there will be plenty that just don't care about privacy
there will be plenty that don't care and they're right: their online life is shallow crap
there will be plenty that don't care and they're wrong: their online info is used against them
some small fraction of the latter group will make an effort to correct that problem
this is, and always will be, a small percentage of people online
and honestly: it's not a problem. most people just aren't that interesting
if you want to spin frightening scenarios of government knowing everything about them, advertisers profiling their lives in every detail, the ease at which their finances and physical location can found in a snap, etc... they still won't fucking care
discussion over then. thank you for volunteering your irrelevancy to the topic. but maybe next time you shouldn't speak up at all if you don't have a leg to stand on
India retains capital punishment for a number of serious offences.[1] The Indian Supreme Court has allowed the death penalty to be carried out in only 4 instances since 1995.
this i think is the best attitude of any country. out of over a billion people, they've only given capital punishment to 4 in the last 20 years. that's the way it should be. india has the best attitude
capital punishment should be abolished for 99.99% of crimes. but it should never be taken completely off the table
there does indeed in this world exist crimes of such heinous atrocity, that it is impossible to call yourself a human being with a morality and a conscience and not insist on the death penalty
again, do not get me wrong: we are only talking about the worst of the worst of the worst. so for example this man:
and i cannot understand any human being who does not agree with that decision. to weigh and consider his crime and suggest he does not deserve death is simply beyond my comprehension. this man too absolutely deserves only death and no less:
why is this creature still alive, it is not a human being. it has lost the ability to call itself that by defiling basic morality to such a repugnant extreme. why is this thing still alive? so it can whine about video game privileges? this thing must die
i cannot comprehend any argument compatible with any logically coherent morality that suggests the bag of shit called breivik deserves to continue to draw breath. norway: you are defiling simple morality and basic reasoning in allowing this filth a heartbeat
again, please note: we are here on the very edge of atrocity. the crimes that shock the conscience at the furthest extreme. the worst of the worst of the worst. they alone deserve death from the state
to me, this means under 5 people out of the entire world every decade
so india has the closest approach to perfect on capital punishment in this world
I am the founder of the Zachor Holocaust Remembrance Foundation[2] .
I was born in Krakow, Poland, in 1928. With the exception of my older sister Lola and myself, the rest of my family was killed by the Nazis.
Over the 5 years of the war, I was fortunate to survive several ghettos, as well as the notorious camps of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and finally be liberated in Dachau.
After the war, in 1947 I immigrated to the United States where a few years later, in 1950, I met and married my wife Jean. Over the years, I became a successful realtor in Los Angeles and after retiring in 1995, I have devoted my time to being a volunteer to speak in colleges and schools about the Holocaust.
I wrote a book about my experiences, entitled Living a Life that Matters[3] .
I am looking forward to answering your questions today. Victoria from reddit will be helping me via phone. Anything I can do to further the cause of tolerance - I am always ready, willing and able to do. Anyway, you go ahead and ask any questions.
How frustrating is it that some people refuse to believe the Holocaust occurred?
[–]IamBenLesser [S] 1196 points 2 days ago
Well, Victoria, I don't believe that they don't know better.
They know better.
They just believe that if a lie is told long enough, that some people will start believing in that lie.
Because nothing in history was ever as documented as the Holocaust itself.
So... you know, how could they deny it?
Eisenhower, when he came across these camps, instructed his soldiers, the fighting men to take pictures - all the pictures they could, from all they saw, these atrocities, "because someday there will be people denying that it ever happened."
That it ever happened.
So he was smart enough.
And millions, and millions of pictures. It was documented in pictures, and films. So what's the use of denying it?
They are preying on youngsters who don't know better, or uneducated people. This is why education is important. Because people who are in countries who don't have the chance to know the truth - they hope that these people will believe it.
