I made my case and you support your fantasies so you resort to name calling. Is it really that important to you that some unlikely event is pushed as if it is an every day occurrence? I mean seriously, what do you have so invested in this that you are pouting now?
I guess you realized how silly and unlikely your point was so you shifted away from it.
Anyways, here is a scenario that happens somewhat often in the grand scheme of things. Guy is armed and someone hits his car. His wife is injured. We don't hear a lot of stories about the guy shooting the other car up. But we do hear about how he did everything he could to save her life or how he felt helpless because there was nothing he could do. I would think reality would more closely match reality rather than your wild west fantasies.
You act as if the guy would be clueless of his surroundings. That wouldn't be the case. He probably already has his gun out or ready to be pulled at the first shot. He would then look to see where the threat was. This would be true even in your revenge killing scenario as he would need to identify a shooter in order to proceed with your fantasy.
At that point, seeing no threats continue to exist, he would try to render aid to his wife and attempt to save her life. Or are you insisting that he would sit there letting her die while randomly killing others?
Here is the problem with your fantasy. Even if he was unarmed, nothing will stop him from revenge killing whoever shot his wife. Worse case scenario would be one more shooting. It is nothing but fantasy to think some domino effect will happen and result in a massive shootout. These are law abiding people not gangs with little to no regard for the law.
Ok, first, do you actually know what a draft is and the difference between a standing army and a militia? Second, i don't hear people bitching about the draft outside of saying that if women truly want to be equal they need to be subject to it too.
Third, i don't hear to many people using the militia as justification for the right to have arms. I hear them all the time correct idiots who try to incorrectly claim that the second amendment is only about the militia and if you want a gun join the army. But anyone with enough brain cells to rub together already can follow that without getting confused. Especially since the Heller case and the supreme court spelled it out with plenty of historical backing.
I think you might be confused or are around some really weird people that aren't representative of the people i know of.
The escalation ends when the second person stops shooting. You simply do not shoot unless you know what is going on. People who are around guns more than in the movies and criminals trying to get someone know this. You should refrain from speaking about things you do not know about. This isn't a bunch of thugs in some gang.
Realy? How many times has that happened at gun shows were there are crowds of armed people?
You may have a point if we were talking about gangs in Chicago or something. But these are law abiding people. Your fears are a little misplaced for the set circumstances.
You do understand that there is a difference between a militia and a standing army right? And for your information, The military was actually turning down applicants during Iraq.
Nothing you posted makes any sense. Obama armed ISIS and carter sold iran F16s too. It happens.
If you think the constitution or values behind it are wrong then just change it. It's not that hard, we managed to do it 27 times and got rid of slavery, gave women the vote, banned alcohol then realized how silly that was.
Sure, amending the constitution is a bit harder than ignoring it. But ignoring it has not yielded much benefit anyways. Well that is unless you consider domestic spying, warrant-less searches, free speech zones, and NSA letters a good thing.
Not if they are following the law. Carrying a gun does not turn you into cops who would go searching for the perpetrators. It allows you to defend yourself and those around you from immediate threats to life and great bodily harm.
So someone pulls a gun and shoots. Someone else shoots them and possibly a bystander then stops shooting. At this point no one else is legally allowed to shoot.
The scenario you describe is possible when someone is seeking safety and comes around a corner or something and notices a dead person and someone with a gun who turns and points the gun at them out of fear of another attacker. This is were uniforms come in handy but then again that can be co-opted too.
The amendment would say firearms if it was intended to limit it to firearms of the day. Instead, they used a more encompassing term of just arms which include things other than firearms as well as all firearms.
This entire just muzzle loaders argument shows the literacy issues in America. Perhaps you should read the federalist and antifederalist papers if you want a real clue.
Not only did we experiment on people, we denied doing it until the evidence was overwhelming that we did. It's easy not to trust the government if you just pay attention to the times it betrayed the trust people had in it in the past.
