And even in the sense that "natural" means we didn't synthesize it: anthrax is natural, ebola is natural, brown recluse spider venom is natural, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
"Natural" is as stupid a keyword in the drug discussion as "life" is in the abortion discussion. And for the same reasons. That's not the point. It was never the point.
The point is that either you have reasonable basic liberties, or you don't. If you think an adult ought to be able to decide what they will or will not ingest, then how do you get from there to the authorities stepping into that decision using coercion? If you don't think an adult ought to be able to make those decisions for themselves, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you.
There, I condensed your post to its ultimate meaning for you. No need to thank me.
You, sir, stand as vivid evidence for the need of an intelligence test to enable the voting privilege. I suggest you permanently cease using Faux Newz as your primary information source, take up a great hobby like knitting or perhaps crocheting, and never, ever breed. The nation would owe you a debt of gratitude.
I can't fault Obama for fulfilling his DUTY to enforce the laws
I'm sure there are those who wouldn't fault the various lower levels of the system for doing its "duty" to deprive Dred Scott of his liberty, either, or the bus driver who told Rosa Parks to get her sorry ass to the back of the bus, or the town council who forced Susette Kelo off her land in New London; personally, I fault anyone who does anything obviously evil regardless of what some shitty ass law, or their superior, or SCOTUS tell them to do. And that most definitely includes those who have managed to delude themselves into thinking the evil they do is right.
WRT drugs, every level of the administration has discretion; and it is wrong on every front imaginable to tell adults what they may consume. It moves the conversation from "duty" (with or without caps, as you please) to evildoing. And there is no shield of "they told me to" of any value in cowering behind. It's 100% wrong. Obama and his minions are complete and utter scumbags in this regard.
Sigh. I didn't say that, and your post is not insightful in the least.
I said that mom, who I understood at the time to be a lady schoolteacher, might possibly be the legit buyer, but that it would be unusual. Then I suggested that I thought it was possible that she bought the weapons for her son.
None of which justifies your duh-level response of "School teachers don't hunt, collect guns, or target shoot?" (even if your handle is ArchieBunker, lol)
I think it's perfectly fair to say that most lady schoolteachers probably regard firearms with less than admiration, and don't collect assault weapons, while allowing for exceptions -- which is exactly what I said.
I don't think they would be any easier to detect. How many times have you heard people who knew the perpetrators say things like "oh he was such a nice fellow, I never would have thought..."
Example, what about that boy scout leader / church deacon -- Dennis Rader -- who was actually a serial killer? Such a nice fellow.:/ [cough]
I'm (very) sorry, but as far as I can tell, right now, there's no way to identify these people. They're not hiding in the noise of partisan politics, or the frenetic imaginings of the butthurt right or the emotional bewilderment of the self-rightous left; they're just quietly heading for a boil in their own juices, and when they get there, they'll fuck us at the drive-through, again, without any real warning at all.
Either we arrange to stop them at the event, or we won't be able to stop them.
My understanding is that it was always about money. Competition to alcohol; competition for chemical products (hemp); Racism was one of the tools used to implement it; it wasn't why it was implemented.
However, even if that's arguable, today it's all about money and power. So that's what we have to deal with.
Pretty much all of the important parts of that falls right into what I originally said: "Give us fifty years." A lot can happen in 50 years, and as we well know, technological change is happening faster all the time. Heck, even if I'm off by a factor of two or three (which I consider highly doubtful), it's still not that far out.
And I would make the case that having soldiers performing guard and restriction duty at school entrances is a hell of a lot better use for them than shooting at some ragged-ass Afghan who would happily go back to farming poppies if the soldiers would just GTFO. It's also compatible with the goals of Washington, which is to keep the military cash cow fat and happy at any cost.
Also, just FYI, even in the highly arms-restricted society that is America today, there have been incidents where armed civilians have stopped events like these; and cops are a very bad example, as they seem to self-select for idiocy... I mean, even aside from the general policy of police forces to eliminate smart people from beat duties. Most street cops are only about as smart as the average person, and the "well trained" thing you refer to... simply isn't present. You can't honestly say that a cop who shoots innocent bystanders is well trained, can you? Not for any meaningful use of the term, anyway. If I don't have the known correct target square in my sights, and I pull the trigger -- I'm not well trained. I'm an idiot.
And then there's the 100% true old saw to add to the mess: "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away." Which means, as presently deployed, they are absolutely useless in stopping this kind of thing.
I'm comfortable with the thought that most lady schoolteachers are likely to be leftwing-ish types who would confidently tell you guns are a horror.
Exceptions? Sure. But if you actually read what I wrote, I spoke in terms of what is likely -- not hard numbers or concrete assertions.
I still think it's very likely those weapons were bought on her son's behalf. Schoolteacher or not. It's just the way the odds roll. A lot more guys are into such things than ladies. If you've been to any shooting range, or out hunting, you know the headcount as well as I do, and it's pretty low on ladies.