Those are anti-Semites. People who hate Jewish people.
stop with your logic and reason and understanding
on
Mike Godwin Interviewed
·
· Score: 3, Funny
there is always a residual bias in any information source, we're human, it's inescapable
but that's hugely different than outright manipulative propaganda
wikipedia is absolutely fine being incomplete and sketchy, as long as it tries to be neutral
so when wikipedia goes after shitbag edits like this nypd episode, it proves it is committed to the ideal, which is as good an effort as you will ever get
the time to worry is when you find a shitbag edit yourself, you raise an alarm flag and cite a source... and your efforts at reversing the lie disappear
you are going to put it on a public wire, and expect that secret piece of info {X} to magically stay secret
where exactly does that erroneous perception come from?
i don't have a problem with laws against government surveillance invading your privacy: going into your house and rifling through your stuff, for example
but i also don't have a magic expectation that if i leave my secret stuff in the middle of main street, that no one is going to see it, never mind the government
to put something on a public wire, to let it go through a number of nodes you don't control, you don't know who controls them, and you don't even know what nodes those are... and then be amazed, shocked and flabbergasted that someone saw it?
where the hell did this disconnect with reality come from?
i'm not talking about the law or government conduct. i'm talking about basic perception of the problem. whether you live in a state that gives you full freedoms it respects or you live under a repressive regime, the problem stays the same: you don't get privacy when you put something on a public wire, ever. and you never will. not because of government. because of your conduct: "here's my secrets world, i'm putting them on public wires, but they will stay secret because magic"
if something is secret and important to you, you PROTECT it by not putting it in PUBLIC. you don't put it in public and then act amazed and devastated when someone, anyone, individual, corporation, or government, invariably snoops
but there is this common, weird perception that something on a public wire magically has the same tactical standing as a locked box in your basement. it's fucking insane this attitude. i said *tactical* standing. forget legal! the legal standing doesn't mean a fucking thing: if the law said "people walking down naked in the middle of main street cannot be looked at" do you magically expect that law to making a fucking difference?
then why is everyone so up in arms about the law? individual, corporate and government conduct about their secrets in *public* places doesn't mean a fucking thing because YOU put the info on a public wire you do not control
it's not possible to put something out on a wire and expect it to be private
i don't walk down main street naked and expect privacy
same problem
passing some law insisting everyone look away is going to be effective you think? that's your protection?
if you want privacy, go walk with someone on the beach next to the crashing surf (to drown out the telescopic mics)
otherwise, if you or what you are saying is interesting, someone can eavesdrop. that's not a new problem. it's always been that way
what is new is this bizarre psychological trick we play on ourselves that sitting in front of our computer connected to a network is magically somehow an intimate private experience. how? why does anyone expect that? it never was, and it never will be
never mind the government. you have snooping family members or friends who swipe your credentials. you have your internet provider, and every company who owns every node from here to your destination: they all can snoop. if the info you share is innocuous, who cares. that's the extent of my realistic expectations. if the info is important to you: why are you amazed and aggrieved that nodes on a public network is not magically private? the only problem is people's inability to look at the reality of the communication conduit and make peace with it's unavoidably public nature
why did we ever expect privacy on the internet? how did that trick of the mind ever come to be?
if you want privacy:
1. get off the Internet, or
2. invest in serious encryption. oh, it's a hassle? you want privacy on a public network and you expect it to be hassle free? what is wrong with you?
those are your only two choices
because just expecting government, corporations, or interested people not to snoop is just never going to happen, ever. disrespect is the norm. are you some sort of naive inexperienced fool to the pitfalls of basic human nature?
the problem is expecting no one to spy, or that you can enforce that, and expecting that something goes out on a public wire and is magically private. it's thinking about the nature of the problem all wrong. you think some law somewhere is going to give you protection?
now mod me a troll and continue the indignant outrage about a problem you can't solve and no one ever will
coal has a lot of other problems besides just CO2, so the switch to natural gas is an improvement in other environmental areas besides just CO2 emissions
i also like the durability. much better than bulbs or tubes, but are they fragile in any unexpected way?
