Meanwhile, Clinton, with the Legislature spending most of their time sniffing blue dresses for presidental spunk, lacked the support necessary to invade Afghanistan and take out Bin Laden.
However, I agree that one can't really fault Bush for not giving the order to blow civilian airliners out of the sky on 9/11, I don't think even Jack Ryan would have been that on the ball.
and the previous Sherrif & DA who supported a more active (aka brutal) campaign against protest(including dabbing pepper spray in the eyes of bound protestors) lost the last election in a landslide.
Since Maxxam bought Palco with junk bonds and instituted hyper aggressive logging practices to pay them off, which practices led to the flooding of dozens of homes, and a sharpt decline in the salmon industry (which used to employ thousands), the local folks have gotten pretty fed up.
Palco used to rely on thousands of employees of it's own to vote the company line on local issues, but Maxxam's liqudation of the Palco pensions and automation of it's tree farms have resulted in very few people actually relying on the timber industry any more, with a consequent decline in local political support.
In short, the cops will come when they aren't busy with murders, rapes, and robberies, and they will definitely come if the loggers kill anyone again, but they aren't going to climb any trees or set up trail blocks to protect the "private" property of a multinat that has severely impacted the property and businesses of it's downstream neighbors.
Muskets would probably be exempt, for instance, along a similar logic: certain assemblies require permits because they may cause impact, and (legal) assemblies involving alcohol most always involve licenses because they may cause a greater impact, so guns that are more dangerous (like handguns and carbines) require licenses while single shot muskets probably wouldn't.
generally requires permits or licenses, & subject to all kinds of restrictions which have generally been upheld by the courts. so it seems your statement you can't license a right is false.
So it seems to me, again, so long as it were clear what the procedure was and no person or group was unfairly excluded (felons & severely mentally ill presumably would not qualify), it would be entirely within the rights of Congress to require gun licenses.
Any more than requiring a parade permit infringes on the right to peaceably assemble.
Confiscating guns would infringe on the right to bear arms, so you don't have to worry that licensing will lead to confiscating. Remember slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
To make "this decision for someone else (i.e. the fetus).".
Since the mother risks her life carrying the fetus, this seems only fair.
Regardless, the point is that one can be in favor of letting the mother choose whether to risk her life while also being in favor of her choosing to risk it.
Meanwhile, 12 million is the size of a single grant of hundreds that NIH and NSF fund for promising research in other areas, and this years version of the Brownback bill, barely stopped by the Democrats last year, will make the doctors working at this Stanford Center federal criminals in a few months.
Heck, the US Congress is set to make patients who travel to other countries for therapeutic cloning related therapies into federal criminals.
presence or absense of brainwave activity is generally used. When there is no brainwave activity, the family is given the choice whether to turn off life support and donate the organs or not.
The IVF embryo debate seems to have a similar ethic to me: the embryos are frozen and will either be stored indefinitly or discarded when the money for storing them runs out. So it should be fine for folks to donate embryos they don't use in the process: the realistic options are similar to a person without brainwave activity: donate the organs (stem cells) or keep them on life support (frozen in liquid nitrogen) untill they completely die, at which point the organs (stem cells) are useless.
Similarly, I'm against smoking, but also favor people having the choice whether to smoke or not.
In other words, it's best not to allow the Govt. to make everything that someone doesn't like illegal, from our past experience making doctors who perform abortions and women who receive them into criminals isn't a good idea.
But many folks who feeel that the woman should ultimately decide about something that will take over her body for 9 months and may well kill her in the process, will still advise against abortion unless the woman feels she has no other option...
"stop children dying in accidents then they would focus on the plethora of more common accidents which claim the lives of children around this country rather than focussing on guns."
But somehow the NRA gets all up in arms when folks try to mix reasonable safety measures with guns...
is much better first line home defense than a gun under the pillow.
I sleep well all night knowing that anyone trying to get in is going to meet not just the sound but the teeth of my alarm.
PS the risk of accidental discharge pretty much went away after the first 4 months, though the risk of "accidental" garbage can tipping is still around %5.
In fact the WOSD is a perfect model for taxing bullets, look how it has driven people to pay hundreds of dollars on oz for a weed that used to grow wild in most of the country.
As for dioxin, a toxic chemical: "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash" -Regulation, Vol.16, no.1, Fall 1993. Reported here.
Might one assume that if he thinks a rash is worse than cancer, his judgement of the risks of guns might be a bit non-standard?
That being said, I agree that concealed carry laws reduce some crimes, esp. mugging & street crimes. Its the short fused guy with too many coffees and a hangover, who rear-ends me in his SUV and blames me for being in front of him, that I worry about having a.44 under his jacket.
or any of that FUD. Think about it: the idea is to reduce the amount of gun deaths by making more expensive to fire your weapon.
If you have to make your own bullets, this accomplishes the same goal: it's alot harder to make your own clip of 7.62x51mm ammo than it is to buy it, so either way you have a great reduction in the number of folks willing to empty a clip to make a point. Of course it wouldn't affect musket owners much at all, and heck hunting with a muzzle loader is alot more sporting.
Would it make a difference? Well, even the 5 cent tax would raise millions for emergency rooms. Of course the much higher tax I'm proposing would greatly reduce ammo sales, but it would hardly "erode civil rights", cheap ammo not being one of those.
As for "our ability to raise against them", you are talking dangerous fantasy talk, you can't "raise against" the US Army with hand weapons, the Taliban tried that with alot more than modified Ar-15s, remember?
If it ever comes to that, you'd be alot better off excercising your right to "keep and bear" bouquets of flowers than modified Ar-15s...
If you want to reduce gun deaths: with a "sin tax" of a few thousand per bullet, this way there is no 2ndA violation, since the right to keep and bear is not infringed.
I first heard the idea from Chris Rock, he pointed out that if it cost $5k per bullet, then folks not only be sure that they really wanted to kill someone before shooting, but it would greatly reduce drive by violence.
$5000 does seem a bit much, but I think the idea has merit, one could use the $ raised for training programs in gun safety and gun violence victim compensation.
While doctors have been proposing this in a small way, I'd say we need to go much higher than 5 cents to see gun death prevention.
I'm glas you take your responsibility wrt guns seriously, the problem is too many gun owners don't.
Which is why we fail to meet the first part of the second A: a well regulated militia.
To accomplish this, the state should be able to require a minimum level of training culminating in a license for gun ownership. This would not infringe on the right to keep an bear so long as the licensing process was open to all and not unreasonably expensive nor difficult.
Wrt to your attempt to troll atheists, many of the founders were Deists, which is more similar to Atheism than it is to Christianity (both deny revealed religion).
"the accepted theories for the origins of cells and therefore the origin of life"
But then later claims these "theories" were actually hypotheses:
"Professor Martin and Dr Russell have long had problems with the existing
hypotheses of cell evolution and their theory turns traditional views upside down."
Suddenly their idea is a "theory" even though there is no more evidence that it is correct than for several competing ideas of cell evolution. Of course, among actual scientists, a "theory" is supposed to be the term for a hypothesis that has been demonstrated by empirical evidence to be the most accurate and predictive explanation for an event or set of events.
It's this kind of sloppy use of terms that leads some folks to promote their "theory" of Intelligent Design as equivalent to the Theory (its just a theory) of Evolution.
to a corporation's attempt to get rich through scamming the ignorant.
I fail to see how lawyers getting rich in their effort to punish the greedy scammer makes things "broken", it seems to me that it is a response to a broken regulatory system: it's not like Bonzi popped up yesterday, if the FTC was going to do something it should have already.
Most likely, all the FTC would do anyway is hit them with a minor fine, something Bonzi could pay by raising their rates a few 1/10s/add or pushing up 5 pops instead of 2.
Greedy lawyers are the natural predators of greedy corporations, and the Govt. should either tame the jungle equally (which it certainly doesn't do) or stay out of the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that a Froidjin slup?
Meanwhile, where did the "War on Terror" go, anyway? It seems to have been morphed into Desert Storm II by George Bush II...
Who has yet to show that Iraq had thing one to do with the collapsing Towers or crushed Pentagon...
So WTF, git the folks all riled for WAR, but can't find the enemy, so jist aim them guns at an easier target???
Whats the logic there, "one War is as good as another"??
Sounds more like Deliverence than a Noble Cause to me...
Splitting the vote between Iraq, War on Terror, and Economy.
A better indication would have been War vs. Economy, then see if folks want to finish the job on 'Terror' or start a new war to git Saddam, IMO.
more likely he would have acted on his plan to attack Al Qaeda:
The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.
Rather than sit on it.
Meanwhile, Clinton, with the Legislature spending most of their time sniffing blue dresses for presidental spunk, lacked the support necessary to invade Afghanistan and take out Bin Laden.
