Have you ever traveled to other first world nations? In my experience if the topic of guns comes up the typical response is the shaking of head in bewilderment that Americans think they need so many guns to keep themselves "safe". While our violent crimes rate is very similar to other other first world nations our gun violence and homicide rates are much higher. Clearly all of our guns arent keeping us safer.
I've seen fights break out in public too and a gun wasn't needed to end them. I remember one time I saw some racist trash verbally abusing the Hispanic staff of a restaurant I was at. The manager (also Hispanic) came over pretty quick to talk to him. After some very polite dialog from the manager and abusive from the customer the customer decided it was a good idea to throw his weight around and shoved the manager. Half a second later the restaurant staff had the guy on the ground, his arms pinned and the cops on the way. Problem solved and no guns needed. (It was also very satisfying to see the extremely long line of customers happily weighting in line to tell the cops what a piece of trash this guy was.)
Fact is, every other first world nation gets by just fine without mass gun ownership. There's no reason we can't.
The rest of the Western world gets along just fine without stand your ground gun laws or even mass gun ownership. In fact, the only reason so many US criminals have guns is because there's so many guns in this country to begin with. It's not like there are illegal gun factories.
You're the one with their head buried in the sand. Pull it out and look at the world around you and you'll see we dont need to live in fear and paranoia.
I dont think you understand my comment about "paranoid fantasy land". You live in a paranoid fantasy land because you seem to have constructed this elaborate seige fantasy where you desperatly need to be ready to defend yourself at any moment. The odds of anyone in most parts of the country having a legitmate need to defend themselves with a gun (that cant be met in any other fashion) is quite remote.
The rest of your post then goes on to reinforce my point in regards to the world you have constructed for yourself. If things are really as bad as you make them seem where you live you need to consider moving because most of this country is incredibly safe.
"To look at Samsung's new Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge smartphones, on the surface, one might mistake them for only a modest uplift of bells and whistles, and perhaps a light rebuffing of the phone's design language."
More processing power on a smart phone is just bells and whistles.
Aside from the uber nerd who needs the latest and greatest gadget, who needs a faster smart phone nowadays? My S4 was plenty fast and I only got an S5 because it died on me. What are people doing on their phones that requires all this new power? I'm a gamer and certainly care about stuff like this on my PC but I just have no idea why anyone makes a deal with this on a smart phone
Day laborers are usually used for landscaping, construction and the like. Do you think many of the people employing them in these industries even know what a DDOS attack is let alone know how to find some one to do it for them?
Honestly, I feel like smart phone companies have run out of reasons for me to upgrade. I'm on an S5 right now and if it broke I'd be more than happy to buy another one rather then pay top dollar for anything newer.
Now if only some one would bring back smart phones with fold out physical keyboards that are built in rather then this touch screen garbage. I miss my old Motorola that had this feature and I'd be willing to pay quite a lot for a phone with it, even if I had to sacrafice or accept lesser features elsewhere in the phone's design.
The case that most people lead constructive lives is obvious just looking at human history. Would we have advanced so far from hunter / gatherers had everyone been tearing everything down?
Of course the phrase in question “an Exchange established by the State.” literally has two different meanings depending on how one uses the word "state". If someone refers to Obama as being the head of state are they saying he is the governor of their respective state?
Words like this have their meaning determined through context and since the context wasn't clear here then intent is the only way to go.
None of what you've said makes any difference to my initial point. When your support base only amounts to less then 25% of the public who sympathizes with you your problem isnt entrench interests, it's the you don't have enough people who want to subscribe to your ideals. Hence their sketchy plan.
Of course a vast majority of private companies are willing to throw money at any conservative group who will take it if it will get them taxed and / or regulated less. Both sides of the economic political spectrum have their major backers and there is a shit ton of money in the right's
I'll keep this short and talk loudly in the hopes that instead of deflecting with tangents you actually address my point head on.
I OBJECT TO THEIR STATED GOAL OF ORGANISING A MASS MIGRATION OF A SINGLE IDEOLOGY WITH THE INTENT OF CHANGING THE STATES POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN A DIRECTION THEY WANT.
Please note:...THEIR STATED GOAL OF....
Sorry if you find my post rude but the only other retort was to repeat my initial post in other words a third time (which this basically is, just in CAPS!!!!)
And to address you tangent, according to most polling data I can find around 7% of Americans are idiologically Libertarians with an additional 15% of the population "sympathetic". That's pretty fringe although I'll admit a bit more of the population then I thought.