What if he is? It doesn't change what he said. The spam catch was put in purposely to foil automated email harvesting and the person replying purposely and with intent stripped that out for no good reason. If the op needed to be referenced the moniker used to post under is not only sufficient but more accurate because he could hide his email and most people don't bother linking posts to email addresses.
I don't see the problem with showing the film in the first place. It would only bring attention to it so pointing to the fraud could be easily countered and illustrated when people start to fall for it.
Or is there a problem pointing to where it is wrong and illustrating that?
If it is sound regulatory wise, what's the problem?
Actually, rural areas would be the most likely place for them because land and development costs would be a lot lower. You wouldn't have to demolish buildings, rework foundations, or tear up city streets to install large cooling tunnels / pipes. Those areas might be poor and minority prone areas but again, ss long as they are up to regulation what is the problem?
Everyone i know of with hyphenated names ended up getting married after some professional career where the name had some value. One is a lawyer who had her own practice for 10 years before getting married. The other is a real estate agent who spent a ton marketing her name before getting married. The latter almost decided not to marry because of the issue.
Congress can fix that though. They can pass a law saying no court can take a case over the location or operations of a nuclear power plant if it is within NRC compliance which is to be determined by the NRC.
How would you sue? Microsoft settled so they agreed the patent was valid at the time and entered into a transaction. It might be different if the court did a final judgment but the settlement was voluntary.
Society cannot do without banks. If banks were eliminated tomorrow, there would be business popping up all over the place doing similar things banks do even if you called them something else. People need to make money and the aggregation of money easily and safely portable and people need loans. It's even more important with international trade.
My bank which is a local community bank actually processes deposits before debits. I can overdraft on Friday night and deposit a check on Sunday in the overnight box and have it in before the overdraft hits.
They also pay the ATM fees if you withdraw $50 or more at a time at the ATM to make up for the lack of ATMs they own being a smaller bank.
It's not funny at all. It's an abuse by the federal government where they stretch interstate commerce to envelope pot into their jurisdiction. That is the entire premise behind state laws legalizing marijuana. They are crafted to keep it all intrastate to avoid the interstate commerce clause.
People who seem the most upset over federal drug laws seem to also be the same people who think the federal government is all powerful and can do anything. It cannot which is why with the Obamacare penalty provision, the supreme court had to rename the penalty a tax in order to keep it constitutional.
You forgot racists and disenfranchising too. I mean that is the reason we cannot expect ID when voting to ensure the guy voting is actually the guy registered is because it is racists and disenfranchises minorities who for some reason cannot find an ID.
I don't care if you are happy or not. That wasn't the point. Only congress can constitutionally make laws and congress gave portions of that up. I agree that congress cannot micromanage everything but when departments under the president make or change law, congress needs to go through the motions and vote it into law. They can take the recommendation or change it.
Suppose the FCC does take your recommendation and separate the content and access providers. With another administration, that can be undone more easily than separating them. All without any action from your elected representatives outlined in the constitution. What the dictatorship giveth the next dictatorship can taketh..
Freedom doesn't mean you are allowed to do whatever they give you permission to do.
If people wanted GMO free foods, there would be a market demand for them and labels indicating the absence would be on package and you still can make your choices. So either you are misled and think more people want it than actually do or are under the wrong impression of what freedom actually is.
Remember the next time the government does something you do not like (spying on citizens for instance), you justified the bigger government and as it is well known - the bigger the government the smaller the people. It's a trade that screws us in the end
Well congress has abdicated a lot of power to the executive branch by passing laws giving the executive the power to interpret. Take the FCC and net neutrality for instance. Through no direct act of congress, an entire industry was sucked into government regulations in contrast to any previous position it held since the 1970s outside a court case that briefly thrust it on them until was overturned .
Perhaps this will end that and force congress to approve these types of change with legislation. That would be a plus.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. You gonna cry now?
I made my case and you support your fantasies so you resort to name calling. Is it really that important to you that some unlikely event is pushed as if it is an every day occurrence? I mean seriously, what do you have so invested in this that you are pouting now?
