and if the people's will was to jump off a bridge, no one should them they are stupid for doing that too?
democracy is great. but it requires an informed populace. and when an uninformed populace makes an utterly idiotic choice, it completely deserves to be called on it.
up until Dear shot up the PP, he was just another responsible gun owner. so were the nutjobs who went to Bundy's ranch to defend him from Federal Agents enforcing the law: just more responsible gun owners.... until they weren't. two of those formerly responsible gun owners then moved onto Vegas and killed a couple police officers.
your thesis that these are different demographics is willfully ignorant (or intentionally deceptive) BS.
if you honestly don't know what sensible means, its only because you've long ago closed your ears while posting the same lalalallala BS every time. And no, California's laws aren't particularly restrictive at the state level. While individual cities may be stricter, rural areas and suburbs are just as lax as the rest of the nation, which, once again, almost completely negates the supposed 'most restrictive' laws you try to trot out every time. Your sign is especially apt; it's not a statement, but a disclaimer for your thoughts.
so you're trying to say that it's the scientists who research global warming, who belong with the flat earthers for denying science? what ever it is you're smoking, I think you've had enough.
No, there has been one ruling affirming it as an individual right, and that ruling came in 2008, over 200 hundred years after the U.S.C. was adopted. Prior to that it was never interpreted by SCOTUS as an individual right.
which is a big reason why the per capita rate of mass shootings (or mass shooting causalities) per 100k or whatever persons, frequently used by gun rights folks to support their side, is deceptive. because that last few people, those last few incidents, are very difficult to totally eliminate.
which allows guns rights folks to point at places like Norway or Sweden or France and say "see?! they have MORE per capita than we do, so we're just fine", even though in the given time period they had 1 maybe 2 incidents with say 20 people killed, while the US had a few hundred incidents killing a few thousand, but because of those countries smaller populations, and the difficulty in getting the tail end of that curve to zero, they try to claim that the US actually has less of a problem than those other countries, which is total BS.
like the lady in the Home Depot parking lot just a few days after another incident. she saw a shoplifter in the parking lot, and decided to go cowboy......hitting nothing (thankfully) but the building and a few cars.
or the guy who was at the university shooting, and almost shot another bystander who was also carrying that day.
once again: targets are NOT chosen for whether or not guns are allowed on premises. in no mass shooting over the past 5 years has it come to light that THAT was why the place was targeted. there have been no tactical decisions made by these shooters along those lines. places are targeted because its the shooter is connected to the place or a person there.
perhaps you should take one, instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance.
From Article II of the U.S.C., skipping Section 1, the rules for choosing the President:
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
B) the company that owns both the existing Keystone pipeline, the proposed XL expansion, and the tar sands they were looking to transport has halted operations in this tar sands deposits because they aren't currently profitable, and haven't been for some time.
even if the pipeline had been approved, and built, it would not have been utilized. it would have sat there as an investment in the future should oil prices increase again. but given the current forces driving them down that is likely to be several years.
that tar sands oil isn't going anywhere right now.
when one of our gunships knowingly strikes, for an hour, an active field hospital to get just one guy...I get the felling certain people in charge don't really care that much about being all 'right and proper'.
Slashdot Mirror
... ...
the depths of your stupidity seem to be infinite
That's crap and you damn well know it.
You always do this, playing word games to try and obfuscate the concept.
so then prove them wrong.
oh right, you cant.
cause your statement is BS.
and if the people's will was to jump off a bridge, no one should them they are stupid for doing that too?
democracy is great.
but it requires an informed populace.
and when an uninformed populace makes an utterly idiotic choice, it completely deserves to be called on it.
Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.
Which is oh so very different from our current situation, thankfully.
-meanwhile somewhere a business tycoon is rubbing his hands together evilly, chuckling-
^delusional
^ delusional
and there's the dog whistle
up until Dear shot up the PP, he was just another responsible gun owner.
so were the nutjobs who went to Bundy's ranch to defend him from Federal Agents enforcing the law: just more responsible gun owners.... until they weren't.
two of those formerly responsible gun owners then moved onto Vegas and killed a couple police officers.
your thesis that these are different demographics is willfully ignorant (or intentionally deceptive) BS.
who receives the majority of its funding from the firearm manufacturing industry.
if you honestly don't know what sensible means, its only because you've long ago closed your ears while posting the same lalalallala BS every time.
And no, California's laws aren't particularly restrictive at the state level. While individual cities may be stricter, rural areas and suburbs are just as lax as the rest of the nation, which, once again, almost completely negates the supposed 'most restrictive' laws you try to trot out every time. Your sign is especially apt; it's not a statement, but a disclaimer for your thoughts.
Except they didn't confiscate them in Australia.
Minor detail I know. But since when has that ever stopped you from posting your ignorance?
^delusional
nah.
it is however how Atlantis sank.
so you're trying to say that it's the scientists who research global warming, who belong with the flat earthers for denying science?
what ever it is you're smoking, I think you've had enough.
No, there has been one ruling affirming it as an individual right, and that ruling came in 2008, over 200 hundred years after the U.S.C. was adopted.
Prior to that it was never interpreted by SCOTUS as an individual right.
which is a big reason why the per capita rate of mass shootings (or mass shooting causalities) per 100k or whatever persons, frequently used by gun rights folks to support their side, is deceptive. because that last few people, those last few incidents, are very difficult to totally eliminate.
which allows guns rights folks to point at places like Norway or Sweden or France and say "see?! they have MORE per capita than we do, so we're just fine", even though in the given time period they had 1 maybe 2 incidents with say 20 people killed, while the US had a few hundred incidents killing a few thousand, but because of those countries smaller populations, and the difficulty in getting the tail end of that curve to zero, they try to claim that the US actually has less of a problem than those other countries, which is total BS.
like the lady in the Home Depot parking lot just a few days after another incident. ...hitting nothing (thankfully) but the building and a few cars.
she saw a shoplifter in the parking lot, and decided to go cowboy...
or the guy who was at the university shooting, and almost shot another bystander who was also carrying that day.
once again: targets are NOT chosen for whether or not guns are allowed on premises.
in no mass shooting over the past 5 years has it come to light that THAT was why the place was targeted.
there have been no tactical decisions made by these shooters along those lines.
places are targeted because its the shooter is connected to the place or a person there.
http://www.ragingpencils.com/2...
http://36.media.tumblr.com/d6c...
perhaps you should take one, instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance.
From Article II of the U.S.C., skipping Section 1, the rules for choosing the President:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers ; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
because coal is the only option....
the only ignorant one here is you.
please take a history lesson.
A) no it doesn't
and
B) the company that owns both the existing Keystone pipeline, the proposed XL expansion, and the tar sands they were looking to transport has halted operations in this tar sands deposits because they aren't currently profitable, and haven't been for some time.
even if the pipeline had been approved, and built, it would not have been utilized.
it would have sat there as an investment in the future should oil prices increase again.
but given the current forces driving them down that is likely to be several years.
that tar sands oil isn't going anywhere right now.
so once again, you are wrong and misinformed.
when one of our gunships knowingly strikes, for an hour, an active field hospital to get just one guy...I get the felling certain people in charge don't really care that much about being all 'right and proper'.