What exactly should we call people who are NOT neo-conservatives, war mongers, due process destroyers, privacy destroyers, mega-corp/bank tools but are socially conscious?
I'd say nearly the majority of them are Independents...which is growing leaps and bounds in the US due to most Americans identifying with neither extremes that the 2 parties cater to.
And American Democrats are about as far left as any other country's "Conservative" party.
But, we're NOT talking about other countries. This is a US site discussino US politics, so, the usage of US thoughts on the political affiliations is what is used as a baseline for arguments.
I'm so sick of people conflating leftists and liberals with Democrats.
Why?
In the US, they are considered as such.
And please, don't give me that 'left in the US is really almost right in the rest of the world'. Slashdot is a US centric site, and as such, the arguments on the political fronts are stated and argued on that basis.
Are you going to to consistent and say that mortars, flamethrowers, howitzers, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs and components, sarin, phosgene, GB, VX, anthrax spores, etc. should be available to the general public? After all, it's a free country and you might be a collector, right?
Actually, as I read it...we probably should be allowed to own them.
Those rights weren't put there so much for self defense or hunting, but for protection against the government itself.
I love me some Second Amendment as well, but I really hope you don't have kids living with you...
Nope.
But shouldn't make a difference, I grew up in a house where the gun was fully loaded, chambered and ready to go. I knew where it was..I was taught how to use and shoot it.
I was also taught that I should NEVER even think about it much less come close to touching it, unless my life was in danger. And that message stuck from my parents.
Are kids more stupid today and don't learn and listen? Why can they be trusted like I and friends I grew up with in my childhood;'back in the day'?
but assuming ill will of the other party gets you nowere in civilized debate.
But, you almost have to in this day in age.
There is rarely a law passed in the past couple of decades, that has NOT been stretched and used in new and inventive ways that spirit of the original law was not intended for....
The RICO acts have been stretched in recent years for charging people beyond what they were originally intended for...and not long back, that Mom who teased a girl bad enough that the girl committed suicide, they tried using hacking laws and all to convict her. Sure, it was a reprehensible thing for the grown lady to do, but the prosecutors mad that there was no law on the books against this...started trying to really stretch and bastardize existing laws far beyond their intent to try to charge this lady.
So, if there is a law passed giving govt more power, down the line, it is almost always safe to assume, they will want to use it for new and more creative uses or just plain outright abuse it.
I'm as pro gun as anyone out there, but I'm baffled why gun safes are not mandatory for those who wish to keep a gun at home*.
Well, for one thing...if someone is breaking into my house and I wake up and hear it..I don't want to have to count on the criminals good nature to wait for me to get up, find my glasses, fumble around in the dark to get to my gun safe, turn on the light and fiddle with the combination so I can get the gun out, to shoot said criminal.
Me?
I have several handguns hidden around various parts of the house, fully loaded, rounds chambered safety on.
So, no matter where I am I am in close reach of a weapon and I merely need to flip the safety off and start firing. I have loaded spare clips near the semi's and speed loaders near the revolvers. I still have a clip of black talons in the Baretta.
Why should the govt. tell me how I have to keep my weapons stowed?
Oh yes, because interfering on a situation where a person and his 5 year old daughter are pointed up at gunpoint is going to end up well, sure... the BEST you can do in a situation like this is to just let them take whatever they want. Unless someone is at risk or the situation is going beyond the robbery, it's not worth the risk to do anything about it.
If I see someone like that held at gunpoint, I would assume the situation was already beyond just robbery...and I'd unload on them if given the opportunity. I'd not even stop to ask questions till I was changing clips and the criminal was laying still in a pool of his own blood.
It is actually illegal to shoot someone in the face. It doesn't matter if you're in your house. The only way you can get away with murder like that is if its proven you were in a possibility of absolute physical harm. Like he had a gun in your face or something.
If they just back a truck up to you house and start unloading your goods, you actually can't stop them. You can, however, call the cops and say "someone is stealing all my goods with a truck" and I'm sure they'll come to your house pretty fast. But if you just start shooting, you're going to get arrested and put in prison, even if you think you shouldn't be.
Depends on which state you live in. In some states what you described is perfectly LEGAL.
I think in TX for instance, and other states, there are laws saying you do NOT have to retreat when in your own house, and anyone breaking into your house justifies lethal response.