Yes i know they're not taking it by force, i never suggested anything of the sort.
What I did say is that they are organising a mass migration of people with a fringe political ideology to a small state in an effort to skew its political views towards theirs. Their website literally says this, although without mentioning how fringe their movement is. The people of New Hampshire will now have a harder time voting down these fringe ideas because a bunch of fringers from out of state have moved in skewing the voting demographics.
This movement literally exists because only a fringe segment of the American public will subscribe to libertarianism so because they can't win by persuading others to their ideology they're trying to gather in mass at one spot and hoist it on everyone else who lives there.
An intentional demographic shift with the explicit objective of changing the political landscape towards a fringe ideology is not the same as natural drifts in population. Furthermore, I don't think that New Hamshire has ever been some sort of Libertarian promise land that has only recently been sullied by the impure like you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
You're correct of course! Libertarians will be freeing the good people of New Hamshire from their delusions that government should do things. Sure their state government is literally what they have made it there but if it's not libertarian then they are clearly deluded! Since the enlightened few libertarians cant convert anywhere near enough true believers where they live to make a difference (which clearly is not the fault of the ideology!) they must gather in mass in one spot there in New Hampshire to force their agenda down their throats for their own good
The Free State Project is solely an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.
In other words, "We're moving here in mass to change the political landscape to what we think it should be". If most people in New Hampshire were already Libertarians then the state would already be Libertarian and wouldnt need this enlightened "transformation".
Thank God I don't live in New Hampshire. I'd be pissed if a bunch of out of state yahoos whose political views are in an extreme minority in this country all moved to my state in an attempt to change the political spectrum to what they think is right for everyone.
Well guess what libertarians. Your political views are in the minority for a reason, most people want government to do more then the minimalist government you want. That's literally why this project exists to begin with!
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, except for Switzerland too.
Last things first, I never came close to implying self-defense should not be allowed. Way to make things up though.
As for rest, as I've said in a few other posts, every single other first world nation gets by just fine without mass gun ownership. We could too.
You lost me here. So all of those innocent people dying from gun violence don't matter because sometimes guns don't need to be shot?
Have you ever traveled to other first world nations? In my experience if the topic of guns comes up the typical response is the shaking of head in bewilderment that Americans think they need so many guns to keep themselves "safe". While our violent crimes rate is very similar to other other first world nations our gun violence and homicide rates are much higher. Clearly all of our guns arent keeping us safer.
I've seen fights break out in public too and a gun wasn't needed to end them. I remember one time I saw some racist trash verbally abusing the Hispanic staff of a restaurant I was at. The manager (also Hispanic) came over pretty quick to talk to him. After some very polite dialog from the manager and abusive from the customer the customer decided it was a good idea to throw his weight around and shoved the manager. Half a second later the restaurant staff had the guy on the ground, his arms pinned and the cops on the way. Problem solved and no guns needed. (It was also very satisfying to see the extremely long line of customers happily weighting in line to tell the cops what a piece of trash this guy was.)
Fact is, every other first world nation gets by just fine without mass gun ownership. There's no reason we can't.
The rest of the Western world gets along just fine without stand your ground gun laws or even mass gun ownership. In fact, the only reason so many US criminals have guns is because there's so many guns in this country to begin with. It's not like there are illegal gun factories.
You're the one with their head buried in the sand. Pull it out and look at the world around you and you'll see we dont need to live in fear and paranoia.
I dont think you understand my comment about "paranoid fantasy land". You live in a paranoid fantasy land because you seem to have constructed this elaborate seige fantasy where you desperatly need to be ready to defend yourself at any moment. The odds of anyone in most parts of the country having a legitmate need to defend themselves with a gun (that cant be met in any other fashion) is quite remote.
The rest of your post then goes on to reinforce my point in regards to the world you have constructed for yourself. If things are really as bad as you make them seem where you live you need to consider moving because most of this country is incredibly safe.
Not live in a paranoid fantasy world where criminal hoards are seaking to storm our homes at any moment?
Most of America is incredibly safe. We dont need laws that only encourage people to shoot each other.
"To look at Samsung's new Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge smartphones, on the surface, one might mistake them for only a modest uplift of bells and whistles, and perhaps a light rebuffing of the phone's design language."
More processing power on a smart phone is just bells and whistles.
