pay for you.
So, what is social security again?
A horrible system instituted by a democrat congress/president.
I could get a better return and more security by taking the money I am forced to send to SS and investing it in government bonds instead.
Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.
They voted for it, didn't they?
Giving 'tax breaks' doesn't seem to be sustainable long term for states.
It's sustainable as long as the voters don't vote themselves enough "gifts" from other people's money to the point where the state can no longer afford to give tax breaks to attract business/wealthy individuals.
Unfortunately, "Take some damn responsibility for yourself" buys less votes than "I'll give you more gifts from the public treasury!"
The Tea Party should adopt a new slogan: "No representation without taxation" Honestly, if you're not paying for the government you vote for, do you deserve to influence it's direction?
Democracy is really just a "pretty" form of anarchy.
Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.
In either case, the ones with the biggest sticks (violence, money, whatever) get what they want.
Queue: "But we're a representative republic!" No, we aren't. Universal suffrage = democracy.
So you're saying that women are different, think different and behave differently and that that specific diversity is valuable and should be considered when appointing humans to fulfil working responsibilities.
Why is diversity valuable?
I've always heard that "diversity is valuable" but nobody ever explains why.
Perhaps we should have more midgets in the NBA. That would increase diversity and make the teams better, right?
You've just won the argument.
Women only want "equality" when it doesn't risk their life or limb. Women don't want equality, they couldn't handle it.
This is very true. It's all part of the dominance hierarchy.
The alphas are alphas. The betas are worried about their position and therefore often turn to bullying those beneath them to keep them down. The deltas, gammas, and omegas are below.
I wish I could remember the studies offhand, but there were a handful where the did some social experimentation by taking groups of bullies and isolating them together as a social group: Some stayed bullies, some got bullied. The more interesting study was when they took the bullied kids and isolated them together: new bullies formed while others remained on the bottom.
School seems to be one of the worst environments for bullying, and there's a good reason for that: There are no alphas in the crowd. Instead, the role of alpha is taken by the teachers/administration (the ones with real power) and because they are "separate" from the kids in High Security (erm.. high school) it's next to impossible for the deltas-gammas to bond with the alphas in order to become safe from the actions of the betas.