I guess you realized how silly and unlikely your point was so you shifted away from it.
Anyways, here is a scenario that happens somewhat often in the grand scheme of things. Guy is armed and someone hits his car. His wife is injured. We don't hear a lot of stories about the guy shooting the other car up. But we do hear about how he did everything he could to save her life or how he felt helpless because there was nothing he could do. I would think reality would more closely match reality rather than your wild west fantasies.
You act as if the guy would be clueless of his surroundings. That wouldn't be the case. He probably already has his gun out or ready to be pulled at the first shot. He would then look to see where the threat was. This would be true even in your revenge killing scenario as he would need to identify a shooter in order to proceed with your fantasy.
At that point, seeing no threats continue to exist, he would try to render aid to his wife and attempt to save her life. Or are you insisting that he would sit there letting her die while randomly killing others?
Here is the problem with your fantasy. Even if he was unarmed, nothing will stop him from revenge killing whoever shot his wife. Worse case scenario would be one more shooting. It is nothing but fantasy to think some domino effect will happen and result in a massive shootout. These are law abiding people not gangs with little to no regard for the law.
Ok, first, do you actually know what a draft is and the difference between a standing army and a militia? Second, i don't hear people bitching about the draft outside of saying that if women truly want to be equal they need to be subject to it too.
Third, i don't hear to many people using the militia as justification for the right to have arms. I hear them all the time correct idiots who try to incorrectly claim that the second amendment is only about the militia and if you want a gun join the army. But anyone with enough brain cells to rub together already can follow that without getting confused. Especially since the Heller case and the supreme court spelled it out with plenty of historical backing.
I think you might be confused or are around some really weird people that aren't representative of the people i know of.
The escalation ends when the second person stops shooting. You simply do not shoot unless you know what is going on. People who are around guns more than in the movies and criminals trying to get someone know this. You should refrain from speaking about things you do not know about. This isn't a bunch of thugs in some gang.
Realy? How many times has that happened at gun shows were there are crowds of armed people?
You may have a point if we were talking about gangs in Chicago or something. But these are law abiding people. Your fears are a little misplaced for the set circumstances.
WTF are you talking about?
You do understand that there is a difference between a militia and a standing army right? And for your information, The military was actually turning down applicants during Iraq.
Nothing you posted makes any sense. Obama armed ISIS and carter sold iran F16s too. It happens.
If you think the constitution or values behind it are wrong then just change it. It's not that hard, we managed to do it 27 times and got rid of slavery, gave women the vote, banned alcohol then realized how silly that was.
Sure, amending the constitution is a bit harder than ignoring it. But ignoring it has not yielded much benefit anyways. Well that is unless you consider domestic spying, warrant-less searches, free speech zones, and NSA letters a good thing.
Not if they are following the law. Carrying a gun does not turn you into cops who would go searching for the perpetrators. It allows you to defend yourself and those around you from immediate threats to life and great bodily harm.
So someone pulls a gun and shoots. Someone else shoots them and possibly a bystander then stops shooting. At this point no one else is legally allowed to shoot.
The scenario you describe is possible when someone is seeking safety and comes around a corner or something and notices a dead person and someone with a gun who turns and points the gun at them out of fear of another attacker. This is were uniforms come in handy but then again that can be co-opted too.
The amendment would say firearms if it was intended to limit it to firearms of the day. Instead, they used a more encompassing term of just arms which include things other than firearms as well as all firearms.
This entire just muzzle loaders argument shows the literacy issues in America. Perhaps you should read the federalist and antifederalist papers if you want a real clue.
You forgot the Tuskegee experimentation too.
Not only did we experiment on people, we denied doing it until the evidence was overwhelming that we did. It's easy not to trust the government if you just pay attention to the times it betrayed the trust people had in it in the past.
