You missed the actual comparison, which was between 3,000 deaths on 9/11 which prompted a decade long freakout that cost many more lives and over a trillion dollars, and the 10,000 killed by guns every year, which merits no response whatsoever.
Automobiles, when used as they were designed, are not intended to kill people. Guns are. But that's not even my point. My point was the comparison between the relatively few people killed on 9/11 that produced a freakout that helped RUIN the liberty and economy of the U.S., and the big "fuck you" that gun proponents give to those who protest that too many people are murdered by guns in the country. Feel free to respond to my actual point.
That's exactly why I separated suicide gun deaths from homicides, and totaled only the homicides since 9/11. I only mentioned the suicides because someone would claim my number for gun deaths is too low. Your point may be a good one, but is irrelevant to my comment.
You didn't answer the question, but what you did answer didn't make sense. The people were complicit in the death camps by not even speaking out about them and by supporting them with their labor. A few guns would not have motivated them any differently.
Yes, I agree. The people who get all hot and bothered about "they're a-comin' to take our guns!" don't seem to get upset about how corporations and individuals are literally stealing their children's futures by bribing lawmakers to pass laws that make the rich richer at the expense of our economy and infrastructure.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd is a little loony, sure, but at least they picked the right target.
Legally speaking, every male American citizen between the ages of 17-45 who is not an active duty member of the armed forces and every female member of the National Guard is a member of the 'militia of the United States' by federal law (10 USC 311). That militia is formed for the purpose of draft selection but, it's still a militia set up by federal law and if that doesn't meet the requirements for "A well regulated Militia" then I don't know what does. I, being a 28 year old male citizen of the United States, therefore consider myself to be a member of the well regulated militia of the United States and therefore have the right to bear arms. Even if I have not to this point chosen to exercise that particular right.
You don't know what does, then. Filling out a card in the post office doesn't make you part of a "well regulated" ANYTHING. This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen to try to ignore that part of the 2nd amendment. But I won't really hold it against you. You're still a kid.
Well, that depends on how you look at it. You're restricting people's freedoms to stop a few people who abuse a tool, and barring extraordinarily catastrophic situations, I just can't get behind that.
So, around 10,000 homicides by gun EVERY YEAR, plus around 20,000 suicides by gun EVERY YEAR. Just under 3,000 deaths on 9/11 justified gutting the bill of rights, invading a country or two, but you don't think the 130,000 homicides by gun SINCE 9/11 is an "extraordinarily catastrophic situation"? How in the world do Americans become accustomed to such carnage? I guess it's true; we suck at putting things in perspective.
The daily caller is the best you can do? That summary was high level, but it was correct. The bullshit article you linked to on a site created by Tucker Carlson, a third rate pundit hack, attempts to pile up "facts" in order to prove something that is incorrect.
One fundamental logical error is to assume that because a small, decentralized government message may have appeal to racists (because they might hope to reintroduce racist policies in local and state elections) that that makes the message itself racist.
I can't believe you wrote that - the non-pretzel translation of what you said is, "hey, don't call us racist just because what we espouse appeals to racists!"
You are defending an indefensible position. I'll leave you to it.
The U.S. government has NO authority to "arrest someone for hating Jews". Use a modicum of intellectual discipline - if you're going to talk about laws regarding speech and actions, then you have to be more specific - talking about imaginary penalties for just "hating" a group contributes nothing to the conversation.
Um, that summary is pretty much a perfect description of what Johnson did, what the Southern democrats did, and how Nixon took advantage of the situation.
Racism is NOT illegal. Actions or speech inspired by racist thoughts that may cause an imminent danger or lawless action *may* be illegal, depending on the circumstances.
However, private individuals, not the government, may well take action against individuals who display their racism, even if it's legal. That's fair.
Please except the United States from your derision. In the U.S., "hate speech" is legal unless it is likely to cause imminent lawless action. Employers may be prosecuted for allowing hate speech, but only if it is within a broader framework of harassment that creates a hostile work environment.