and any experiences on their temperature range? i know they don't heat up, i'm talking about using them outside in the winter or in the summer, like in motion detector flood light setups for example
both of your points about mercury are correct, but the simple fact you have to deal with such a toxic hassle, no matter how minor, is obviously a step backwards from incandescent. factoring in the energy cost improvement, maybe not, but it's a PR nightmare. people hear "mercury" and it doesn't matter if they get 1,000-10,000x more exposure from their tuna fish sandwich: no one wants to deal with that shit
the founding fathers, in the text of second amendment, and ancillary texts, clearly intended guns for well-trained individuals. there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one. adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained. i love the constitution and i want it enforced as intended, not warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
and i've supported my assertion in this thread, not that it's controversial or difficult to see. i've made my argument here well
but rather than concede the simple point, you change the subject. this is the intellectual dishonest way of conceding that someone is correct and that they have taught you something, even though it's obvious that i have
so you are welcome for the education today on the founding fathers, the constitution, and the conservative principle of responsibility
drop one in your house and you have a mercury cleanup scene, yay
throw them out and you're dumping heavy metal contaminants
i suppose someone could point out that the amount of mercury pumped out from coal burning plants to power all those incandescent bulbs is far more mercury released
but still, yeah, fuck CFL
and their weak corpse colored light
and the whole minute you have to wait for them to warm up if you just want to walk in and out of a room to get something
So, you start your post by quoting someone who says the founders would be surprised by newer technology or by the evolution of tools and society? That's supposed to make the rest of your non-sequitor post more relevent?
i stopped reading there
why do you keep changing the topic?
you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the simple paragraph, or you are being purposefully intellectually dishonest and avoiding the point you don't have an answer for, rather than conceding a point like someone with integrity
1. read again
2. show you understand what the historians' paragraph says
Man, do you ever get dizzy from spinning around to all these different positions? You must. So it's a "wonderful way to make money off of music", but it's "nothing at all like charging for your music"?
i stopped reading there, you're not worth my time
yes, moron: advertising and charging for something are completely different business models
They can pursue any economic model they want. Before the Internet, the LP/ cassette/ CD model of "you pay to listen to a recording" made sense. But maybe that model is deficient and inefficient with this new tech called the Internet?
Like with youtube, the artists getting discovered now are the ones who give it away for free.
That was never true before... oh no wait... there was radio. You listened 100% for free, paid for by advertising.
Gee, does that wacky evil communist selfish economic model work??? NO WAY.
And before the last century, music was supported only by performance and patrons. Brahms, Beethoven, and Bach would cry to sleep every night whining they couldn't afford to make music because recorded music hadn't been invented yet, right?
Friend: the last century was an aberration. Not The One And True Economic Model God Intended That Shall Never Change Amen.
Show some awareness of change and some historical awareness. Currently you only are equipped with a closed, dim, uneducated mind on this topic. The world is changing. Stop shaking your weak ignorant fists and adapt. Or die.
Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
so who is full of ignorant bombast? who are you? just a nobody on the Internet. I'll be siding with what the founding fathers actually said, and historians agree on
you're going to have a hard time adjusting to the change that is coming. my ancestor fought in the revolution as a musketman, the second amendment was written for him. and i am proud of the constitution he fought for and i will not see it defiled. it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
not as it was rewritten by dirty harry hotheads 50 years ago with no historical foundation. history will show that period to be an aberration. the second amendment is about community service, muskets, and the frontier. not about individual action, handguns, and urban crime
and most importantly, if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility, you must know somewhere in your mind, in spite of all the denial and closed mindedness, that you will lose. there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law. and to champion a broken legal status quo that champions irresponsibility is just not going to last. sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend
Slashdot Mirror
you can't make people care
there will be plenty that just don't care about privacy
there will be plenty that don't care and they're right: their online life is shallow crap
there will be plenty that don't care and they're wrong: their online info is used against them
some small fraction of the latter group will make an effort to correct that problem
this is, and always will be, a small percentage of people online
and honestly: it's not a problem. most people just aren't that interesting
if you want to spin frightening scenarios of government knowing everything about them, advertisers profiling their lives in every detail, the ease at which their finances and physical location can found in a snap, etc... they still won't fucking care
welcome to reality
you do not possess coherent morality
I never claimed I did.