Aside from the uber nerd who needs the latest and greatest gadget, who needs a faster smart phone nowadays? My S4 was plenty fast and I only got an S5 because it died on me. What are people doing on their phones that requires all this new power? I'm a gamer and certainly care about stuff like this on my PC but I just have no idea why anyone makes a deal with this on a smart phone
"Why does your kind always exaggerate and lie?
Why does your kind always take a single instance of something and use it to damn an entire ideology or political movement?
Day laborers are usually used for landscaping, construction and the like. Do you think many of the people employing them in these industries even know what a DDOS attack is let alone know how to find some one to do it for them?
Here: https://www.papajohns.com/
Now you don't need an app to order online.
Yeah, they've been around for a good while now. Not the same
The wireless charging sounds nice...
Honestly, I feel like smart phone companies have run out of reasons for me to upgrade. I'm on an S5 right now and if it broke I'd be more than happy to buy another one rather then pay top dollar for anything newer.
Now if only some one would bring back smart phones with fold out physical keyboards that are built in rather then this touch screen garbage. I miss my old Motorola that had this feature and I'd be willing to pay quite a lot for a phone with it, even if I had to sacrafice or accept lesser features elsewhere in the phone's design.
The case that most people lead constructive lives is obvious just looking at human history. Would we have advanced so far from hunter / gatherers had everyone been tearing everything down?
Yeah, I see this type of thing all the time.
Wait, what?
Of course the phrase in question “an Exchange established by the State.” literally has two different meanings depending on how one uses the word "state". If someone refers to Obama as being the head of state are they saying he is the governor of their respective state?
Words like this have their meaning determined through context and since the context wasn't clear here then intent is the only way to go.
None of what you've said makes any difference to my initial point. When your support base only amounts to less then 25% of the public who sympathizes with you your problem isnt entrench interests, it's the you don't have enough people who want to subscribe to your ideals. Hence their sketchy plan.
Of course a vast majority of private companies are willing to throw money at any conservative group who will take it if it will get them taxed and / or regulated less. Both sides of the economic political spectrum have their major backers and there is a shit ton of money in the right's
I'll keep this short and talk loudly in the hopes that instead of deflecting with tangents you actually address my point head on.
I OBJECT TO THEIR STATED GOAL OF ORGANISING A MASS MIGRATION OF A SINGLE IDEOLOGY WITH THE INTENT OF CHANGING THE STATES POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN A DIRECTION THEY WANT.
Please note:...THEIR STATED GOAL OF....
Sorry if you find my post rude but the only other retort was to repeat my initial post in other words a third time (which this basically is, just in CAPS!!!!)
And to address you tangent, according to most polling data I can find around 7% of Americans are idiologically Libertarians with an additional 15% of the population "sympathetic". That's pretty fringe although I'll admit a bit more of the population then I thought.
Yes i know they're not taking it by force, i never suggested anything of the sort.
What I did say is that they are organising a mass migration of people with a fringe political ideology to a small state in an effort to skew its political views towards theirs. Their website literally says this, although without mentioning how fringe their movement is. The people of New Hampshire will now have a harder time voting down these fringe ideas because a bunch of fringers from out of state have moved in skewing the voting demographics.
This movement literally exists because only a fringe segment of the American public will subscribe to libertarianism so because they can't win by persuading others to their ideology they're trying to gather in mass at one spot and hoist it on everyone else who lives there.
An intentional demographic shift with the explicit objective of changing the political landscape towards a fringe ideology is not the same as natural drifts in population. Furthermore, I don't think that New Hamshire has ever been some sort of Libertarian promise land that has only recently been sullied by the impure like you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
You're correct of course! Libertarians will be freeing the good people of New Hamshire from their delusions that government should do things. Sure their state government is literally what they have made it there but if it's not libertarian then they are clearly deluded! Since the enlightened few libertarians cant convert anywhere near enough true believers where they live to make a difference (which clearly is not the fault of the ideology!) they must gather in mass in one spot there in New Hampshire to force their agenda down their throats for their own good
From their website
The Free State Project is solely an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.
In other words, "We're moving here in mass to change the political landscape to what we think it should be". If most people in New Hampshire were already Libertarians then the state would already be Libertarian and wouldnt need this enlightened "transformation".
Thank God I don't live in New Hampshire. I'd be pissed if a bunch of out of state yahoos whose political views are in an extreme minority in this country all moved to my state in an attempt to change the political spectrum to what they think is right for everyone.
Well guess what libertarians. Your political views are in the minority for a reason, most people want government to do more then the minimalist government you want. That's literally why this project exists to begin with!