Well, I wouldn't call if "fun" exactly, but I saw a kid, maybe 14, walking with his family down South Street in Philadelphia, wearing a t-shirt that said, "Why the HELL should I have to press 1 for English???"
I was going to tell him, "ooh, ohh! I know that one. It's because we live in a diverse culture, and are beginning to recognize that not everyone is a native English speaking white male!", but his family looked a little troglodyte, and I didn't see it ending well.
Anyway, most of the call trees with Spanish options now say, "press 2 for Spanish" in Spanish, so English-only speakers don't have to bother themselves to press 1.
You know "hard jailtime" isn't going to happen, unless we see a real disaster, like a major city rendered uninhabitable. I mean, again, in the U.S., because I guess Chernobyl was a "gimme".
So you're STILL stuck with humans as the largest problem, and your "solution" to criminal negligence and greed is laughably implausible. Just like, "energy too cheap to meter".
You must be pretty ignorant of the news, then. You should go educate yourself. I'll avoid distracting you by not replying to, or reading anything else you post.
Also, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "rhetorical". I'll be there are a lot of words you don't know the meaning of. Natter on, I'm sure I'll read your reply.
Fuel. Yes, if it's both economical and safe to reprocess. You STILL wind up with a lot of nasty stuff to store.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that people run that industry - short sighted, greedy, sometimes incompetent people. Let me know when you find a technical fix for that.
The big advantage of wind farms is that when you decommission them, you don't have this huge stockpile of exhausted wind lying around in cooling ponds that will be hazardous for the next ten thousand years.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the actual comparison, which was between 3,000 deaths on 9/11 which prompted a decade long freakout that cost many more lives and over a trillion dollars, and the 10,000 killed by guns every year, which merits no response whatsoever.
Hurrah! I picked up a rock and a 9/11 truther crawled out!
Just so you know you're special, you're my first.
Automobiles, when used as they were designed, are not intended to kill people. Guns are. But that's not even my point. My point was the comparison between the relatively few people killed on 9/11 that produced a freakout that helped RUIN the liberty and economy of the U.S., and the big "fuck you" that gun proponents give to those who protest that too many people are murdered by guns in the country. Feel free to respond to my actual point.
That's exactly why I separated suicide gun deaths from homicides, and totaled only the homicides since 9/11. I only mentioned the suicides because someone would claim my number for gun deaths is too low. Your point may be a good one, but is irrelevant to my comment.
I think you need to reread your own comment, then adjust your meds. It looks like the problem is on your end.
You didn't answer the question, but what you did answer didn't make sense. The people were complicit in the death camps by not even speaking out about them and by supporting them with their labor. A few guns would not have motivated them any differently.
Okay, good to hear you're happy with more gun homicide deaths every year than every person you will ever know.
Yes, I agree. The people who get all hot and bothered about "they're a-comin' to take our guns!" don't seem to get upset about how corporations and individuals are literally stealing their children's futures by bribing lawmakers to pass laws that make the rich richer at the expense of our economy and infrastructure.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd is a little loony, sure, but at least they picked the right target.
Legally speaking, every male American citizen between the ages of 17-45 who is not an active duty member of the armed forces and every female member of the National Guard is a member of the 'militia of the United States' by federal law (10 USC 311). That militia is formed for the purpose of draft selection but, it's still a militia set up by federal law and if that doesn't meet the requirements for "A well regulated Militia" then I don't know what does. I, being a 28 year old male citizen of the United States, therefore consider myself to be a member of the well regulated militia of the United States and therefore have the right to bear arms. Even if I have not to this point chosen to exercise that particular right.
You don't know what does, then. Filling out a card in the post office doesn't make you part of a "well regulated" ANYTHING. This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen to try to ignore that part of the 2nd amendment. But I won't really hold it against you. You're still a kid.
Well, that depends on how you look at it. You're restricting people's freedoms to stop a few people who abuse a tool, and barring extraordinarily catastrophic situations, I just can't get behind that.