discussion over then. thank you for volunteering your irrelevancy to the topic. but maybe next time you shouldn't speak up at all if you don't have a leg to stand on
look at you: concerned because i dehumanize a mass murderer?
you do not possess coherent morality
you respect and tolerate all. until someone disrespects and lacks tolerance. then you give back exactly the same
to tolerate intolerance is only to invite the destruction of your belief system
you forgot to mention something about india:
India retains capital punishment for a number of serious offences.[1] The Indian Supreme Court has allowed the death penalty to be carried out in only 4 instances since 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
this i think is the best attitude of any country. out of over a billion people, they've only given capital punishment to 4 in the last 20 years. that's the way it should be. india has the best attitude
capital punishment should be abolished for 99.99% of crimes. but it should never be taken completely off the table
there does indeed in this world exist crimes of such heinous atrocity, that it is impossible to call yourself a human being with a morality and a conscience and not insist on the death penalty
again, do not get me wrong: we are only talking about the worst of the worst of the worst. so for example this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
absolutely deserved death
and i cannot understand any human being who does not agree with that decision. to weigh and consider his crime and suggest he does not deserve death is simply beyond my comprehension. this man too absolutely deserves only death and no less:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
why is this creature still alive, it is not a human being. it has lost the ability to call itself that by defiling basic morality to such a repugnant extreme. why is this thing still alive? so it can whine about video game privileges? this thing must die
i cannot comprehend any argument compatible with any logically coherent morality that suggests the bag of shit called breivik deserves to continue to draw breath. norway: you are defiling simple morality and basic reasoning in allowing this filth a heartbeat
again, please note: we are here on the very edge of atrocity. the crimes that shock the conscience at the furthest extreme. the worst of the worst of the worst. they alone deserve death from the state
to me, this means under 5 people out of the entire world every decade
so india has the closest approach to perfect on capital punishment in this world
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
Hello reddit. I am Ben Lesser[1] .
I am the founder of the Zachor Holocaust Remembrance Foundation[2] .
I was born in Krakow, Poland, in 1928. With the exception of my older sister Lola and myself, the rest of my family was killed by the Nazis.
Over the 5 years of the war, I was fortunate to survive several ghettos, as well as the notorious camps of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and finally be liberated in Dachau.
After the war, in 1947 I immigrated to the United States where a few years later, in 1950, I met and married my wife Jean. Over the years, I became a successful realtor in Los Angeles and after retiring in 1995, I have devoted my time to being a volunteer to speak in colleges and schools about the Holocaust.
I wrote a book about my experiences, entitled Living a Life that Matters[3] .
I am looking forward to answering your questions today. Victoria from reddit will be helping me via phone. Anything I can do to further the cause of tolerance - I am always ready, willing and able to do. Anyway, you go ahead and ask any questions.
How frustrating is it that some people refuse to believe the Holocaust occurred?
[–]IamBenLesser [S] 1196 points 2 days ago
Well, Victoria, I don't believe that they don't know better.
They know better.
They just believe that if a lie is told long enough, that some people will start believing in that lie.
Because nothing in history was ever as documented as the Holocaust itself.
So... you know, how could they deny it?
Eisenhower, when he came across these camps, instructed his soldiers, the fighting men to take pictures - all the pictures they could, from all they saw, these atrocities, "because someday there will be people denying that it ever happened."
That it ever happened.
So he was smart enough.
And millions, and millions of pictures. It was documented in pictures, and films. So what's the use of denying it?
They are preying on youngsters who don't know better, or uneducated people. This is why education is important. Because people who are in countries who don't have the chance to know the truth - they hope that these people will believe it.