No, unless we get to 'Minority Report' style policing, we aren't going to be able to pull potentially dangerous persons off the streets. There is simply too much overlap between normal and dangerous.
We have, so far, no idea how the mind works, so there's really no scientific basis for your assertion that we can't get there from here. On the other hand, since everything we know works according to mundane laws of physics, so too is it most likely that the mind will be found to operate in such a fashion. As technology has so far been able to detect and interpret a large class of those physical workings, there's every reason, in my view, to be confident that it will climb this particular hill as well. Once we know what's actually going on.
Just to be clear, you brought up minority report -- which is a story about predicting the future -- which is not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about determining what's going on in someone's mind in present time. I really don't think the latter is that far off.
The hard part is you have to accept that Shit Happens.
I agree. But I think a society where shit happens is fundamentally incompatible with a society that decides to try to disarm itself (and which is destined to completely fail in the attempt.) Someone, somewhere, needs to be able to respond. And I'm not talking about cops who show up to the party ten minutes late. If we don't enable effective response at some level, we solve nothing. All this clamor for banning arms just moves the goalposts; it won't save anyone. And no, I don't think accepting that shit happens is the same thing at all as letting shit happen.
Really? I mean come on. Stop fishing for news at the tit of the MSM, she wasn't even a teacher, and no one at the schoolboard knows who she was.
The blog page you link to apparently quotes two stories, both MSM: One (ABC) says she worked at the school, one (WSJ) says not. And you're quite correct, I was working with what I'd heard so far, which may indeed be incorrect. That can happen. Although no, I don't think I'll be looking to the "Weasel Zippers" blog for my future news, lol.
I still don't see mom as the likely person for the actual desire for assault weapons. Possible, yes (and I allowed for that in my original post as well, even if she was a teacher), but not likely. So calm down.
You misread me. I said over 90% of the states are still holding on to these laws. I didn't say a word about the popular opinion. Because we're organized as a republic, not a democracy. The laws are in place, and they are over 90% anti-pot and etc., just as I said. Getting that changed requires working against a money stream that so far has moved over a trillion dollars into various people's pockets, including the legislators and their campaigns.
Follow the money. It's the only path that leads anywhere in Washington. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. Without the ability to outspend the lobbyists that are in place, regardless of public opinion, you've a much more uphill battle than a simple poll of public opinion would lead you to think.
These weapons must be banned from private ownership completely.
If you want that, get after a constitutional amendment that makes it possible. That's the only clear path. Make it say that no one but the military (and perhaps the cops, if you believe that's a good idea... but I suggest looking at the events of the last few decades before you go that far) gets to have weapons. Make it unambiguous and clear. Then I, and every other law abiding type, will turn in our weapons. The rest, you can arrest, I suppose, and good luck with that, they're likely to be very, very unhappy, but at least it'd be properly legal, which almost no gun law is at this point.
Having said that, it won't help. The problem isn't guns. The problem is crazy people. See here and here and here? That's what happens when guns are made illegal. Make knives illegal, did I hear you say? Sharpened broomsticks. Motor vehicles. Hammers. Screwdrivers. Chainsaws. Gasoline. Copper Sulphate. Fertilizer. Etc.
No, for certain the problem isn't firearms, or banning them. The problem is we have crazy people. Outright crazy fucktards. Raving loonies. Who we simply can't detect.
So at this point, since we really don't have the tools to detect crazy people, what we need to do is protect vulnerable groups. Armed guards and scanners at school entrances; if you're not student or staff, you don't get in. No one gets in with a weapon. Perhaps bring home all those military types and put them to work actually guarding us from danger, instead of serving as cannon fodder for no more benefit than to keep the arms industry spinning. They can be posted at McDonald's, at stadiums, etc. Everywhere. Make themselves actually useful.
Give us fifty years and I bet we'll have this solved -- we'll either be able to pick you right off the street when you're so fucked up you're actually considering mayhem, or we'll be able to genetically weed out whatever the fuck is wrong with these people, or perhaps even both. There's a really good chance for all of that.
But right now, we have no idea who is nuts and who is not, and we don't have any effective way of telling, even if we gave up every right and liberty we have, much less just regulated firearms.
Of course what's going to happen here is exactly the wrong thing, if anything. And these pointless slaughters of innocents will continue unabated.
I heard what you heard, and I don't get the same takeaway.
He said they wouldn't go after users. Now look at California: Are they going after users there? No. They're going after dealers, growers, MM dispensaries. Now look at what he said. Did he say that they wouldn't go after dealers, growers, dispensaries? No.
So does it appear that he's changed position? No.
Should he change position? Of course. Would it be the right thing to do? Of course. Would it be the politically expedient thing to do, with over 90% of the country still holding on to "pot is teh badz, dur" laws and Washington awash in lobbyists throwing money at everyone in sight to keep drugs illegal? No.