So, around 10,000 homicides by gun EVERY YEAR, plus around 20,000 suicides by gun EVERY YEAR. Just under 3,000 deaths on 9/11 justified gutting the bill of rights, invading a country or two, but you don't think the 130,000 homicides by gun SINCE 9/11 is an "extraordinarily catastrophic situation"? How in the world do Americans become accustomed to such carnage? I guess it's true; we suck at putting things in perspective.
And how would the residents of Dresden have fared during the Allied firebombing of their city if they had their small arms?
Stop trying to include world wars in the number of casualties when the discussion is lives taken by guns. It doesn't work.
You don't earn any credibility by comparing the UK to North Korea. It shows that you know little to nothing about North Korea, the UK, or both.
And calling the entire population "100% dead as human beings"? What does that even mean? The most favorable interpretation makes you look like a loon.
One fundamental logical error is to assume that because a small, decentralized government message may have appeal to racists (because they might hope to reintroduce racist policies in local and state elections) that that makes the message itself racist.
I can't believe you wrote that - the non-pretzel translation of what you said is, "hey, don't call us racist just because what we espouse appeals to racists!"
You are defending an indefensible position. I'll leave you to it.
The U.S. government has NO authority to "arrest someone for hating Jews". Use a modicum of intellectual discipline - if you're going to talk about laws regarding speech and actions, then you have to be more specific - talking about imaginary penalties for just "hating" a group contributes nothing to the conversation.
Um, that summary is pretty much a perfect description of what Johnson did, what the Southern democrats did, and how Nixon took advantage of the situation.
Not liking it doesn't make it untrue.
Best. College. Application. Essay. Ever.
Racism is NOT illegal. Actions or speech inspired by racist thoughts that may cause an imminent danger or lawless action *may* be illegal, depending on the circumstances.
However, private individuals, not the government, may well take action against individuals who display their racism, even if it's legal. That's fair.
The state CANNOT govern your thought.
Please except the United States from your derision. In the U.S., "hate speech" is legal unless it is likely to cause imminent lawless action. Employers may be prosecuted for allowing hate speech, but only if it is within a broader framework of harassment that creates a hostile work environment.
Those are reasonable limitations.
Well, I wouldn't call if "fun" exactly, but I saw a kid, maybe 14, walking with his family down South Street in Philadelphia, wearing a t-shirt that said, "Why the HELL should I have to press 1 for English???"
I was going to tell him, "ooh, ohh! I know that one. It's because we live in a diverse culture, and are beginning to recognize that not everyone is a native English speaking white male!", but his family looked a little troglodyte, and I didn't see it ending well.
Anyway, most of the call trees with Spanish options now say, "press 2 for Spanish" in Spanish, so English-only speakers don't have to bother themselves to press 1.
You know "hard jailtime" isn't going to happen, unless we see a real disaster, like a major city rendered uninhabitable. I mean, again, in the U.S., because I guess Chernobyl was a "gimme".
So you're STILL stuck with humans as the largest problem, and your "solution" to criminal negligence and greed is laughably implausible. Just like, "energy too cheap to meter".
You must be pretty ignorant of the news, then. You should go educate yourself. I'll avoid distracting you by not replying to, or reading anything else you post.
Ah, yes, the inflation boogey man. Good one.
Also, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "rhetorical". I'll be there are a lot of words you don't know the meaning of. Natter on, I'm sure I'll read your reply.
If you always expect shit, you'll always get shit. Fortunately enough of us expect better that we occasionally get something good.
Fuel. Yes, if it's both economical and safe to reprocess. You STILL wind up with a lot of nasty stuff to store.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that people run that industry - short sighted, greedy, sometimes incompetent people. Let me know when you find a technical fix for that.
The big advantage of wind farms is that when you decommission them, you don't have this huge stockpile of exhausted wind lying around in cooling ponds that will be hazardous for the next ten thousand years.