Those are anti-Semites. People who hate Jewish people.
you nazi fascist
the nobel is a swedish prize so maybe the swedish scientists just aren't as impressed
there is always a residual bias in any information source, we're human, it's inescapable
but that's hugely different than outright manipulative propaganda
wikipedia is absolutely fine being incomplete and sketchy, as long as it tries to be neutral
so when wikipedia goes after shitbag edits like this nypd episode, it proves it is committed to the ideal, which is as good an effort as you will ever get
the time to worry is when you find a shitbag edit yourself, you raise an alarm flag and cite a source... and your efforts at reversing the lie disappear
has anyone heard of an episode like that?
if no, then wikipedia is still good
probably doesn't even have a wallet
keys, credit card, id, etc.: there's an app for that
what does "shooting the messenger" mean to you?
i am merely describing reality. i'm not making reality
you don't like reality. that's fine
but you respond by attacking the guy who tells you what reality is? what kind of person does that make you?
you have secret piece of info {X}
you are going to put it on a public wire, and expect that secret piece of info {X} to magically stay secret
where exactly does that erroneous perception come from?
i don't have a problem with laws against government surveillance invading your privacy: going into your house and rifling through your stuff, for example
but i also don't have a magic expectation that if i leave my secret stuff in the middle of main street, that no one is going to see it, never mind the government
to put something on a public wire, to let it go through a number of nodes you don't control, you don't know who controls them, and you don't even know what nodes those are... and then be amazed, shocked and flabbergasted that someone saw it?
where the hell did this disconnect with reality come from?
i'm not talking about the law or government conduct. i'm talking about basic perception of the problem. whether you live in a state that gives you full freedoms it respects or you live under a repressive regime, the problem stays the same: you don't get privacy when you put something on a public wire, ever. and you never will. not because of government. because of your conduct: "here's my secrets world, i'm putting them on public wires, but they will stay secret because magic"
if something is secret and important to you, you PROTECT it by not putting it in PUBLIC. you don't put it in public and then act amazed and devastated when someone, anyone, individual, corporation, or government, invariably snoops
but there is this common, weird perception that something on a public wire magically has the same tactical standing as a locked box in your basement. it's fucking insane this attitude. i said *tactical* standing. forget legal! the legal standing doesn't mean a fucking thing: if the law said "people walking down naked in the middle of main street cannot be looked at" do you magically expect that law to making a fucking difference?
then why is everyone so up in arms about the law? individual, corporate and government conduct about their secrets in *public* places doesn't mean a fucking thing because YOU put the info on a public wire you do not control
dear world:
if it's secret, don't fucking put it in public
signed,
common sense
it's not possible to put something out on a wire and expect it to be private
i don't walk down main street naked and expect privacy
same problem
passing some law insisting everyone look away is going to be effective you think? that's your protection?
if you want privacy, go walk with someone on the beach next to the crashing surf (to drown out the telescopic mics)
otherwise, if you or what you are saying is interesting, someone can eavesdrop. that's not a new problem. it's always been that way
what is new is this bizarre psychological trick we play on ourselves that sitting in front of our computer connected to a network is magically somehow an intimate private experience. how? why does anyone expect that? it never was, and it never will be
never mind the government. you have snooping family members or friends who swipe your credentials. you have your internet provider, and every company who owns every node from here to your destination: they all can snoop. if the info you share is innocuous, who cares. that's the extent of my realistic expectations. if the info is important to you: why are you amazed and aggrieved that nodes on a public network is not magically private? the only problem is people's inability to look at the reality of the communication conduit and make peace with it's unavoidably public nature
why did we ever expect privacy on the internet? how did that trick of the mind ever come to be?
if you want privacy:
1. get off the Internet, or
2. invest in serious encryption. oh, it's a hassle? you want privacy on a public network and you expect it to be hassle free? what is wrong with you?
those are your only two choices
because just expecting government, corporations, or interested people not to snoop is just never going to happen, ever. disrespect is the norm. are you some sort of naive inexperienced fool to the pitfalls of basic human nature?
the problem is expecting no one to spy, or that you can enforce that, and expecting that something goes out on a public wire and is magically private. it's thinking about the nature of the problem all wrong. you think some law somewhere is going to give you protection?