I don't think this is going to be the big step forward people hope. There's a lot of money at stake here. Over a trillion dollars so far. That money has representation in Washington. So does the alcohol industry. Potheads really don't have any. And then there's the easy pickings of anti-drug rhetoric directed to gullible parents at election time. As with just about everything else in Washington, if you want to predict what they'll do, follow the money, and the power. I think you'll find that it doesn't lead to an end to the drug war, or even that part of it that surrounds marijuana.
One major effect of the war on drugs (it's not a war on pot) is to channel taxpayer money to the prison system, to law enforcement, and to the corporations that make the various tools that law enforcement uses. To the tune, so far, of about a trillion dollars. That is more than enough money to create a whole swath of lobbyists clamoring for more and harsher drug laws. A very large number of people in the prison system are there for something related to drug charges; that has a direct effect on the amount of money going in that direction.
Then there's the low-hanging candy for politicians to use to pander to the brow-beaten, paranoid parents at vote-collecting time. The whole shooting match is a very big deal, financially speaking, though it isn't exactly all about profit. It supports a lot of jobs, too; just about the entire DEA depends upon the drug war to provide for their paychecks, and that's true for a lot of city cops as well, though most rural shops don't actually have dedicated drug guys, or at least, I hope not. Then there's the prison system, the "rehab" pukes, several generations of psycho-babblers, and on the other side of the coin, the entire alcohol industry which really doesn't want to see a cheaper, more effective, safer high made freely available to the citizens.
So don't kid yourself about there not being a financial motive here. There is, and it's a significant one.
Without going into my position on this, let me simply put this thought on the floor:
Here's mom. A schoolteacher. She's buying what look like (but of course aren't, because they work approximately like a revolver that doesn't need reloads, not a machine gun) military weapons. How likely is that? Possible, I'll grant you, but it's really unusual.
My gut tells me it is more than slightly possible that mom was buying those weapons for her son, and that we may see, as we learn more, that son couldn't buy them himself. Or some variation on that theme.
That'd be interesting, even applicable, if we were a democracy. But we're not. We're a constitutional republic that has devolved into a corporate oligarchy.
At this point in the history of the country, the US government is neither doing what it is supposed to be doing (see the constitution) or much of significance that I would have it do, while it does a great deal that I strenuously object to. I have no representation whatsoever, and I would argue that this is the case for most people. Corporations, OTOH, have representation. The best they can buy. And that's where we are today.
Begin loop: Every couple of years, we are offered the opportunity to select from column A or column B; both of which have been carefully selected for us by those in power, which is to say, the political parties, which in turn is to say, the corporations and the rich. End Loop.
When you erase a program you've written, is that murder?
It would be if the program's existence resulted in life, sure. When anyone "erases" life, that's killing, and often murder as well. Straight up, no equivocating, end of story.
Yes, agreed. So far. It appears likely that science may put the end to that one, though.
This fragile shell I wear isn't me, it's a vehicle.
I understand your contention, however I have to point out to you that there is not one tiny fraction of evidence that supports it. Everything -- and I mean everything -- we know about follows the laws of physics. All the evidence -- and there is a whole lot of it -- points to the idea that "you" and "I" are complex emergents resulting from the electrical and chemical processes ongoing in our brains. There's no evidence for a stand-alone "you" or "I." Zero. And I am sorry to say (really) that conviction doesn't make any difference. The world works the way it works, we can believe something else with utter conviction until we're blue in the face, yet it will not change one whit. When those processes cease, you and I will "go out", as in completely cease to exist, just as the flame of a candle ceases when it is deprived of oxygen. From the highly efficient EM retarding layers outside your brain that make sure EM can't get in or out, to the conductive bonds between cells that do not connect to the outside world, to the chemical storage mechanisms inside cells that allow no external interactions except to neighboring cells, there's no path whatsoever for "you" or "I" to escape our skulls, even assuming that the emergent thing that is "us" could maintain coherency without the hardware that generated us in the first place, for which there is also no evidence, no mechanism. Heck, we can't even do it when we're fully operational and healthy. The idea that we automatically do it when we're shutting down is absolutely ludicrous.
With Isaac, yes, God told him to sacrifice his son, then stopped him
You missed my point. The point was, then God was all "kill me an animal." Violence. Utterly pointless violence. Quite aside from the fact that an omniscient God would have already known the depth of the man's faith, so the entire exercise was pointless. It's clearly fiction. Bad fiction, at that.
Then a few thousand years later sent his own son to be sacrificed for us.
More pointless violence. When people kill their sons, we jail them, and with good reason. If a father could save his son, and didn't, we might jail them just for that, too. The whole "I let him get nailed to a cross and die when I could have trivially stopped it" story is not a point in Christianity's favor. An all powerful god -- an entity that can literally do anything, knows everything -- allows its son to die horribly and in the face of absolutely no necessity? We call people like that "psychopaths." We lock 'em up.
