Long since HIPAA, "do you have any medical condition" questions are still asked on applications for employment. You are saying they are illegal, yet *everyone* does it, and nobody cares.
Your link is about what they can search for, not what they can ask, or what they can use against you.
I certainly understand why someone with limited knowledge of firearms might point to an gun in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and say "nobody needs to have THAT. I don't know exactly what that is, but it should be illegal." Of course what Arnold is holding is an oatmeal box with a four pieces of PVC pipe hot glued to it, painted black.
You should have used a real example I think it was XXX that used a camcorder for a heat-seeking bazooka. It was pretty fake looking, but most people didn't even notice.
It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it. You are painting the entire community based on laws, and you live under laws you don't agree with, while not accepting the possibility of anyone else being in a similar situation. Still a hypocrite. Just picking the what for.
That's because "function" is too vague. Would you rather it specify that only bolt-action weapons are legal? There'll be a resurgence of bolt-action pistols after that one.
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
From the commonwealth perspective, they aren't as immigrant as you imply. The commonwealth is like a single "country" by today's standards. Like the US's Puerto Rico, they are all under the central government's rule. The Queen is the current head of government for all. All of the passports are issued under the authority of the Queen, and thus share a single central government. That the local administrators on behalf of the Queen are setting up some barriers between the Commonwealth States doesn't make them as separate as you insist.
Right, and at the time it was authored, a standing army didn't, and never would, exist. When Truman (and others) broke the government by instituting a policy of permanent standing army, the 2nd Amendment was broken forever. When no militia exists, there's no need to arm the militia. The militia in current US law is the same definition used for Selective Service, so the militia is now a pool for conscription, not a pool of independent fighters. The 2nd Amendement needs to be changed to reflect that, or we need to abolish the standing army. Both together is a problem.
That's be the way for a long time. Send your 6 year old to the store with $1000 cash and ask him to pick you up a Glock. Oh Noes! The government has prevented that. You have to be old enough to buy, even if there are no real rules on use. That's been around for a while. You can look to the start of that for your slipper slope argument. Arguing slippery slope while on it doesn't work as well.
The only things laws like that do is prevent people from getting help for depression. The nutcase living in the park that avoids everyone and has managed to not get in The System would be able to buy a gun, but the suburban housewife who gets bored, and shopped diagnoses to get some valium because one of her friends swears by it would be banned for life from every buying one.
All you'll do is increase the black market for valium and increase the number of people unwilling to seek treatment for mental illness. Why do you want to see people suffer?
So, you've never herd of Westboro? A church preaching death and destruction, so it makes it religious, not a lone nut, right? Or do your double standards apply to churches, as well as people?
That's not what the studies show. The studies show that humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism, and that human traits when a human is provably not present is interpreted as spirituality in studies' conclusions, not supported in the data,.
This is a basic evolutionary consequence. If a bush moves for no reason (the wind), and you ignore it because you didn't see a reason, the 1% it was actually a lion hiding in the bush, you die. The 10% of the time it was food (bunny, deer, whatever), you go hungry, and may die. So attributing a reason when none exists is human nature. So those who were irrational about making up reasons in their mind survived better. Evolution created God, not the other way around.
And (taking your argument as true) the default stance of "spirituality" is unrelated to "God".
Where's my right of free association, so I can avoid things I don't want to experience? I don't get offended at nudity at a nude beach. But I don't want to see a naked Forest Whitaker. Why do I not have the right to avoid seeing things I don't want to see? You are saying that your right to speak extends to the right to harass, I disagree.
Nonsense, the default stance of beings is that they have not asked any questions about religion and have not attempted any sort of answer.
And thus, having not thought about it, and not having been preached to by parents, would not believe in God, at least until able to come to their own conclusion.
Theists and Atheists are both trying to answer the same question,
Nope. Atheists aren't "trying" to do anything. Not doing something isn't the same as doing the opposite. I like the stamp analogy. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Slashdot Mirror
Tim McVeigh wasn't a Democrat. I haven't seen voter registration for Ted Kaczynski, he seemed against all parties.
So mass murderers don't seem to gravitate towards Democrats, progressive or otherwise.
Is Christianity a major factor in Christian terrorism?
Nobody has died from zero g on the space station yet. You don't understand the biology.
Are you really comparing the US Justice system unfavorably to Sharia??
No. Next question?
Long since HIPAA, "do you have any medical condition" questions are still asked on applications for employment. You are saying they are illegal, yet *everyone* does it, and nobody cares.
Your link is about what they can search for, not what they can ask, or what they can use against you.