Bush's team thus has two major mistakes to answer for: not listening when Berger and Mr Clarke outlined the threat in briefings they provided for Condoleezza Rice and, when they did get around to taking action, letting Bin Laden escape.
However, I agree that one can't really fault Bush for not giving the order to blow civilian airliners out of the sky on 9/11, I don't think even Jack Ryan would have been that on the ball.
and the previous Sherrif & DA who supported a more active (aka brutal) campaign against protest(including dabbing pepper spray in the eyes of bound protestors) lost the last election in a landslide.
Since Maxxam bought Palco with junk bonds and instituted hyper aggressive logging practices to pay them off, which practices led to the flooding of dozens of homes, and a sharpt decline in the salmon industry (which used to employ thousands), the local folks have gotten pretty fed up.
Palco used to rely on thousands of employees of it's own to vote the company line on local issues, but Maxxam's liqudation of the Palco pensions and automation of it's tree farms have resulted in very few people actually relying on the timber industry any more, with a consequent decline in local political support.
In short, the cops will come when they aren't busy with murders, rapes, and robberies, and they will definitely come if the loggers kill anyone again, but they aren't going to climb any trees or set up trail blocks to protect the "private" property of a multinat that has severely impacted the property and businesses of it's downstream neighbors.
not about some fundamentalist eco-purism.
Maxxam's desperate cutting to pay off it's junk bond funded buyout of Palco (a tactic made illegal shortly afterwards) has resulted in many folks who live downstream from the timber lands losing their homes to floods and landslides.
And the silting and warming (due to removal of the sheltering canopy of the big trees) of the rivers that flow through Palco's land has greatly impacted the the local salmon fishery, which used to employ thousands (alot more than the increasingly mechanized timber industry).
IOW, this is about protecting the common resources of the area from a rapacious multinat, not about extreme environmental purism.
certain arms, likewise.
Muskets would probably be exempt, for instance, along a similar logic: certain assemblies require permits because they may cause impact, and (legal) assemblies involving alcohol most always involve licenses because they may cause a greater impact, so guns that are more dangerous (like handguns and carbines) require licenses while single shot muskets probably wouldn't.
generally requires permits or licenses, & subject to all kinds of restrictions which have generally been upheld by the courts. so it seems your statement you can't license a right is false.
So it seems to me, again, so long as it were clear what the procedure was and no person or group was unfairly excluded (felons & severely mentally ill presumably would not qualify), it would be entirely within the rights of Congress to require gun licenses.
Any more than requiring a parade permit infringes on the right to peaceably assemble.
Confiscating guns would infringe on the right to bear arms, so you don't have to worry that licensing will lead to confiscating. Remember slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
To make "this decision for someone else (i.e. the fetus).".
Since the mother risks her life carrying the fetus, this seems only fair.
Regardless, the point is that one can be in favor of letting the mother choose whether to risk her life while also being in favor of her choosing to risk it.
Meanwhile, 12 million is the size of a single grant of hundreds that NIH and NSF fund for promising research in other areas, and this years version of the Brownback bill, barely stopped by the Democrats last year, will make the doctors working at this Stanford Center federal criminals in a few months.
Heck, the US Congress is set to make patients who travel to other countries for therapeutic cloning related therapies into federal criminals.
I think the term is: "Woo Hoo".
presence or absense of brainwave activity is generally used. When there is no brainwave activity, the family is given the choice whether to turn off life support and donate the organs or not.
The IVF embryo debate seems to have a similar ethic to me: the embryos are frozen and will either be stored indefinitly or discarded when the money for storing them runs out. So it should be fine for folks to donate embryos they don't use in the process: the realistic options are similar to a person without brainwave activity: donate the organs (stem cells) or keep them on life support (frozen in liquid nitrogen) untill they completely die, at which point the organs (stem cells) are useless.
Similarly, I'm against smoking, but also favor people having the choice whether to smoke or not.
In other words, it's best not to allow the Govt. to make everything that someone doesn't like illegal, from our past experience making doctors who perform abortions and women who receive them into criminals isn't a good idea.
But many folks who feeel that the woman should ultimately decide about something that will take over her body for 9 months and may well kill her in the process, will still advise against abortion unless the woman feels she has no other option...
Embryonic Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are not part of the abortion debate.
So why is the Religious Right hijacking this issue to use as a weapon in their war on abortion?
All the ones I've used are terrible in some maJOR WAY! (not mention we can't even fix the location of the caPS LOck keY!.
If the human and machine have a child who is also fertile, then they are the same species already.
etc, etc, folks certainly are trying to:
"stop children dying in accidents then they would focus on the plethora of more common accidents which claim the lives of children around this country rather than focussing on guns."
But somehow the NRA gets all up in arms when folks try to mix reasonable safety measures with guns...
is much better first line home defense than a gun under the pillow.
I sleep well all night knowing that anyone trying to get in is going to meet not just the sound but the teeth of my alarm.
PS the risk of accidental discharge pretty much went away after the first 4 months, though the risk of "accidental" garbage can tipping is still around %5.
which is the idea.
In fact the WOSD is a perfect model for taxing bullets, look how it has driven people to pay hundreds of dollars on oz for a weed that used to grow wild in most of the country.
As for dioxin, a toxic chemical: "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash" -Regulation, Vol.16, no.1, Fall 1993. Reported here.
Might one assume that if he thinks a rash is worse than cancer, his judgement of the risks of guns might be a bit non-standard?
That being said, I agree that concealed carry laws reduce some crimes, esp. mugging & street crimes. Its the short fused guy with too many coffees and a hangover, who rear-ends me in his SUV and blames me for being in front of him, that I worry about having a
or any of that FUD. Think about it: the idea is to reduce the amount of gun deaths by making more expensive to fire your weapon.
If you have to make your own bullets, this accomplishes the same goal: it's alot harder to make your own clip of 7.62x51mm ammo than it is to buy it, so either way you have a great reduction in the number of folks willing to empty a clip to make a point. Of course it wouldn't affect musket owners much at all, and heck hunting with a muzzle loader is alot more sporting.
Would it make a difference? Well, even the 5 cent tax would raise millions for emergency rooms. Of course the much higher tax I'm proposing would greatly reduce ammo sales, but it would hardly "erode civil rights", cheap ammo not being one of those.
As for "our ability to raise against them", you are talking dangerous fantasy talk, you can't "raise against" the US Army with hand weapons, the Taliban tried that with alot more than modified Ar-15s, remember?
If it ever comes to that, you'd be alot better off excercising your right to "keep and bear" bouquets of flowers than modified Ar-15s...
If you want to reduce gun deaths: with a "sin tax" of a few thousand per bullet, this way there is no 2ndA violation, since the right to keep and bear is not infringed.
I first heard the idea from Chris Rock, he pointed out that if it cost $5k per bullet, then folks not only be sure that they really wanted to kill someone before shooting, but it would greatly reduce drive by violence.
$5000 does seem a bit much, but I think the idea has merit, one could use the $ raised for training programs in gun safety and gun violence victim compensation.
While doctors have been proposing this in a small way, I'd say we need to go much higher than 5 cents to see gun death prevention.
I'm glas you take your responsibility wrt guns seriously, the problem is too many gun owners don't.
Which is why we fail to meet the first part of the second A: a well regulated militia.
To accomplish this, the state should be able to require a minimum level of training culminating in a license for gun ownership. This would not infringe on the right to keep an bear so long as the licensing process was open to all and not unreasonably expensive nor difficult.
Wrt to your attempt to troll atheists, many of the founders were Deists, which is more similar to Atheism than it is to Christianity (both deny revealed religion).
But then later claims these "theories" were actually hypotheses:
Suddenly their idea is a "theory" even though there is no more evidence that it is correct than for several competing ideas of cell evolution. Of course, among actual scientists, a "theory" is supposed to be the term for a hypothesis that has been demonstrated by empirical evidence to be the most accurate and predictive explanation for an event or set of events.
It's this kind of sloppy use of terms that leads some folks to promote their "theory" of Intelligent Design as equivalent to the Theory (its just a theory) of Evolution.
for historical reasons (which has generated alot of hysterical reasoning).
But it doesn't apply to evolution, anyway, as it describes the operation of a closed system, while evolution operates in an open system.
to a corporation's attempt to get rich through scamming the ignorant.
I fail to see how lawyers getting rich in their effort to punish the greedy scammer makes things "broken", it seems to me that it is a response to a broken regulatory system: it's not like Bonzi popped up yesterday, if the FTC was going to do something it should have already.
Most likely, all the FTC would do anyway is hit them with a minor fine, something Bonzi could pay by raising their rates a few 1/10s/add or pushing up 5 pops instead of 2.
Greedy lawyers are the natural predators of greedy corporations, and the Govt. should either tame the jungle equally (which it certainly doesn't do) or stay out of the way.