And you can't depend on juries to go against the defendant if he shot someone stealing property. A few years before Katrina, out in New Orleans east, a man heard some people breaking into his car parked outside his apt. He went to the balcony and opened fire on them, one ran off, the other was killed in the car.
The police tried to try him..the jury acquitted the shooter, saying basically that his car was an extension of his household and he could defend his property.
I have no problem with this...one less thief in the world now.
But, there's always been poor people, and yet, over human existance with haves and have nots, not all of the have nots resort to crime..??
I think a lot of todays crime we see, is because we've been somehow imparting on the poor, that they are entitled to something, which just is NOT the case.
If you don't go out, try, or if you plain old fail, you lose and don't get nor deserve the nice 'bling' or toys that weathy people can readily afford.
Life is tough..and it owes individuals nothing, but somewhere along the line, people lost this knowledge and seem to think they deserve nice things, even when they've not earned them. And yes, everyone starts at different levels in life, so have to struggle more than others, but this is nothing new with human life.
Because it is a free country and I want one for whatever legal purposes I like to use one.
Collector
Target practice (some of us just like to drop a few hundred rounds at the gun range or on private land from time to time for entertainment).
Home protection.
Aside from that, however, are the broad definitions being used for "Assault Weapon".
From reading the Feinstein bill, it appears most any semi-automatic weapon could potentially be banned, allowing only single shot, bolt action (rifles) or revolvers (handguns) weapons.
If you re-read the comment above, he didn't mention assalut weapons or a gun registry
Well, one of the concerns is...that there is NOT anything being mentioned in the 'common sense' discussions pertaining to federal, national background check databases being mandated to not keep and retain citizen information about said checks and what guns they are buying. This could too easily turn into a national gun registration, anyone should be able to see this concern, and I'm pretty sure many on the far left would be assuming this information would be collected AND saved.
These background checks might be a bit more palateable to the gun rights advocates if this type of specific language requiring that no information after the check would ever be retained were put into the argument for this.
If it was assured that once a check was completed, that all information was, by law, irrevocably deleted...and that somehow the law was such that future legislation could not remove this restriction on the govt without removing the entire law and requiring it to be re-argued...I think many more people could get behind this.
One other personal concern of mine tho...is how this would affect private individuals selling their guns. I'd hate to see this requirement put in a middle man to sell the guns. I've always bought my guns used from friends and some strangers with cash and never have had to register any of my guns sales with any govt entity (except one state where I registered some for my concealed carry license). If I'm a lawful gun owning citizen, the govt has no need to know what or how many weapons I own.
Sure, if you kill him, any family he has can try to get you into the "justice" system on a manslaugther charge, but *most* civilized states (Texas, I'm looking at you..) have laws based on the "Castle" doctrine and that lawsuit won't go anywhere..
Hell, here in New Orleans, if you shoot the bastard and he somehow makes it out of your house to die in the front yard, the cops here are usually nice enough to help you drag the body back indoors before they take the pics, etc....to help keep things 'neater'.
I doubt that most states have laws that even cover this. At one former employer, the policy was changed from "It's a new year, here's your N weeks of vacation" to "It's a new year now so at the end of this month you will earned 1/12th of your N weeks so don't even think about taking a week off until around June. So forget about that ski trip you were planning for January." The state had nothing to do with vacation policy.
No one is arguing about the vacation 'policy' of how it is accrued or doled out while employed there...but more that we've never heard of a state where when you leave employment for any reason, that you do not get paid by the company 100% of any accrued vacation time you currently have.
You must work in one of those Right to Fire... errr... Work states!
I've worked in right to work states all my life (only recently did I find out there was something other than that)....but honestly, I've never had any problems because of it.
Any state I've lived in, if you left the job for any reason, they were required to pay you 100% of your accrued vacation time as opposed to what the OP said about getting less than 100% of it.
I agree with you about using taxes to keep companies' hiring IN the US....but really, I don't need anyone forcing me to join a union against my will.
Hmm...what about tax credits for going 'green'? What about tax credits for having kids? Tax credits for home mortgages?
Those aren't all 'rich' things....I say do away with ALL deductions, none at all.
That should lower everyones tax bill overall, and everyone would have some skin in the game. I'll allow for maybe on deduction, to help the truly impoverished, but anyone making over $x...pays something and no deductions for anything.
Well, during hurricane season, I figure once or twice a year, I have a built in excuse to leave town for a few days, visit friends/family out of state...that's about all it usually is. And with Humidity...well, that's what Air Conditioning is for.
:)
And after awhile, you start to get used to it a bit, and as you age, that extra moisture in the air helps keep your skin looking younger, not so dried and wrinkled as early in life. Then again...too much smoking and drinking can counterbalance that skin thing...
Or don't like living in a city with a murder rate consistently among the highest in the nation?
Yeah, that part blows about New Orleans, but on the positive note...as long as you aren't in the projects buying crack, you aren't likely to be shot and killed. I don't live with fear of that down here....I enjoy the wonderful people here that I meet out daily, the food and the unique culture here.
There is a feeling of freedom I feel living here, as opposed to elsewhere in the US.
No such thing as HOA's here.....and one some houses, well, purple just works.
Slashdot Mirror
And besides, I think we should get to call ourselves what we wish, and others should respect that, no?
I'd say nearly the majority of them are Independents...which is growing leaps and bounds in the US due to most Americans identifying with neither extremes that the 2 parties cater to.
I think everyone knows this...you're stating the obvious.
Calling people from the USA Americans is not anything new...it has been the term for us for a few hundred years.
But, we're NOT talking about other countries. This is a US site discussino US politics, so, the usage of US thoughts on the political affiliations is what is used as a baseline for arguments.
Why?
In the US, they are considered as such.
And please, don't give me that 'left in the US is really almost right in the rest of the world'. Slashdot is a US centric site, and as such, the arguments on the political fronts are stated and argued on that basis.
Actually, as I read it...we probably should be allowed to own them.
Those rights weren't put there so much for self defense or hunting, but for protection against the government itself.
Nope.
But shouldn't make a difference, I grew up in a house where the gun was fully loaded, chambered and ready to go. I knew where it was..I was taught how to use and shoot it.
I was also taught that I should NEVER even think about it much less come close to touching it, unless my life was in danger. And that message stuck from my parents.
Are kids more stupid today and don't learn and listen? Why can they be trusted like I and friends I grew up with in my childhood ;'back in the day'?
New Orleans.
But, you almost have to in this day in age.
There is rarely a law passed in the past couple of decades, that has NOT been stretched and used in new and inventive ways that spirit of the original law was not intended for....
The RICO acts have been stretched in recent years for charging people beyond what they were originally intended for...and not long back, that Mom who teased a girl bad enough that the girl committed suicide, they tried using hacking laws and all to convict her. Sure, it was a reprehensible thing for the grown lady to do, but the prosecutors mad that there was no law on the books against this...started trying to really stretch and bastardize existing laws far beyond their intent to try to charge this lady.
So, if there is a law passed giving govt more power, down the line, it is almost always safe to assume, they will want to use it for new and more creative uses or just plain outright abuse it.
Well, for one thing...if someone is breaking into my house and I wake up and hear it..I don't want to have to count on the criminals good nature to wait for me to get up, find my glasses, fumble around in the dark to get to my gun safe, turn on the light and fiddle with the combination so I can get the gun out, to shoot said criminal.
Me?
I have several handguns hidden around various parts of the house, fully loaded, rounds chambered safety on.
So, no matter where I am I am in close reach of a weapon and I merely need to flip the safety off and start firing. I have loaded spare clips near the semi's and speed loaders near the revolvers. I still have a clip of black talons in the Baretta.
Why should the govt. tell me how I have to keep my weapons stowed?
You know...for that fashion concious govt. official what wants to look his best on the day he goes postal ?
If I see someone like that held at gunpoint, I would assume the situation was already beyond just robbery...and I'd unload on them if given the opportunity. I'd not even stop to ask questions till I was changing clips and the criminal was laying still in a pool of his own blood.
Depends on which state you live in. In some states what you described is perfectly LEGAL.
I think in TX for instance, and other states, there are laws saying you do NOT have to retreat when in your own house, and anyone breaking into your house justifies lethal response.
And you can't depend on juries to go against the defendant if he shot someone stealing property. A few years before Katrina, out in New Orleans east, a man heard some people breaking into his car parked outside his apt. He went to the balcony and opened fire on them, one ran off, the other was killed in the car.