I certainly understand why someone with limited knowledge of firearms might point to an gun in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and say "nobody needs to have THAT. I don't know exactly what that is, but it should be illegal." Of course what Arnold is holding is an oatmeal box with a four pieces of PVC pipe hot glued to it, painted black.
You should have used a real example I think it was XXX that used a camcorder for a heat-seeking bazooka. It was pretty fake looking, but most people didn't even notice.
Questioning the qualifications of others implies you've judged them to be inadequately substantiated.
It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it. You are painting the entire community based on laws, and you live under laws you don't agree with, while not accepting the possibility of anyone else being in a similar situation. Still a hypocrite. Just picking the what for.
That's because "function" is too vague. Would you rather it specify that only bolt-action weapons are legal? There'll be a resurgence of bolt-action pistols after that one.
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
From the commonwealth perspective, they aren't as immigrant as you imply. The commonwealth is like a single "country" by today's standards. Like the US's Puerto Rico, they are all under the central government's rule. The Queen is the current head of government for all. All of the passports are issued under the authority of the Queen, and thus share a single central government. That the local administrators on behalf of the Queen are setting up some barriers between the Commonwealth States doesn't make them as separate as you insist.
As opposed to the US, one of the few countries that kills killers. What a hypocrite you are.
And have you read Westboro's response to the matter?
Right, and at the time it was authored, a standing army didn't, and never would, exist. When Truman (and others) broke the government by instituting a policy of permanent standing army, the 2nd Amendment was broken forever. When no militia exists, there's no need to arm the militia. The militia in current US law is the same definition used for Selective Service, so the militia is now a pool for conscription, not a pool of independent fighters. The 2nd Amendement needs to be changed to reflect that, or we need to abolish the standing army. Both together is a problem.
That's be the way for a long time. Send your 6 year old to the store with $1000 cash and ask him to pick you up a Glock. Oh Noes! The government has prevented that. You have to be old enough to buy, even if there are no real rules on use. That's been around for a while. You can look to the start of that for your slipper slope argument. Arguing slippery slope while on it doesn't work as well.
The only things laws like that do is prevent people from getting help for depression. The nutcase living in the park that avoids everyone and has managed to not get in The System would be able to buy a gun, but the suburban housewife who gets bored, and shopped diagnoses to get some valium because one of her friends swears by it would be banned for life from every buying one.
All you'll do is increase the black market for valium and increase the number of people unwilling to seek treatment for mental illness. Why do you want to see people suffer?
So, you've never herd of Westboro? A church preaching death and destruction, so it makes it religious, not a lone nut, right? Or do your double standards apply to churches, as well as people?
So you have no qualifications to judge others, but do. That makes you a hypocrite.
That's not what the studies show. The studies show that humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism, and that human traits when a human is provably not present is interpreted as spirituality in studies' conclusions, not supported in the data,.
This is a basic evolutionary consequence. If a bush moves for no reason (the wind), and you ignore it because you didn't see a reason, the 1% it was actually a lion hiding in the bush, you die. The 10% of the time it was food (bunny, deer, whatever), you go hungry, and may die. So attributing a reason when none exists is human nature. So those who were irrational about making up reasons in their mind survived better. Evolution created God, not the other way around.
And (taking your argument as true) the default stance of "spirituality" is unrelated to "God".
Where's my right of free association, so I can avoid things I don't want to experience? I don't get offended at nudity at a nude beach. But I don't want to see a naked Forest Whitaker. Why do I not have the right to avoid seeing things I don't want to see? You are saying that your right to speak extends to the right to harass, I disagree.
Nonsense, the default stance of beings is that they have not asked any questions about religion and have not attempted any sort of answer.
And thus, having not thought about it, and not having been preached to by parents, would not believe in God, at least until able to come to their own conclusion.
Theists and Atheists are both trying to answer the same question,
Nope. Atheists aren't "trying" to do anything. Not doing something isn't the same as doing the opposite. I like the stamp analogy. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You are defending GNAA as being just as worthy to listen to as anyone else. Some trolls are just trolls.
So you haven't seen the GNAA posts here? Or you think they are productive and useful opinions that further the exploration of the topic at hand?
Why is it everyone who worships the second Amendment has never heard of the first?
What are yours? Surely you have some qualifications of your own to judge the other poster from.
Lone gunman. No hostages.
That the popular atheists talk like religious figures doesn't make atheism a religion.
Sometimes, it's just obvious. Have you not seen the GNAA posts?
They have the right to have their opinions, but they don't have the right to force others to subject themselves to pay attention to them.