now mod me a troll and continue the indignant outrage about a problem you can't solve and no one ever will
coal has a lot of other problems besides just CO2, so the switch to natural gas is an improvement in other environmental areas besides just CO2 emissions
great info, thanks
i also like the durability. much better than bulbs or tubes, but are they fragile in any unexpected way?
and any experiences on their temperature range? i know they don't heat up, i'm talking about using them outside in the winter or in the summer, like in motion detector flood light setups for example
both of your points about mercury are correct, but the simple fact you have to deal with such a toxic hassle, no matter how minor, is obviously a step backwards from incandescent. factoring in the energy cost improvement, maybe not, but it's a PR nightmare. people hear "mercury" and it doesn't matter if they get 1,000-10,000x more exposure from their tuna fish sandwich: no one wants to deal with that shit
the founding fathers, in the text of second amendment, and ancillary texts, clearly intended guns for well-trained individuals. there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one. adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained. i love the constitution and i want it enforced as intended, not warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
and i've supported my assertion in this thread, not that it's controversial or difficult to see. i've made my argument here well
but rather than concede the simple point, you change the subject. this is the intellectual dishonest way of conceding that someone is correct and that they have taught you something, even though it's obvious that i have
so you are welcome for the education today on the founding fathers, the constitution, and the conservative principle of responsibility
thread over
great info, thank you, very tempting
time to take the plunge
true. an economic barrier, but a barrier once leaped it's all gravy
drop one in your house and you have a mercury cleanup scene, yay
throw them out and you're dumping heavy metal contaminants
i suppose someone could point out that the amount of mercury pumped out from coal burning plants to power all those incandescent bulbs is far more mercury released
but still, yeah, fuck CFL
and their weak corpse colored light
and the whole minute you have to wait for them to warm up if you just want to walk in and out of a room to get something
and good riddance to ancient wasteful tech
i want to go LED so bad but waiting for a good price point
i stopped reading there
why do you keep changing the topic?
you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the simple paragraph, or you are being purposefully intellectually dishonest and avoiding the point you don't have an answer for, rather than conceding a point like someone with integrity
1. read again
2. show you understand what the historians' paragraph says
3. then maybe i will read a comment from you
i stopped reading there, you're not worth my time
yes, moron: advertising and charging for something are completely different business models
They can pursue any economic model they want. Before the Internet, the LP/ cassette/ CD model of "you pay to listen to a recording" made sense. But maybe that model is deficient and inefficient with this new tech called the Internet?
Like with youtube, the artists getting discovered now are the ones who give it away for free.
That was never true before... oh no wait... there was radio. You listened 100% for free, paid for by advertising.
Gee, does that wacky evil communist selfish economic model work??? NO WAY.
And before the last century, music was supported only by performance and patrons. Brahms, Beethoven, and Bach would cry to sleep every night whining they couldn't afford to make music because recorded music hadn't been invented yet, right?
Friend: the last century was an aberration. Not The One And True Economic Model God Intended That Shall Never Change Amen.
Show some awareness of change and some historical awareness. Currently you only are equipped with a closed, dim, uneducated mind on this topic. The world is changing. Stop shaking your weak ignorant fists and adapt. Or die.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...
Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
so who is full of ignorant bombast? who are you? just a nobody on the Internet. I'll be siding with what the founding fathers actually said, and historians agree on
you're going to have a hard time adjusting to the change that is coming. my ancestor fought in the revolution as a musketman, the second amendment was written for him. and i am proud of the constitution he fought for and i will not see it defiled. it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
not as it was rewritten by dirty harry hotheads 50 years ago with no historical foundation. history will show that period to be an aberration. the second amendment is about community service, muskets, and the frontier. not about individual action, handguns, and urban crime
and most importantly, if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility, you must know somewhere in your mind, in spite of all the denial and closed mindedness, that you will lose. there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law. and to champion a broken legal status quo that champions irresponsibility is just not going to last. sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend