Obviously I disagree or I would not be posting. The last time we had a "real" debate in a Presidential election was when Ross Perot was running. Before that, it was Kennedy. What we saw this year, and even 2008 is nothing but rhetoric. Not just from Obama either.
I searched all over for a platform for either party. I did the obvious, went to Google and typed in "Democratic Platform", and "Republican Platform". I got campaign pages and slogans, no information on a Platform. I asked people that were pro-democrat and pro-republican to get me links to the information. Nothing but jibberish and campaign pages come back.
If there is no information except for what's in the 30-60 second TV commercials, there is nothing. While I agree that there are very real issues, our politicians sure don't discuss them or have a plan to deal with any of them. They don't debate on real issues. They simply say what people want to hear. Historically that is also true to an extent, but not the the levels it's currently at. Look at the last Republican primary. It was a show of dumb and dumber, or maybe "Who will look the most like GWB?". Rules were not followed by moderators or participants in any debate.
I would not say it was "unusually content free", but rather suggest that perhaps you noticed its absence more. Most of us should have, but it continues a trend we have been moving toward for a long time.
You claimed repeatedly that GMO foods saved lives. It was pointed out by numerous people that the foods alone would not fix any issues. Money is required to obtain said foods. That would be true whether it's GMO or not GMO foods.
To claim that GMO saves lives is an absolute fallacy. GMO foods can do no such thing. Vitamin A can be derived from numerous sources so lets not associate the Rice as a magic bullet either. If the people needing the Vitamin A could purchase GMO rice, they could also purchase vitamin supplements for those same people lacking Vitamin A.
Considering that numerous studies show that GMO foods have a lot of risk (wholly fuck, read the responses here and find the information) we have a dilemma. Do we sell the people lacking Vitamin A rice, at the expense of giving them all cancer? The answer to that question at this point is not clear! There has not been enough testing on the product to know.
In short, lets look at things a bit differently. Why does the FDA take years to approve medication? Well, because it's extremely complex in testing right? Interactions don't show up for years, often under abnormal circumstances. Sometimes, like Red Dye number 5.. it takes 30 years to determine that something is a carcinogen. So the FDA is supposed to do extensive testing to ensure that medication is safe.
Now, with GMO foods we basically have the same thing. We have genetic modifications to plants which cause chemicals to be produced within the plants that do not occur naturally. We have plants that kill their own seeds or mutate them so that they can not be used. There is very little done in the way of safety testing to see how these foods will act with humans. What if the foods make humans sterile? Well, it's possible since the plants are self sterilizing by mutation right? Again, we don't know enough yet to give safe answers.
I agree with the statement that there is potential for benefit from the GMO foods. I don't agree with making unknowing humans the guinea pigs for testing. I don't agree that we have done enough testing to know what is and isn't safe. Not just for human consumption mind you, but also how devastating these can be on nature (such as the Bee death's you can easily search for).
Problem is, that part isn't about the Constitution at all -- it's about what people felt about arms and militias before the Constitution even existed.
Yes it is part of the constitution for that reason. Historical context is important, which is why I never say simply "read the Constitution". The full context requires the Declaration of Independence, and knowing the history around both documents. You think the King did not take guns and cannons from the colonies? The Kings army were the only ones that were supposed to be armed, at least enough for military purposes. Even considering we had military type skirmishes all over the frontier that the Kings army did not take place in.
For right or wrong, today, in 2013, the intentions of the founders and other settlers of what would become the USA aren't really what matter any more. What matters is what's written in the Constitution, and how the courts have decided to interpret that
Not true, and I'm not sure why you injected the term settlers into the point except perhaps to obscure the value of the Constitution. The Constitution is what makes us a Republic. It is critical to understand the Philosophy that gets us to a Republic, and critical to understand history. Failure to do both gets us to a place where people make false claims about a "living" Constitution. At which point, we are no longer a Republic.
And so far, no courts seem to have decided that mandatory gun registration violates the Constitution, so I do indeed have to file your claim under "I really don't like it, so it must be Unconstitutional".
I believe I gave a valid statement regarding "why" it is unconstitutional. Whether the point has been challenged properly or not, my point is still valid. Even if challenged, we have a supreme court that is lacking integrity (for lack of better/safer terms). "Corporations are People" should have been an immediate telltale sign that they are no longer working for society as a whole, but rather an oligarchy of a select few. There has been an increased amount of voices demanding that these people be punished for Treason, and I'm one of those voices.
And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that mandatory gun registration is a good thing. I'm also not arguing that it's a bad thing -- I'm just saying that so far, there have been no rulings to say that it's Unconstitutional, and there's been more than plenty of time and will for such rulings to have been made, so by failing to say otherwise, the courts have basically declared it to be Constitutional. It's possible that they could still change their mind, but I wouldn't suggest holding one's breath.
I think we agree here. What I find the important part of the debate to be had is not whether registration is Constitutional or not.. but rather that we need to get back to being a Republic. There is a lot of proverbial shit blocking up the pipes currently, and we as a people need to start demanding that the shit be cleaned up. We don't need "reform" in the traditional sense of the word, we need to undo a whole lot of laws that have been passed which diminish and dismantle the Republic.
Let me be very clear about my meaning. The Constitution was not perfect as implemented. This is why there is an amendment process, and why we have successfully amended the Constitution numerous times. At no point, does anyone suggest going back to the Constitution as written 200+ years ago.
When we have EOs that absolutely deny the Constitution we have chaos, which is what is currently happening in the USA. Currently POTUS bypasses the Constitution by killing people without trial. The same would be true of the Military officials that allow drone assassinations at the President's order. We have internal departments jailing people without trial, torturing people, and committing acts that are completely illegal (Fast and Furious is an easy example, however collaboration bet
Wait, I'm ignorant yet you have yet to back your claim that GMO foods will be given away for free! I do hope you get paid for your propaganda, usually it's like.06c a post or something like that.
Of course every other person that pointed out that the food will not be free is also an ignoramus, and you are just hiding information to make us all look that way. I'm sure that you have a key somewhere for a magic distribution bus right?
Read the NISPOM and JFAN security guides. No external devices can be brought in to secured areas. No USB sticks, no media without a lengthy process to scan and check in the data. Nothing leaves the secured area without being shredded. We had some hefty machinery built to munch up everything from memory and CD/DVD media to hard drives and LTO tapes.
So "congress"? Yes, but we already know that cesspool for what it is. Secured areas like LANL? Not a chance.
Yep, they use frequency of search on the internet for the language to estimate. Which means confusing, and easily broken languages like C, and infrequently used(and thus easily forgotten) languages like bash get a huge leg-up.
I think C is less confusing than Java, so to each their own. At work, we do tons and tons of scripting. I can't agree with your sentiment that it's only infrequently used languages. Maybe _you_ don't use them frequently, but many others do.
With that said, I do agree with your statement that their method for determining who is using what language is broken.
It will be starting in 2013, check out vitamin A enriched rice.
I smell a shill. Your assertion that GMO saves lives is absolutely false. Poverty stricken areas must purchase the products in order to eat them and gain benefit. It's not like a big GMO company is giving away it's excess, and stop pretending that's what happens.
As numerous people have already pointed out, your assertion is broken. Prior to GMOs being around, we had too much food in developed countries. Yet in the US people go hungry every day. If you are poor, you don't eat. And when you can only sell dirt and sand, you are worse than poor.
Without verifiable facts all you are doing is spreading bullshit, which is what he was doing, but he went and looked at the facts and found he was WRONG so he changed his position.
Here and Here. I know it's hard to find information now days.
Then we get the ill-cited references to people being sued "left and right" for supposedly doing nothing wrong.
That is laughable. It does not take a rocket scientist to use Google and see how many lawsuits for patent infringement monsanto has slapped on people.
The labeling nonsense was just a away around the lack of any good science against GMO. If you can't prove they're harmful, you'll just use scare labels to confuse people.
Confuse them? How about give them knowledge that it's genetically produced so that they at least know they are unpaid guinea pigs. The CA law is that they label products "Made with GMO" so people know what they are ingesting. People realized long ago that certain preservatives are bad for them, as are numerous artificial sweeteners. They must be labeled because.. they were found to be harmful to people. GMOs are relatively untested. The overwhelming majority of testing is coming from Monsanto. Don't you see the obvious conflict of interest? I'm picking on Monsanto here, but they are not the only company providing their own testing for their own products claiming they are safe. Red die number 5 was also safe according to the manufacturer. It took years to get it pulled, at the cost of thousands of lives and millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Name some of this "science" showing how bad GMOs are. Maybe you'll reference the French study, which pro and anti-GMO alike soundly criticized.
Google is not that hard to use, quite honestly you should be ashamed to ask. Here is a link by searching for "GMO bee death", and here is an interesting read about the French study which you claim is bad. Follow up, smearing a study is not the same as providing another study to show the French study was wrong in it's findings. How much money has Monsanto spent smearing the team compared to how much it would have cost to fund an additional independent study?
My "usual nonsense" is not quite usual nonsense. I wish I could say the same regarding your response.
Wrong, that received the blame publicly. There are many and numerous studies showing that links between GMOs and bees are a universal issue. Here is an article, but feel free to read more. Could it be that GMO is a red herring like wireless was a red herring? Possibly, but we are ignoring problems and continuing with release. You see no problem with that? Should we not find the root cause before we move forward?
Every anti-GMO person, including you, ignores science. Usually in the same way.
How? You ignore every study that shows GMO crops are safe, and focus on one or two (often questionable) studies that suggest there might be a problem in some way, then take that to mean it's all the work of the devil. Even though the study's authors don't say that! Here is a way you can tell if you're being irrational:
Do you see a problem with your rationalization? Who's studies show that GMOs are safe? Who's studies show that they are harmful? We have a mixed bag. Is not the point of science to weigh all evidence and all facts prior to claiming something is "good"? If you have two tests, one with a 100% success rate and the other with a 0% success rate, you explicitly call it a success? Come now, that is not science.
GMO saves lives is straw man fallacy at best, and a complete fabrication at worst. GMO makes money would be more factual. Monsanto seeds must be re-purchased every year. This is in the GMO design, that the seeds will not sprout additional plants. Monsanto has even sued people that saved seeds purchased and planted them a year later.
Claiming that GMOs are not safe and that's okay because natural organisms are not all save is yet another ludicrous fallacy. Eating natural corn does not cause us to have a rapidly growing cancer that can not be cured. Eating GMO Corn on the other hand has been shown to have that effect. Add in the weed killer produced by the same GMO company and you have a much worse cancer that grows even faster. And yes, those chemicals _are_ in our water supply and the FDA has increased the "safe" levels of round up recently because of it's rampant use.
The worst part is that we are approving these things for consumption without proper testing. Monsanto said Monsanto GMO Barley is safe, and we just believe them? Really? Are you that fucking stoopid? No independent testing to ensure that these are really safe? The FDA just approved GMO Salmon without any testing either.