Every time I do wrong [Jesus] gets hit with that cat-o-nine-tails again.
Again, this is senseless. If you do wrong, you should get hit with the cat-o-nine-tails, or whatever the correcting factor is. If I kick a dog, should you be punished? What kind of bass-ackwards thinking is that? I'll tell you: It's goat-age superstitious thinking, and it makes no sense whatsoever in any reasonable context.
Exoneration: if I kick the dog, does you getting whipped somehow exonerate me? Of course not.
Again, it's really a backwards way to think, and a very bad example for society. The right answer for intentional misbehavior by X is clearly rehabilitation of X, and recompense from X when we can reasonably believe rehabilitation is possible, and hardened exclusion from society of X when we cannot. It certainly isn't punishing person Y when person X causes harm, or exonerating person X because we got to kick person Y.
That's completely true, and also applies to the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and every other horror done "in the name of God." God isn't happy with any of these people no matter what they profess to believe or disbelieve.
So, you speak for god. Christian then, yes? Off we go:
Selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21), God orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). In Judges 21, God orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. God is all about bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Then there's sacrificial killing: "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram. Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish... Let's see now... Oh yes: You must kill those who worship another god. (Exodus 22:20) Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. (Deuteronomy 13:12-16) Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. (Deuteronomy 17:12-13) Kill any false prophets. (Deuteronomy 18:20) Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11) Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. (Jude 5) We can also take a happy little side trip to no-shellfish, no mixed-fibers, looking back earns you life as a pillar of salt, etc.
The Christian message is very clear, and it is extremely violent and oppressive.
And just in case you think the OT isn't pertinent, let me point you to Jesus's own words: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 [NAB])
There really doesn't seem to be any doubt where a good deal of the violence in the history of Christians sprung from. I could lay out the same type of violent agenda for you from the Jewish or Islamic written traditions; both are rife with violent acts, examples, and urgings. We won't even get into the creative variations the "leaders" come up with.
Now, unlike you, I'm not going to say that I speak for God, or know what such an entity would do in any particular circumstance, but I *can* tell you that what Christians have done is basically wrong from start to finish. The very second anyone starts telling people they must behave the way some book of fiction specifies, they're stepping on toes they have no right to step on. And yet, this is the basis for even the mildest evangelical forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. From blue laws to suppression of knowledge and science to absconding with the institution of marriage, our society is rife with social retardation that derives significant portions of its methodology from the underlying dogma and the interpretations that spring from it.
If an atheistic regime kills its people, is not because it is oppressing religion (the clergy and the followers). It is because they are psychotic fucktards. Are you stoned?
You're missing the point. Let's see if I can get it across to you without the snark.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There's no dogma, no "book", no canon that says "oppress" or "murder" or anything else. Atheism carries with it no political philosophy. So if a person is atheist, and they're being nasty, it's not a consequence of the atheism. As I implied in the grandparent, the place to look is at personality disorder (because generally speaking, if you want to screw with other people's lives, liberties and free choices, that's what you're looking at.) Personality disorder knows no bounds of theist or atheist.
Many forms of theism -- and in particular Christianity, Judaism, and Islam -- do present instructions in various forms to do away with, convert, or otherwise harass those who don't agree with them. History is replete with examples of them specifically exercising those instructions.
So the bottom line here is that superstition contributes directly and materially to pogroms, crusades, witch burnings, repression of science, subjugation of women, jihads, censorship, blue laws, vilification of sexuality and so forth. Atheism does not.
When you examine cause and effect, atheism comes up a dry well. There's nothing in the idea "I hold no belief in a god or gods" that has a defined or recommended next step.
That's not to be confused with the reaction of an atheist when a superstitious person tries to enforce the rules of their superstition on the atheist. No one reacts well to being told what to do, and/or being threatened, by people and philosophies with which.they have little in common. But it is important to realize that atheism isn't directing that response: it is a reaction to repression brought on by over-reach of the superstitious.
What these superstitious types just don't get is that the Soviets and the Chinese murdered all those people because they didn't believe in pink unicorns. Fact. We can lay the fault precisely at the door of pink unicorn disbelief. Filthy apostate pink unicorn deniers! It's no wonder, either. The Book of The Pink Unicorn Disbeliever lays out the precise steps: Gulags, trips to Lubyanka, bullet in the head, bill the family. Yessir. Pervasive pink unicorn disbelief. It's evil. Purest, darkest evil.
It obviously had nothing at all to do with the fact that the leadership of those countries at those times consisted of screaming psychotic fucktards. No. Nothing at all like that.
The invisible pink unicorn runs along fault lines upside down, clip-clop, through the earth, without otherwise disturbing the rock and dirt, and that's what causes earthquakes. Or you can go with the magic teapot. Etc.
The point is to propose the most ridiculous thing you can imagine, and compare to superstition. If the ridiculous thing becomes less so, then something more ridiculous is presented.
What would make an interesting argument is to actually come up with an idea that presents the superstition at hand as less ridiculous; see, that's what the argument is trying to say: the idea of a god or gods is equally, or more so, ridiculous, as the most ridiculous thing you can imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
And even in the sense that "natural" means we didn't synthesize it: anthrax is natural, ebola is natural, brown recluse spider venom is natural, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
"Natural" is as stupid a keyword in the drug discussion as "life" is in the abortion discussion. And for the same reasons. That's not the point. It was never the point.
The point is that either you have reasonable basic liberties, or you don't. If you think an adult ought to be able to decide what they will or will not ingest, then how do you get from there to the authorities stepping into that decision using coercion? If you don't think an adult ought to be able to make those decisions for themselves, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you.
There, I condensed your post to its ultimate meaning for you. No need to thank me.
You, sir, stand as vivid evidence for the need of an intelligence test to enable the voting privilege. I suggest you permanently cease using Faux Newz as your primary information source, take up a great hobby like knitting or perhaps crocheting, and never, ever breed. The nation would owe you a debt of gratitude.
Agreed. Doesn't change a thing I said, though.
I'm sure there are those who wouldn't fault the various lower levels of the system for doing its "duty" to deprive Dred Scott of his liberty, either, or the bus driver who told Rosa Parks to get her sorry ass to the back of the bus, or the town council who forced Susette Kelo off her land in New London; personally, I fault anyone who does anything obviously evil regardless of what some shitty ass law, or their superior, or SCOTUS tell them to do. And that most definitely includes those who have managed to delude themselves into thinking the evil they do is right.
WRT drugs, every level of the administration has discretion; and it is wrong on every front imaginable to tell adults what they may consume. It moves the conversation from "duty" (with or without caps, as you please) to evildoing. And there is no shield of "they told me to" of any value in cowering behind. It's 100% wrong. Obama and his minions are complete and utter scumbags in this regard.
Sigh. I didn't say that, and your post is not insightful in the least.
I said that mom, who I understood at the time to be a lady schoolteacher, might possibly be the legit buyer, but that it would be unusual. Then I suggested that I thought it was possible that she bought the weapons for her son.
None of which justifies your duh-level response of "School teachers don't hunt, collect guns, or target shoot?" (even if your handle is ArchieBunker, lol)
I think it's perfectly fair to say that most lady schoolteachers probably regard firearms with less than admiration, and don't collect assault weapons, while allowing for exceptions -- which is exactly what I said.
I don't think they would be any easier to detect. How many times have you heard people who knew the perpetrators say things like "oh he was such a nice fellow, I never would have thought..."
Example, what about that boy scout leader / church deacon -- Dennis Rader -- who was actually a serial killer? Such a nice fellow. :/ [cough]
I'm (very) sorry, but as far as I can tell, right now, there's no way to identify these people. They're not hiding in the noise of partisan politics, or the frenetic imaginings of the butthurt right or the emotional bewilderment of the self-rightous left; they're just quietly heading for a boil in their own juices, and when they get there, they'll fuck us at the drive-through, again, without any real warning at all.
Either we arrange to stop them at the event, or we won't be able to stop them.
My understanding is that it was always about money. Competition to alcohol; competition for chemical products (hemp); Racism was one of the tools used to implement it; it wasn't why it was implemented.
However, even if that's arguable, today it's all about money and power. So that's what we have to deal with.
Pretty much all of the important parts of that falls right into what I originally said: "Give us fifty years." A lot can happen in 50 years, and as we well know, technological change is happening faster all the time. Heck, even if I'm off by a factor of two or three (which I consider highly doubtful), it's still not that far out.
And I would make the case that having soldiers performing guard and restriction duty at school entrances is a hell of a lot better use for them than shooting at some ragged-ass Afghan who would happily go back to farming poppies if the soldiers would just GTFO. It's also compatible with the goals of Washington, which is to keep the military cash cow fat and happy at any cost.
Also, just FYI, even in the highly arms-restricted society that is America today, there have been incidents where armed civilians have stopped events like these; and cops are a very bad example, as they seem to self-select for idiocy... I mean, even aside from the general policy of police forces to eliminate smart people from beat duties. Most street cops are only about as smart as the average person, and the "well trained" thing you refer to... simply isn't present. You can't honestly say that a cop who shoots innocent bystanders is well trained, can you? Not for any meaningful use of the term, anyway. If I don't have the known correct target square in my sights, and I pull the trigger -- I'm not well trained. I'm an idiot.
And then there's the 100% true old saw to add to the mess: "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away." Which means, as presently deployed, they are absolutely useless in stopping this kind of thing.
I'm comfortable with the thought that most lady schoolteachers are likely to be leftwing-ish types who would confidently tell you guns are a horror.
Exceptions? Sure. But if you actually read what I wrote, I spoke in terms of what is likely -- not hard numbers or concrete assertions.
I still think it's very likely those weapons were bought on her son's behalf. Schoolteacher or not. It's just the way the odds roll. A lot more guys are into such things than ladies. If you've been to any shooting range, or out hunting, you know the headcount as well as I do, and it's pretty low on ladies.
We have, so far, no idea how the mind works, so there's really no scientific basis for your assertion that we can't get there from here. On the other hand, since everything we know works according to mundane laws of physics, so too is it most likely that the mind will be found to operate in such a fashion. As technology has so far been able to detect and interpret a large class of those physical workings, there's every reason, in my view, to be confident that it will climb this particular hill as well. Once we know what's actually going on.
Just to be clear, you brought up minority report -- which is a story about predicting the future -- which is not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about determining what's going on in someone's mind in present time. I really don't think the latter is that far off.
I agree. But I think a society where shit happens is fundamentally incompatible with a society that decides to try to disarm itself (and which is destined to completely fail in the attempt.) Someone, somewhere, needs to be able to respond. And I'm not talking about cops who show up to the party ten minutes late. If we don't enable effective response at some level, we solve nothing. All this clamor for banning arms just moves the goalposts; it won't save anyone. And no, I don't think accepting that shit happens is the same thing at all as letting shit happen.
The blog page you link to apparently quotes two stories, both MSM: One (ABC) says she worked at the school, one (WSJ) says not. And you're quite correct, I was working with what I'd heard so far, which may indeed be incorrect. That can happen. Although no, I don't think I'll be looking to the "Weasel Zippers" blog for my future news, lol.
I still don't see mom as the likely person for the actual desire for assault weapons. Possible, yes (and I allowed for that in my original post as well, even if she was a teacher), but not likely. So calm down.
Constitution: 13th amendment. Read it. There's your answer.
You didn't read what I wrote. See this post, please.
You misread me. I said over 90% of the states are still holding on to these laws. I didn't say a word about the popular opinion. Because we're organized as a republic, not a democracy. The laws are in place, and they are over 90% anti-pot and etc., just as I said. Getting that changed requires working against a money stream that so far has moved over a trillion dollars into various people's pockets, including the legislators and their campaigns.
Follow the money. It's the only path that leads anywhere in Washington. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. Without the ability to outspend the lobbyists that are in place, regardless of public opinion, you've a much more uphill battle than a simple poll of public opinion would lead you to think.
If you want that, get after a constitutional amendment that makes it possible. That's the only clear path. Make it say that no one but the military (and perhaps the cops, if you believe that's a good idea... but I suggest looking at the events of the last few decades before you go that far) gets to have weapons. Make it unambiguous and clear. Then I, and every other law abiding type, will turn in our weapons. The rest, you can arrest, I suppose, and good luck with that, they're likely to be very, very unhappy, but at least it'd be properly legal, which almost no gun law is at this point.
Having said that, it won't help. The problem isn't guns. The problem is crazy people. See here and here and here? That's what happens when guns are made illegal. Make knives illegal, did I hear you say? Sharpened broomsticks. Motor vehicles. Hammers. Screwdrivers. Chainsaws. Gasoline. Copper Sulphate. Fertilizer. Etc.
No, for certain the problem isn't firearms, or banning them. The problem is we have crazy people. Outright crazy fucktards. Raving loonies. Who we simply can't detect.
So at this point, since we really don't have the tools to detect crazy people, what we need to do is protect vulnerable groups. Armed guards and scanners at school entrances; if you're not student or staff, you don't get in. No one gets in with a weapon. Perhaps bring home all those military types and put them to work actually guarding us from danger, instead of serving as cannon fodder for no more benefit than to keep the arms industry spinning. They can be posted at McDonald's, at stadiums, etc. Everywhere. Make themselves actually useful.
Give us fifty years and I bet we'll have this solved -- we'll either be able to pick you right off the street when you're so fucked up you're actually considering mayhem, or we'll be able to genetically weed out whatever the fuck is wrong with these people, or perhaps even both. There's a really good chance for all of that.
But right now, we have no idea who is nuts and who is not, and we don't have any effective way of telling, even if we gave up every right and liberty we have, much less just regulated firearms.
Of course what's going to happen here is exactly the wrong thing, if anything. And these pointless slaughters of innocents will continue unabated.
Wrong question; so you get the wrong answer. It's about money. It's always been about money.
I heard what you heard, and I don't get the same takeaway.
He said they wouldn't go after users. Now look at California: Are they going after users there? No. They're going after dealers, growers, MM dispensaries. Now look at what he said. Did he say that they wouldn't go after dealers, growers, dispensaries? No.
So does it appear that he's changed position? No.
Should he change position? Of course. Would it be the right thing to do? Of course. Would it be the politically expedient thing to do, with over 90% of the country still holding on to "pot is teh badz, dur" laws and Washington awash in lobbyists throwing money at everyone in sight to keep drugs illegal? No.
I don't think this is going to be the big step forward people hope. There's a lot of money at stake here. Over a trillion dollars so far. That money has representation in Washington. So does the alcohol industry. Potheads really don't have any. And then there's the easy pickings of anti-drug rhetoric directed to gullible parents at election time. As with just about everything else in Washington, if you want to predict what they'll do, follow the money, and the power. I think you'll find that it doesn't lead to an end to the drug war, or even that part of it that surrounds marijuana.
One major effect of the war on drugs (it's not a war on pot) is to channel taxpayer money to the prison system, to law enforcement, and to the corporations that make the various tools that law enforcement uses. To the tune, so far, of about a trillion dollars. That is more than enough money to create a whole swath of lobbyists clamoring for more and harsher drug laws. A very large number of people in the prison system are there for something related to drug charges; that has a direct effect on the amount of money going in that direction.
Then there's the low-hanging candy for politicians to use to pander to the brow-beaten, paranoid parents at vote-collecting time. The whole shooting match is a very big deal, financially speaking, though it isn't exactly all about profit. It supports a lot of jobs, too; just about the entire DEA depends upon the drug war to provide for their paychecks, and that's true for a lot of city cops as well, though most rural shops don't actually have dedicated drug guys, or at least, I hope not. Then there's the prison system, the "rehab" pukes, several generations of psycho-babblers, and on the other side of the coin, the entire alcohol industry which really doesn't want to see a cheaper, more effective, safer high made freely available to the citizens.
So don't kid yourself about there not being a financial motive here. There is, and it's a significant one.
Without going into my position on this, let me simply put this thought on the floor:
Here's mom. A schoolteacher. She's buying what look like (but of course aren't, because they work approximately like a revolver that doesn't need reloads, not a machine gun) military weapons. How likely is that? Possible, I'll grant you, but it's really unusual.
My gut tells me it is more than slightly possible that mom was buying those weapons for her son, and that we may see, as we learn more, that son couldn't buy them himself. Or some variation on that theme.
That'd be interesting, even applicable, if we were a democracy. But we're not. We're a constitutional republic that has devolved into a corporate oligarchy.
At this point in the history of the country, the US government is neither doing what it is supposed to be doing (see the constitution) or much of significance that I would have it do, while it does a great deal that I strenuously object to. I have no representation whatsoever, and I would argue that this is the case for most people. Corporations, OTOH, have representation. The best they can buy. And that's where we are today.
Begin loop: Every couple of years, we are offered the opportunity to select from column A or column B; both of which have been carefully selected for us by those in power, which is to say, the political parties, which in turn is to say, the corporations and the rich. End Loop.
It would be if the program's existence resulted in life, sure. When anyone "erases" life, that's killing, and often murder as well. Straight up, no equivocating, end of story.
Yes, agreed. So far. It appears likely that science may put the end to that one, though.
I understand your contention, however I have to point out to you that there is not one tiny fraction of evidence that supports it. Everything -- and I mean everything -- we know about follows the laws of physics. All the evidence -- and there is a whole lot of it -- points to the idea that "you" and "I" are complex emergents resulting from the electrical and chemical processes ongoing in our brains. There's no evidence for a stand-alone "you" or "I." Zero. And I am sorry to say (really) that conviction doesn't make any difference. The world works the way it works, we can believe something else with utter conviction until we're blue in the face, yet it will not change one whit. When those processes cease, you and I will "go out", as in completely cease to exist, just as the flame of a candle ceases when it is deprived of oxygen. From the highly efficient EM retarding layers outside your brain that make sure EM can't get in or out, to the conductive bonds between cells that do not connect to the outside world, to the chemical storage mechanisms inside cells that allow no external interactions except to neighboring cells, there's no path whatsoever for "you" or "I" to escape our skulls, even assuming that the emergent thing that is "us" could maintain coherency without the hardware that generated us in the first place, for which there is also no evidence, no mechanism. Heck, we can't even do it when we're fully operational and healthy. The idea that we automatically do it when we're shutting down is absolutely ludicrous.
You missed my point. The point was, then God was all "kill me an animal." Violence. Utterly pointless violence. Quite aside from the fact that an omniscient God would have already known the depth of the man's faith, so the entire exercise was pointless. It's clearly fiction. Bad fiction, at that.
More pointless violence. When people kill their sons, we jail them, and with good reason. If a father could save his son, and didn't, we might jail them just for that, too. The whole "I let him get nailed to a cross and die when I could have trivially stopped it" story is not a point in Christianity's favor. An all powerful god -- an entity that can literally do anything, knows everything -- allows its son to die horribly and in the face of absolutely no necessity? We call people like that "psychopaths." We lock 'em up.
Again, this is senseless. If you do wrong, you should get hit with the cat-o-nine-tails, or whatever the correcting factor is. If I kick a dog, should you be punished? What kind of bass-ackwards thinking is that? I'll tell you: It's goat-age superstitious thinking, and it makes no sense whatsoever in any reasonable context.
Exoneration: if I kick the dog, does you getting whipped somehow exonerate me? Of course not.
Again, it's really a backwards way to think, and a very bad example for society. The right answer for intentional misbehavior by X is clearly rehabilitation of X, and recompense from X when we can reasonably believe rehabilitation is possible, and hardened exclusion from society of X when we cannot. It certainly isn't punishing person Y when person X causes harm, or exonerating person X because we got to kick person Y.
That's ci
So, you speak for god. Christian then, yes? Off we go:
Selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21), God orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). In Judges 21, God orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. God is all about bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Then there's sacrificial killing: "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram. Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish... Let's see now... Oh yes: You must kill those who worship another god. (Exodus 22:20) Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. (Deuteronomy 13:12-16) Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. (Deuteronomy 17:12-13) Kill any false prophets. (Deuteronomy 18:20) Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11) Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. (Jude 5) We can also take a happy little side trip to no-shellfish, no mixed-fibers, looking back earns you life as a pillar of salt, etc.
The Christian message is very clear, and it is extremely violent and oppressive.
And just in case you think the OT isn't pertinent, let me point you to Jesus's own words: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 [NAB])
There really doesn't seem to be any doubt where a good deal of the violence in the history of Christians sprung from. I could lay out the same type of violent agenda for you from the Jewish or Islamic written traditions; both are rife with violent acts, examples, and urgings. We won't even get into the creative variations the "leaders" come up with.
Now, unlike you, I'm not going to say that I speak for God, or know what such an entity would do in any particular circumstance, but I *can* tell you that what Christians have done is basically wrong from start to finish. The very second anyone starts telling people they must behave the way some book of fiction specifies, they're stepping on toes they have no right to step on. And yet, this is the basis for even the mildest evangelical forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. From blue laws to suppression of knowledge and science to absconding with the institution of marriage, our society is rife with social retardation that derives significant portions of its methodology from the underlying dogma and the interpretations that spring from it.
You're missing the point. Let's see if I can get it across to you without the snark.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There's no dogma, no "book", no canon that says "oppress" or "murder" or anything else. Atheism carries with it no political philosophy. So if a person is atheist, and they're being nasty, it's not a consequence of the atheism. As I implied in the grandparent, the place to look is at personality disorder (because generally speaking, if you want to screw with other people's lives, liberties and free choices, that's what you're looking at.) Personality disorder knows no bounds of theist or atheist.
Many forms of theism -- and in particular Christianity, Judaism, and Islam -- do present instructions in various forms to do away with, convert, or otherwise harass those who don't agree with them. History is replete with examples of them specifically exercising those instructions.
So the bottom line here is that superstition contributes directly and materially to pogroms, crusades, witch burnings, repression of science, subjugation of women, jihads, censorship, blue laws, vilification of sexuality and so forth. Atheism does not.
When you examine cause and effect, atheism comes up a dry well. There's nothing in the idea "I hold no belief in a god or gods" that has a defined or recommended next step.
That's not to be confused with the reaction of an atheist when a superstitious person tries to enforce the rules of their superstition on the atheist. No one reacts well to being told what to do, and/or being threatened, by people and philosophies with which.they have little in common. But it is important to realize that atheism isn't directing that response: it is a reaction to repression brought on by over-reach of the superstitious.
What these superstitious types just don't get is that the Soviets and the Chinese murdered all those people because they didn't believe in pink unicorns. Fact. We can lay the fault precisely at the door of pink unicorn disbelief. Filthy apostate pink unicorn deniers! It's no wonder, either. The Book of The Pink Unicorn Disbeliever lays out the precise steps: Gulags, trips to Lubyanka, bullet in the head, bill the family. Yessir. Pervasive pink unicorn disbelief. It's evil. Purest, darkest evil.
It obviously had nothing at all to do with the fact that the leadership of those countries at those times consisted of screaming psychotic fucktards. No. Nothing at all like that.
The invisible pink unicorn runs along fault lines upside down, clip-clop, through the earth, without otherwise disturbing the rock and dirt, and that's what causes earthquakes. Or you can go with the magic teapot. Etc.
The point is to propose the most ridiculous thing you can imagine, and compare to superstition. If the ridiculous thing becomes less so, then something more ridiculous is presented.
What would make an interesting argument is to actually come up with an idea that presents the superstition at hand as less ridiculous; see, that's what the argument is trying to say: the idea of a god or gods is equally, or more so, ridiculous, as the most ridiculous thing you can imagine.