The police tried to try him..the jury acquitted the shooter, saying basically that his car was an extension of his household and he could defend his property.
I have no problem with this...one less thief in the world now.
I think a lot of todays crime we see, is because we've been somehow imparting on the poor, that they are entitled to something, which just is NOT the case.
If you don't go out, try, or if you plain old fail, you lose and don't get nor deserve the nice 'bling' or toys that weathy people can readily afford.
Life is tough..and it owes individuals nothing, but somewhere along the line, people lost this knowledge and seem to think they deserve nice things, even when they've not earned them. And yes, everyone starts at different levels in life, so have to struggle more than others, but this is nothing new with human life.
Because it is a free country and I want one for whatever legal purposes I like to use one.
Collector
Target practice (some of us just like to drop a few hundred rounds at the gun range or on private land from time to time for entertainment).
Home protection.
Aside from that, however, are the broad definitions being used for "Assault Weapon".
From reading the Feinstein bill, it appears most any semi-automatic weapon could potentially be banned, allowing only single shot, bolt action (rifles) or revolvers (handguns) weapons.
Well, one of the concerns is...that there is NOT anything being mentioned in the 'common sense' discussions pertaining to federal, national background check databases being mandated to not keep and retain citizen information about said checks and what guns they are buying. This could too easily turn into a national gun registration, anyone should be able to see this concern, and I'm pretty sure many on the far left would be assuming this information would be collected AND saved.
These background checks might be a bit more palateable to the gun rights advocates if this type of specific language requiring that no information after the check would ever be retained were put into the argument for this.
If it was assured that once a check was completed, that all information was, by law, irrevocably deleted...and that somehow the law was such that future legislation could not remove this restriction on the govt without removing the entire law and requiring it to be re-argued...I think many more people could get behind this.
One other personal concern of mine tho...is how this would affect private individuals selling their guns. I'd hate to see this requirement put in a middle man to sell the guns. I've always bought my guns used from friends and some strangers with cash and never have had to register any of my guns sales with any govt entity (except one state where I registered some for my concealed carry license). If I'm a lawful gun owning citizen, the govt has no need to know what or how many weapons I own.
I'd assume the DVR and all would be 'hidden' somewhere outta the way like the attic?
I'd think concealing the cameras would be a good idea too.
Hell, here in New Orleans, if you shoot the bastard and he somehow makes it out of your house to die in the front yard, the cops here are usually nice enough to help you drag the body back indoors before they take the pics, etc....to help keep things 'neater'.
Of, if you can't find one (they are all currently sold out), in the meantime, you could just get a nice shotgun as Joe Biden recommended recently.
No one is arguing about the vacation 'policy' of how it is accrued or doled out while employed there...but more that we've never heard of a state where when you leave employment for any reason, that you do not get paid by the company 100% of any accrued vacation time you currently have.
Two different issues.
I've worked in right to work states all my life (only recently did I find out there was something other than that)....but honestly, I've never had any problems because of it.
Any state I've lived in, if you left the job for any reason, they were required to pay you 100% of your accrued vacation time as opposed to what the OP said about getting less than 100% of it.
I agree with you about using taxes to keep companies' hiring IN the US....but really, I don't need anyone forcing me to join a union against my will.
Those aren't all 'rich' things....I say do away with ALL deductions, none at all.
That should lower everyones tax bill overall, and everyone would have some skin in the game. I'll allow for maybe on deduction, to help the truly impoverished, but anyone making over $x...pays something and no deductions for anything.
Well, during hurricane season, I figure once or twice a year, I have a built in excuse to leave town for a few days, visit friends/family out of state...that's about all it usually is. And with Humidity...well, that's what Air Conditioning is for.
And after awhile, you start to get used to it a bit, and as you age, that extra moisture in the air helps keep your skin looking younger, not so dried and wrinkled as early in life. Then again...too much smoking and drinking can counterbalance that skin thing...
Shrimp, Crab, Crawfish and Oyster.
Yeah, that part blows about New Orleans, but on the positive note...as long as you aren't in the projects buying crack, you aren't likely to be shot and killed. I don't live with fear of that down here....I enjoy the wonderful people here that I meet out daily, the food and the unique culture here.
There is a feeling of freedom I feel living here, as opposed to elsewhere in the US.
No such thing as HOA's here.....and one some houses, well, purple just works.