There is a secondary problem, which is not just with the deception of the company but the deception to the people consuming products that are labelled exactly as natural products and treated exactly like natural products. They are guinea pigs generating huge amounts of revenue taking extremely high risk without any reward or knowledge that they are guinea pigs. If you think that there is nothing wrong with that, you are either an idiot or benefiting from the system. So you choose to ignore the key issues I present.
In all cases, follow the money. While I'm not completely anti-GMO, the companies producing GMOs have not been honest, not been honest, and not been honest. As a long time hater and now a big advocate, I wonder who's payroll he made it on too in order to now back GMO foods. There is a tremendous amount of science showing how bad GMOs are, much worst than the anti-GMO crowd initially thought! So his "because of Science" answer is pure bullshit!
Studies have shown that GMO foods are not only unhealthy for humans, but often harm the environment. As a simple example, Poland found that a GMO corn was killing off whole colonies of bees. Poland outlawed GMO corn.
Studies showed that long term, GMO foods can cause some nasty cancers in lab rats. When mixed with a certain pesticide, the cancer was insanely fast growing and abnormally massive tumors would be found.
A very large GMO company ran smear campaigns trying to keep hiding what was GMO and what was not. Do you really trust eating foods that they don't want to tell you are genetically modified? Not only not tell you, but spend nearly a billion dollars to keep you from knowing?
That same very large GMO has been suing people left and right for having seed gone awry grow on their own farms. They have monopolized and killed off competition in many markets, many of which are overseas and impoverished areas. Interestingly, after the Mississippi river flooding, guess who bought most of the farm land? Of course it's only those Chinese and Russians that can influence the weather though, and hell an upstanding US company would never do such a thing would they?
Needless to say at this point, I don't trust anyone that changes sides based on a lie.
It's of course all paranoia there mister AC guy with no balls. But since I'm just paranoid (or you are an ignorant doofus) here are a few publicly released operations from the US Government. Here, Here and Here.
Of course I could not have read anything about fast and furious, that's just paranoia too right? There was no article just the other day about the FBI, DHS, TSA, and Local police forces colluding with Bankers to disperse and suppress OWS either right?. Just paranoia?
It's really hard to add two and two to get four sometimes, especially when you so firmly believe that the answer is purple. People keep telling you it's purple, and those people have to be correct because they _are_ the Government right?
Straw man. Owning a Gun is a constitutional right. Owning and operating a motor vehicle is not. Try something that's not an obvious fallacy if you wish to discount my statement.
Read the Wiki page here. Also read the declaration of Independence for the purpose of the amendment, it becomes very clear "why" the founders felt this was worthy of being put in to our Constitution.
From the Wiki Page you will see the following.
* deterring tyrannical government;[34]
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Lets not overlook the obvious. If the purpose of Guns is to deter a tyrannical government, do you believe that gun registration is within the spirit of the law? No "but but but" answers allowed, look at the facts. Gun registration provides a hit list for a government we are supposed to be protecting ourselves from.
Would such a list be of benefit to a tyrannical government? Of course, it is a huge benefit. Suddenly we would have people being disarmed by said government prior to a tyrannical take over. This could be by bogus criminal charges or charges of insanity right? Like here (one of many vets recently labelled and forced into treatment), or here, or here? Of course these are not nation wide or common, but the fact is that they are happening to military veterans. These are the ones that make some form of media, but you should suspect that there are more.
Registration is most definitely not within the spirit of the amendment, and is not constitutional.
Now with that said, do I feel that some form of checking is required? Well yes, I do. If my batshit crazy neighbor has a gun, I'd report him to his family when he started waving it around and threatening to shoot the clouds. Well, most of us don't know our batshit crazy neighbors do we? When there has been a sociological break down, and we don't know our own neighbors, we have more pressing concerns than guns right? It's a mixture of "see something say something" bullshit being spread (welcome to Nazi Germany) and our addictions to mass media. Both of those things are signs of a tyrannical government as well.. but you will probably deny it.
Enjoy the puppet show, and tell us if your neighbor tries to remove their bonds. The Cave is wonderful, you should read the allegory sometime.
BTW Columbine had armed guards and it was just luck they didn't shoot any kids
Such utter bullshit. The armed guard saw the 2 kids with guns and opened fire. There was nobody else near them except for the kids that were already shot. It's not "lucky that they didn't shoot any kids", and making such a claim is simply your own fantasy.
The armed guard was able to occupy one of the shooters for long enough to make a difference. Since the guard had no eye glasses on, he was not able to hit the targets (his claim, not mine). 2 insane people with numerous guns and bombs planted a short distance away, and casualties were limited by that guys actions. One shooter was in the parking lot a lot longer than would have been otherwise. You can read the complete account on Wiki.
To claim that these two kids should have had guns would also be wrong. You must be 18 years old to purchase and license a gun. These kids were not only suffering from mental issues, but their parents were also suffering from problems. Blaming guns for that incident is batshit crazy. They were teenagers, not adults. Where the hell were the adults? Why were 2 kids on medication for depression not being looked after properly, and why were the parents allowing them to buy guns?
I really don't get how any sane person can blame guns for Columbine, unless you know 0 facts about it.
I don't want to read any comment about a "living constitution"
Thank you. Those that claim that it's living fail to ever understand it's purpose and the thoughts that went in to it. I normally direct them to read Plato and Socrates, but realize that it's futile. They know what they are told, not what they can think.
What country has a higher suicide rate, the US or Japan? Hmm, I think that's an easy one. Japanese people are not very different from Chinese or Russians. They have no power, no say, and no control of their Government. Do you understand what that means? Hell no, you don't live there. You sit here and play hypocrite.
To measure all aspects of a society based on Guns is foolish. Go read the greatest work ever written in Plato's Republic. If you understand the Republic, you will begin to understand the Declaration of Independence. When you understand that document, you will understand why the founders felt it so important to have Guns in the hands of citizens.
It's not about being able to hunt, or sport shoot, or show off your awesome collection of guns. It's not about crime, or avoidance of crime either. It's about protecting your rights to overthrow a Tyrannical Government when the time comes. You want to believe it won't happen, but it's been in the works for well over 30 years. You want to believe that there is no evil in the US. Those bad guys are only in Germany China and Russia. Well guess what dumb ass? They are here, and have been here! Pull your head out of your ass and start looking at what they do and what is getting done to implement a Tyranny.
What keeps them from throwing the switch and establishing a tyranny now? Easy, it's going to be extremely bloody and costly in terms of life. They don't know the result, as the military may not fire on friends or family. The military may turn on them, as the ones that do shoot on their countrymen won't last long alone.
As a side note: Drones and their use should scare the shit out of everyone for that reason alone. Some guy may be shooting up a suburb in Texas and thinking he's shooting up bad guys in Iraq.
To think tyranny has not been knocking on the door is to completely ignore what's been happening with "The Patriot Act", the advent and massive expansions of DHS, TSA, FEMA, ATF, CIA, FBI, and NSA. We are broke as a country, but money has been no object in ensuring that you and everyone else is being watched. Do you realize that this summer _everything_ you do on line will be monitored and reviewed by some NSA bot programs and people. They have massive computing power to break down your encryption (which in use will automatically flag you as a suspect).
Ignoring it won't make it go away pal, that's not how it works. If you don't care about your country, move to Russia or China where you have no say in Government. If you really care about the US then you would be concerned about keeping the 2nd amendment. But then again, you would understand the complete concept of why the 2nd amendment is there.. and probably see how close we are to a tyrannical take over.
Stoopid argument. Guy running around shooting innocent people while they scream is a bad guy. Guy walking through a school shooting at children is a bad guy. Are you so stupid that you could not figure out that the 5th grade math teacher frantically dialing 911 is innocent and the shooter is a bad guy? Please give up on life if that's the case. My guess however, is that it's just your pathetic way of trying to garner support for your anti-gun belief.
Straw man argument. The overwhelming majority of Gun related crimes in the US are not committed with Legally acquired guns. The overwhelming majority are committed by black market guns. Many of those guns making it to the black market are sponsored by the same people giving you the anti-gun propaganda. That is right, you think that Fast and Furious is the only operation there is? You are a fool if you do, it's the only one that they have been caught doing.
Suicide is a different issue, and should not be mentioned in this conversation. While a traditional Religion will tell you suicide is murder, it's a very special case that has nothing to do with guns. Having seen the grizzly way people try to commit suicide, and fail, because they have no guns has much to do with the lower numbers toted. If it was not propaganda, they would show you that the attempt numbers as well as death rates have changed.
The only people who could legally carry guns in that place got there in 2-3 minutes and found 27 bodies to clean up.
Not even close to 2-3 minutes. Actual response time maybe, but police never immediately enter the buildings. By the time a cop with a gun would have found the killer it would have been more like 1/2 hour. This is true in every gun crime, and done for the safety of the officers.
Meanwhile, in Florida a 70 year old man shot and killed an armed robber toting a gun and threatening to kill everyone during the robbery. The only person harmed in the incident was the bad guy with a gun. Guess what? The bad guy with a gun had procured a gun illegally. Laws would not have prevented him from carrying a gun in the first place.
But of course those kind of stories are ignored.
You mentioned something above, but neglected an important fact. In the US, baseball bats kill at least two times as many people as guns. Those are crimes where the weapon selected was a bat, not a gun. So you are correct that violent crimes still happen without guns, but the numbers are important when debating people inundated with propaganda about how bad guns are.
Actually I raised 4 separate points, but reading and comprehension may not have been on your mind.
Point 1. Registering Guns is not Constitutional.
Point 2. Releasing registration information should be illegal. Both parties are guilty, and a court can make it illegal for the State to release that information.
Point 3. This is done as propaganda, pure and simple. Challenge the "legal" nature if you want, but don't discount the obvious push to ban guns and remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution.
Point 3 I wrote last because I felt it was the most important. Fast and Furious shows you that the Government does not care if people get killed in the process of making laws that defy the 2nd amendment. The lack of knowledge most people have on the operation should show you that there is collusion between the Government and Media. NBC, ABC, and Fox all have neglected that operation like a plague, never discussing any facts. But when anyone in the country gets killed by a gun, bet your as all of the media outlets mentioned above tell everyone about it, and how bad guns are. What's interesting, is that there are exponentially more people killed by Drunk Driving every year, why not have them mention a demand for a new prohibition? Multiple times the amount of people are killed by accidental poisoning every year. Hmm, no mention of those at all in main stream media. I guess that should dispel any thoughts about it being simply the selling of dark things.
So if it's propaganda, should you worry? As I mentioned, read history books. They are common, and pretty easy to find. Most of them collect dust on shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously I disagree or I would not be posting. The last time we had a "real" debate in a Presidential election was when Ross Perot was running. Before that, it was Kennedy. What we saw this year, and even 2008 is nothing but rhetoric. Not just from Obama either.
I searched all over for a platform for either party. I did the obvious, went to Google and typed in "Democratic Platform", and "Republican Platform". I got campaign pages and slogans, no information on a Platform. I asked people that were pro-democrat and pro-republican to get me links to the information. Nothing but jibberish and campaign pages come back.
If there is no information except for what's in the 30-60 second TV commercials, there is nothing. While I agree that there are very real issues, our politicians sure don't discuss them or have a plan to deal with any of them. They don't debate on real issues. They simply say what people want to hear. Historically that is also true to an extent, but not the the levels it's currently at. Look at the last Republican primary. It was a show of dumb and dumber, or maybe "Who will look the most like GWB?". Rules were not followed by moderators or participants in any debate.
I would not say it was "unusually content free", but rather suggest that perhaps you noticed its absence more. Most of us should have, but it continues a trend we have been moving toward for a long time.
You claimed repeatedly that GMO foods saved lives. It was pointed out by numerous people that the foods alone would not fix any issues. Money is required to obtain said foods. That would be true whether it's GMO or not GMO foods.
To claim that GMO saves lives is an absolute fallacy. GMO foods can do no such thing. Vitamin A can be derived from numerous sources so lets not associate the Rice as a magic bullet either. If the people needing the Vitamin A could purchase GMO rice, they could also purchase vitamin supplements for those same people lacking Vitamin A.
Considering that numerous studies show that GMO foods have a lot of risk (wholly fuck, read the responses here and find the information) we have a dilemma. Do we sell the people lacking Vitamin A rice, at the expense of giving them all cancer? The answer to that question at this point is not clear! There has not been enough testing on the product to know.
In short, lets look at things a bit differently. Why does the FDA take years to approve medication? Well, because it's extremely complex in testing right? Interactions don't show up for years, often under abnormal circumstances. Sometimes, like Red Dye number 5.. it takes 30 years to determine that something is a carcinogen. So the FDA is supposed to do extensive testing to ensure that medication is safe.
Now, with GMO foods we basically have the same thing. We have genetic modifications to plants which cause chemicals to be produced within the plants that do not occur naturally. We have plants that kill their own seeds or mutate them so that they can not be used. There is very little done in the way of safety testing to see how these foods will act with humans. What if the foods make humans sterile? Well, it's possible since the plants are self sterilizing by mutation right? Again, we don't know enough yet to give safe answers.
I agree with the statement that there is potential for benefit from the GMO foods. I don't agree with making unknowing humans the guinea pigs for testing. I don't agree that we have done enough testing to know what is and isn't safe. Not just for human consumption mind you, but also how devastating these can be on nature (such as the Bee death's you can easily search for).
Problem is, that part isn't about the Constitution at all -- it's about what people felt about arms and militias before the Constitution even existed.
Yes it is part of the constitution for that reason. Historical context is important, which is why I never say simply "read the Constitution". The full context requires the Declaration of Independence, and knowing the history around both documents. You think the King did not take guns and cannons from the colonies? The Kings army were the only ones that were supposed to be armed, at least enough for military purposes. Even considering we had military type skirmishes all over the frontier that the Kings army did not take place in.
For right or wrong, today, in 2013, the intentions of the founders and other settlers of what would become the USA aren't really what matter any more. What matters is what's written in the Constitution, and how the courts have decided to interpret that
Not true, and I'm not sure why you injected the term settlers into the point except perhaps to obscure the value of the Constitution. The Constitution is what makes us a Republic. It is critical to understand the Philosophy that gets us to a Republic, and critical to understand history. Failure to do both gets us to a place where people make false claims about a "living" Constitution. At which point, we are no longer a Republic.
And so far, no courts seem to have decided that mandatory gun registration violates the Constitution, so I do indeed have to file your claim under "I really don't like it, so it must be Unconstitutional".
I believe I gave a valid statement regarding "why" it is unconstitutional. Whether the point has been challenged properly or not, my point is still valid. Even if challenged, we have a supreme court that is lacking integrity (for lack of better/safer terms). "Corporations are People" should have been an immediate telltale sign that they are no longer working for society as a whole, but rather an oligarchy of a select few. There has been an increased amount of voices demanding that these people be punished for Treason, and I'm one of those voices.
And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that mandatory gun registration is a good thing. I'm also not arguing that it's a bad thing -- I'm just saying that so far, there have been no rulings to say that it's Unconstitutional, and there's been more than plenty of time and will for such rulings to have been made, so by failing to say otherwise, the courts have basically declared it to be Constitutional. It's possible that they could still change their mind, but I wouldn't suggest holding one's breath.
I think we agree here. What I find the important part of the debate to be had is not whether registration is Constitutional or not.. but rather that we need to get back to being a Republic. There is a lot of proverbial shit blocking up the pipes currently, and we as a people need to start demanding that the shit be cleaned up. We don't need "reform" in the traditional sense of the word, we need to undo a whole lot of laws that have been passed which diminish and dismantle the Republic.
Let me be very clear about my meaning. The Constitution was not perfect as implemented. This is why there is an amendment process, and why we have successfully amended the Constitution numerous times. At no point, does anyone suggest going back to the Constitution as written 200+ years ago.
When we have EOs that absolutely deny the Constitution we have chaos, which is what is currently happening in the USA. Currently POTUS bypasses the Constitution by killing people without trial. The same would be true of the Military officials that allow drone assassinations at the President's order. We have internal departments jailing people without trial, torturing people, and committing acts that are completely illegal (Fast and Furious is an easy example, however collaboration bet
Wait, I'm ignorant yet you have yet to back your claim that GMO foods will be given away for free! I do hope you get paid for your propaganda, usually it's like .06c a post or something like that.
Of course every other person that pointed out that the food will not be free is also an ignoramus, and you are just hiding information to make us all look that way. I'm sure that you have a key somewhere for a magic distribution bus right?
Fucking shills...
Read the NISPOM and JFAN security guides. No external devices can be brought in to secured areas. No USB sticks, no media without a lengthy process to scan and check in the data. Nothing leaves the secured area without being shredded. We had some hefty machinery built to munch up everything from memory and CD/DVD media to hard drives and LTO tapes.
So "congress"? Yes, but we already know that cesspool for what it is. Secured areas like LANL? Not a chance.
Yep, they use frequency of search on the internet for the language to estimate. Which means confusing, and easily broken languages like C, and infrequently used(and thus easily forgotten) languages like bash get a huge leg-up.
I think C is less confusing than Java, so to each their own. At work, we do tons and tons of scripting. I can't agree with your sentiment that it's only infrequently used languages. Maybe _you_ don't use them frequently, but many others do.
With that said, I do agree with your statement that their method for determining who is using what language is broken.
It will be starting in 2013, check out vitamin A enriched rice.
I smell a shill. Your assertion that GMO saves lives is absolutely false. Poverty stricken areas must purchase the products in order to eat them and gain benefit. It's not like a big GMO company is giving away it's excess, and stop pretending that's what happens.
As numerous people have already pointed out, your assertion is broken. Prior to GMOs being around, we had too much food in developed countries. Yet in the US people go hungry every day. If you are poor, you don't eat. And when you can only sell dirt and sand, you are worse than poor.
Without verifiable facts all you are doing is spreading bullshit, which is what he was doing, but he went and looked at the facts and found he was WRONG so he changed his position.
Here and Here. I know it's hard to find information now days.
The rat study done in France seems to be bad science.
Seems to be, but is it?
Then we get the ill-cited references to people being sued "left and right" for supposedly doing nothing wrong.
That is laughable. It does not take a rocket scientist to use Google and see how many lawsuits for patent infringement monsanto has slapped on people.
The labeling nonsense was just a away around the lack of any good science against GMO. If you can't prove they're harmful, you'll just use scare labels to confuse people.
Confuse them? How about give them knowledge that it's genetically produced so that they at least know they are unpaid guinea pigs. The CA law is that they label products "Made with GMO" so people know what they are ingesting. People realized long ago that certain preservatives are bad for them, as are numerous artificial sweeteners. They must be labeled because.. they were found to be harmful to people. GMOs are relatively untested. The overwhelming majority of testing is coming from Monsanto. Don't you see the obvious conflict of interest? I'm picking on Monsanto here, but they are not the only company providing their own testing for their own products claiming they are safe. Red die number 5 was also safe according to the manufacturer. It took years to get it pulled, at the cost of thousands of lives and millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Name some of this "science" showing how bad GMOs are. Maybe you'll reference the French study, which pro and anti-GMO alike soundly criticized.
Google is not that hard to use, quite honestly you should be ashamed to ask. Here is a link by searching for "GMO bee death", and here is an interesting read about the French study which you claim is bad. Follow up, smearing a study is not the same as providing another study to show the French study was wrong in it's findings. How much money has Monsanto spent smearing the team compared to how much it would have cost to fund an additional independent study?
My "usual nonsense" is not quite usual nonsense. I wish I could say the same regarding your response.
Wrong, that received the blame publicly. There are many and numerous studies showing that links between GMOs and bees are a universal issue. Here is an article, but feel free to read more. Could it be that GMO is a red herring like wireless was a red herring? Possibly, but we are ignoring problems and continuing with release. You see no problem with that? Should we not find the root cause before we move forward?
Every anti-GMO person, including you, ignores science. Usually in the same way.
How? You ignore every study that shows GMO crops are safe, and focus on one or two (often questionable) studies that suggest there might be a problem in some way, then take that to mean it's all the work of the devil. Even though the study's authors don't say that! Here is a way you can tell if you're being irrational:
Do you see a problem with your rationalization? Who's studies show that GMOs are safe? Who's studies show that they are harmful? We have a mixed bag. Is not the point of science to weigh all evidence and all facts prior to claiming something is "good"? If you have two tests, one with a 100% success rate and the other with a 0% success rate, you explicitly call it a success? Come now, that is not science.
GMO saves lives is straw man fallacy at best, and a complete fabrication at worst. GMO makes money would be more factual. Monsanto seeds must be re-purchased every year. This is in the GMO design, that the seeds will not sprout additional plants. Monsanto has even sued people that saved seeds purchased and planted them a year later.
Claiming that GMOs are not safe and that's okay because natural organisms are not all save is yet another ludicrous fallacy. Eating natural corn does not cause us to have a rapidly growing cancer that can not be cured. Eating GMO Corn on the other hand has been shown to have that effect. Add in the weed killer produced by the same GMO company and you have a much worse cancer that grows even faster. And yes, those chemicals _are_ in our water supply and the FDA has increased the "safe" levels of round up recently because of it's rampant use.
The worst part is that we are approving these things for consumption without proper testing. Monsanto said Monsanto GMO Barley is safe, and we just believe them? Really? Are you that fucking stoopid? No independent testing to ensure that these are really safe? The FDA just approved GMO Salmon without any testing either.
There is a secondary problem, which is not just with the deception of the company but the deception to the people consuming products that are labelled exactly as natural products and treated exactly like natural products. They are guinea pigs generating huge amounts of revenue taking extremely high risk without any reward or knowledge that they are guinea pigs. If you think that there is nothing wrong with that, you are either an idiot or benefiting from the system. So you choose to ignore the key issues I present.
In all cases, follow the money. While I'm not completely anti-GMO, the companies producing GMOs have not been honest, not been honest, and not been honest. As a long time hater and now a big advocate, I wonder who's payroll he made it on too in order to now back GMO foods. There is a tremendous amount of science showing how bad GMOs are, much worst than the anti-GMO crowd initially thought! So his "because of Science" answer is pure bullshit!
Studies have shown that GMO foods are not only unhealthy for humans, but often harm the environment. As a simple example, Poland found that a GMO corn was killing off whole colonies of bees. Poland outlawed GMO corn.
Studies showed that long term, GMO foods can cause some nasty cancers in lab rats. When mixed with a certain pesticide, the cancer was insanely fast growing and abnormally massive tumors would be found.
A very large GMO company ran smear campaigns trying to keep hiding what was GMO and what was not. Do you really trust eating foods that they don't want to tell you are genetically modified? Not only not tell you, but spend nearly a billion dollars to keep you from knowing?
That same very large GMO has been suing people left and right for having seed gone awry grow on their own farms. They have monopolized and killed off competition in many markets, many of which are overseas and impoverished areas. Interestingly, after the Mississippi river flooding, guess who bought most of the farm land? Of course it's only those Chinese and Russians that can influence the weather though, and hell an upstanding US company would never do such a thing would they?
Needless to say at this point, I don't trust anyone that changes sides based on a lie.
It's of course all paranoia there mister AC guy with no balls. But since I'm just paranoid (or you are an ignorant doofus) here are a few publicly released operations from the US Government. Here, Here and Here.
Of course I could not have read anything about fast and furious, that's just paranoia too right? There was no article just the other day about the FBI, DHS, TSA, and Local police forces colluding with Bankers to disperse and suppress OWS either right?. Just paranoia?
It's really hard to add two and two to get four sometimes, especially when you so firmly believe that the answer is purple. People keep telling you it's purple, and those people have to be correct because they _are_ the Government right?
Straw man. Owning a Gun is a constitutional right. Owning and operating a motor vehicle is not. Try something that's not an obvious fallacy if you wish to discount my statement.
Read the Wiki page here. Also read the declaration of Independence for the purpose of the amendment, it becomes very clear "why" the founders felt this was worthy of being put in to our Constitution.
From the Wiki Page you will see the following.
* deterring tyrannical government;[34]
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Lets not overlook the obvious. If the purpose of Guns is to deter a tyrannical government, do you believe that gun registration is within the spirit of the law? No "but but but" answers allowed, look at the facts. Gun registration provides a hit list for a government we are supposed to be protecting ourselves from.
Would such a list be of benefit to a tyrannical government? Of course, it is a huge benefit. Suddenly we would have people being disarmed by said government prior to a tyrannical take over. This could be by bogus criminal charges or charges of insanity right? Like here (one of many vets recently labelled and forced into treatment), or here, or here? Of course these are not nation wide or common, but the fact is that they are happening to military veterans. These are the ones that make some form of media, but you should suspect that there are more.
Registration is most definitely not within the spirit of the amendment, and is not constitutional.
Now with that said, do I feel that some form of checking is required? Well yes, I do. If my batshit crazy neighbor has a gun, I'd report him to his family when he started waving it around and threatening to shoot the clouds. Well, most of us don't know our batshit crazy neighbors do we? When there has been a sociological break down, and we don't know our own neighbors, we have more pressing concerns than guns right? It's a mixture of "see something say something" bullshit being spread (welcome to Nazi Germany) and our addictions to mass media. Both of those things are signs of a tyrannical government as well.. but you will probably deny it.
Enjoy the puppet show, and tell us if your neighbor tries to remove their bonds. The Cave is wonderful, you should read the allegory sometime.
BTW Columbine had armed guards and it was just luck they didn't shoot any kids
Such utter bullshit. The armed guard saw the 2 kids with guns and opened fire. There was nobody else near them except for the kids that were already shot. It's not "lucky that they didn't shoot any kids", and making such a claim is simply your own fantasy.
The armed guard was able to occupy one of the shooters for long enough to make a difference. Since the guard had no eye glasses on, he was not able to hit the targets (his claim, not mine). 2 insane people with numerous guns and bombs planted a short distance away, and casualties were limited by that guys actions. One shooter was in the parking lot a lot longer than would have been otherwise. You can read the complete account on Wiki.
To claim that these two kids should have had guns would also be wrong. You must be 18 years old to purchase and license a gun. These kids were not only suffering from mental issues, but their parents were also suffering from problems. Blaming guns for that incident is batshit crazy. They were teenagers, not adults. Where the hell were the adults? Why were 2 kids on medication for depression not being looked after properly, and why were the parents allowing them to buy guns?
I really don't get how any sane person can blame guns for Columbine, unless you know 0 facts about it.
I don't want to read any comment about a "living constitution"
Thank you. Those that claim that it's living fail to ever understand it's purpose and the thoughts that went in to it. I normally direct them to read Plato and Socrates, but realize that it's futile. They know what they are told, not what they can think.
What country has a higher suicide rate, the US or Japan? Hmm, I think that's an easy one. Japanese people are not very different from Chinese or Russians. They have no power, no say, and no control of their Government. Do you understand what that means? Hell no, you don't live there. You sit here and play hypocrite.
To measure all aspects of a society based on Guns is foolish. Go read the greatest work ever written in Plato's Republic. If you understand the Republic, you will begin to understand the Declaration of Independence. When you understand that document, you will understand why the founders felt it so important to have Guns in the hands of citizens.
It's not about being able to hunt, or sport shoot, or show off your awesome collection of guns. It's not about crime, or avoidance of crime either. It's about protecting your rights to overthrow a Tyrannical Government when the time comes. You want to believe it won't happen, but it's been in the works for well over 30 years. You want to believe that there is no evil in the US. Those bad guys are only in Germany China and Russia. Well guess what dumb ass? They are here, and have been here! Pull your head out of your ass and start looking at what they do and what is getting done to implement a Tyranny.
What keeps them from throwing the switch and establishing a tyranny now? Easy, it's going to be extremely bloody and costly in terms of life. They don't know the result, as the military may not fire on friends or family. The military may turn on them, as the ones that do shoot on their countrymen won't last long alone.
As a side note: Drones and their use should scare the shit out of everyone for that reason alone. Some guy may be shooting up a suburb in Texas and thinking he's shooting up bad guys in Iraq.
To think tyranny has not been knocking on the door is to completely ignore what's been happening with "The Patriot Act", the advent and massive expansions of DHS, TSA, FEMA, ATF, CIA, FBI, and NSA. We are broke as a country, but money has been no object in ensuring that you and everyone else is being watched. Do you realize that this summer _everything_ you do on line will be monitored and reviewed by some NSA bot programs and people. They have massive computing power to break down your encryption (which in use will automatically flag you as a suspect).
Ignoring it won't make it go away pal, that's not how it works. If you don't care about your country, move to Russia or China where you have no say in Government. If you really care about the US then you would be concerned about keeping the 2nd amendment. But then again, you would understand the complete concept of why the 2nd amendment is there.. and probably see how close we are to a tyrannical take over.
You make a fine slave.
FTFY!
Stoopid argument. Guy running around shooting innocent people while they scream is a bad guy. Guy walking through a school shooting at children is a bad guy. Are you so stupid that you could not figure out that the 5th grade math teacher frantically dialing 911 is innocent and the shooter is a bad guy? Please give up on life if that's the case. My guess however, is that it's just your pathetic way of trying to garner support for your anti-gun belief.
Straw man argument. The overwhelming majority of Gun related crimes in the US are not committed with Legally acquired guns. The overwhelming majority are committed by black market guns. Many of those guns making it to the black market are sponsored by the same people giving you the anti-gun propaganda. That is right, you think that Fast and Furious is the only operation there is? You are a fool if you do, it's the only one that they have been caught doing.
Suicide is a different issue, and should not be mentioned in this conversation. While a traditional Religion will tell you suicide is murder, it's a very special case that has nothing to do with guns. Having seen the grizzly way people try to commit suicide, and fail, because they have no guns has much to do with the lower numbers toted. If it was not propaganda, they would show you that the attempt numbers as well as death rates have changed.
The only people who could legally carry guns in that place got there in 2-3 minutes and found 27 bodies to clean up.
Not even close to 2-3 minutes. Actual response time maybe, but police never immediately enter the buildings. By the time a cop with a gun would have found the killer it would have been more like 1/2 hour. This is true in every gun crime, and done for the safety of the officers.
Meanwhile, in Florida a 70 year old man shot and killed an armed robber toting a gun and threatening to kill everyone during the robbery. The only person harmed in the incident was the bad guy with a gun. Guess what? The bad guy with a gun had procured a gun illegally. Laws would not have prevented him from carrying a gun in the first place.
But of course those kind of stories are ignored.
You mentioned something above, but neglected an important fact. In the US, baseball bats kill at least two times as many people as guns. Those are crimes where the weapon selected was a bat, not a gun. So you are correct that violent crimes still happen without guns, but the numbers are important when debating people inundated with propaganda about how bad guns are.
Actually I raised 4 separate points, but reading and comprehension may not have been on your mind.
Point 1. Registering Guns is not Constitutional.
Point 2. Releasing registration information should be illegal. Both parties are guilty, and a court can make it illegal for the State to release that information.
Point 3. This is done as propaganda, pure and simple. Challenge the "legal" nature if you want, but don't discount the obvious push to ban guns and remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution.
Point 3 I wrote last because I felt it was the most important. Fast and Furious shows you that the Government does not care if people get killed in the process of making laws that defy the 2nd amendment. The lack of knowledge most people have on the operation should show you that there is collusion between the Government and Media. NBC, ABC, and Fox all have neglected that operation like a plague, never discussing any facts. But when anyone in the country gets killed by a gun, bet your as all of the media outlets mentioned above tell everyone about it, and how bad guns are. What's interesting, is that there are exponentially more people killed by Drunk Driving every year, why not have them mention a demand for a new prohibition? Multiple times the amount of people are killed by accidental poisoning every year. Hmm, no mention of those at all in main stream media. I guess that should dispel any thoughts about it being simply the selling of dark things.
So if it's propaganda, should you worry? As I mentioned, read history books. They are common, and pretty easy to find. Most of them collect dust on shelves.