What if he is? It doesn't change what he said. The spam catch was put in purposely to foil automated email harvesting and the person replying purposely and with intent stripped that out for no good reason. If the op needed to be referenced the moniker used to post under is not only sufficient but more accurate because he could hide his email and most people don't bother linking posts to email addresses.
I don't see the problem with showing the film in the first place. It would only bring attention to it so pointing to the fraud could be easily countered and illustrated when people start to fall for it.
Or is there a problem pointing to where it is wrong and illustrating that?
If it is sound regulatory wise, what's the problem?
Actually, rural areas would be the most likely place for them because land and development costs would be a lot lower. You wouldn't have to demolish buildings, rework foundations, or tear up city streets to install large cooling tunnels / pipes. Those areas might be poor and minority prone areas but again, ss long as they are up to regulation what is the problem?
It's talking about a sony bug that got fixed but needs some sort of reset.
I hope you have an idea now. If you ever figure out more about it, let me know too. I'm still lost to what they are talking about.
Everyone i know of with hyphenated names ended up getting married after some professional career where the name had some value. One is a lawyer who had her own practice for 10 years before getting married. The other is a real estate agent who spent a ton marketing her name before getting married. The latter almost decided not to marry because of the issue.
Congress can fix that though. They can pass a law saying no court can take a case over the location or operations of a nuclear power plant if it is within NRC compliance which is to be determined by the NRC.
How would you sue? Microsoft settled so they agreed the patent was valid at the time and entered into a transaction. It might be different if the court did a final judgment but the settlement was voluntary.
Society cannot do without banks. If banks were eliminated tomorrow, there would be business popping up all over the place doing similar things banks do even if you called them something else. People need to make money and the aggregation of money easily and safely portable and people need loans. It's even more important with international trade.
My bank which is a local community bank actually processes deposits before debits. I can overdraft on Friday night and deposit a check on Sunday in the overnight box and have it in before the overdraft hits.
They also pay the ATM fees if you withdraw $50 or more at a time at the ATM to make up for the lack of ATMs they own being a smaller bank.
Not all banks are the greedy types.
It's not funny at all. It's an abuse by the federal government where they stretch interstate commerce to envelope pot into their jurisdiction. That is the entire premise behind state laws legalizing marijuana. They are crafted to keep it all intrastate to avoid the interstate commerce clause.
People who seem the most upset over federal drug laws seem to also be the same people who think the federal government is all powerful and can do anything. It cannot which is why with the Obamacare penalty provision, the supreme court had to rename the penalty a tax in order to keep it constitutional.
You forgot racists and disenfranchising too. I mean that is the reason we cannot expect ID when voting to ensure the guy voting is actually the guy registered is because it is racists and disenfranchises minorities who for some reason cannot find an ID.
I don't care if you are happy or not. That wasn't the point. Only congress can constitutionally make laws and congress gave portions of that up. I agree that congress cannot micromanage everything but when departments under the president make or change law, congress needs to go through the motions and vote it into law. They can take the recommendation or change it.
Suppose the FCC does take your recommendation and separate the content and access providers. With another administration, that can be undone more easily than separating them. All without any action from your elected representatives outlined in the constitution. What the dictatorship giveth the next dictatorship can taketh..
The bigger the government the smaller the people.
Freedom doesn't mean you are allowed to do whatever they give you permission to do.
If people wanted GMO free foods, there would be a market demand for them and labels indicating the absence would be on package and you still can make your choices. So either you are misled and think more people want it than actually do or are under the wrong impression of what freedom actually is.
Remember the next time the government does something you do not like (spying on citizens for instance), you justified the bigger government and as it is well known - the bigger the government the smaller the people. It's a trade that screws us in the end
Well congress has abdicated a lot of power to the executive branch by passing laws giving the executive the power to interpret. Take the FCC and net neutrality for instance. Through no direct act of congress, an entire industry was sucked into government regulations in contrast to any previous position it held since the 1970s outside a court case that briefly thrust it on them until was overturned .
Perhaps this will end that and force congress to approve these types of change with legislation. That would be a plus.