Whoops, I mean an insufficient majority voted to kill the filibuster I guess. But those that supported the filibuster included members of both parties. For that matter, I don't doubt there were members of both parties in the pro-Patriot Act group.
Indeed, the majority voted against it because it was bad legislation. This was a success in killing an aweful bit of stupidity, not a failure. And for those of you praising Democrats and booing Republicans....both Republicans and Democrats voted against this. And both Republicans and Democrats were filibustering.
The Senate still represents the States, and the Senators are still representatives of their States. They are just elected by the people of their State, instead of appointed by the State government. It is still a force of power of States Rights.
Not entirely, they weren't exactly the only town to ban handguns (or their discharge, or have some other restriction) in city limits. Interestingly, the movement to push this law through was backed most strongly by various police groups throughout the State.
If the party is going to run nutcases, then they can't claim to be a sane party that's plagued by a few nutcase members.
Tell that to the Republicans. And the Democrats too for that matter. They both have top level leadership which is filled with people who are completely out there.
Are you therefore advocating that clinically insane individuals should also have the right to possess firearms?
They, like children, have their rights protected for them by a guardian. I was not however, discussing a clinically insane individual, merely a drug user.
On a different note, I have no problem with people defending their lives. So let them install bulletproof glass, stronger doors, and so on. Why is gun ownership immediately equated to self-defense? There are alternatives that don't take the risk of killing innocent bystanders.
There are varying degrees of threats to defend oneself against. And passive security is no replacement for an active ability to protect your life when it's threatened.
Of course....guns are also used to protect other rights as well...all of them in fact. But "right to life" is typically the most urgent.
Well, the U.S. isn't a democracy (or really a republic in the roman sense of the word although certainly in the modern sense...). Because the People of the United States do not act as a single people in electing it's officials. We elect them as a group of States. Any individual State could be called a democracy, but the United States is a federative union.
compare the crime rates in Illinois..where guns are highly feered vs Kentucky with an open firearms policy
Illinois is not Chicago. In the last several years there has been a political shift in the state, from far left nutjob politics....to Illinois becomming one of the most moderate States in the Union. One of the areas it's gotten a lot more moderate on is guns. Example, there's a recent State law on the book that specifically overrides local laws which prohibit the ownership of firearms, for the purpose of home defense. The Mayor of Chicago (and his bought and paid for Governor), were not pleased. There was an attempt at veto, but it was pushed through passed the governor's veto. A lot of stuff is these days.
So what you're saying is that he has no right to life? Having a right to something also means the right to fight for that right. If he has the right to life, he has the right to defend that life. If he has no right to defend his own life (as you suggest), that would suggest he has no right to life. So at what point did hypothetical Timmy cease being human?
Dolphins might have better "hardware", but humans have a better brain OS. The evidence of this unique capacity is all around us, and right here
You know...an aquatic environment...and no limbs capable of manipulating objects in any meaningful way, just might inhibit the develop of technology a tad...regardless of intelligence. Just sayin.
Exactly, because they have a massive advantage on a single commodity...labor (they have lots and lots of workers). It is also their only real advantage. And thus it is to their economic advantage to specialise in the marketing of that commodity. And so long as others are in the market for labor, China will have a strong and growing economy.
Nobody has come up with a quantified definition of what human intelligence is, much less animal. Pretty much everything that is easy to test has been observed in animals, both in the wild and in the lab. For a long time it was tool usage, remember? And then it was creating tools, not using found objects, and now it's just "really complex tools that animals can't make".
That's because there's a bias among many humans, including a vast number of scientists, which is that humans and animals are somehow two different things. That we are somehow special, different, unique. We are just another animal. One of the smarter animals perhaps, but just another one of the many beasts on this world. We've got some neat, hyper-specialised abilities that evolution tossed our way in order to survive in this otherwise pathetic form....like not just tool-use or making (which many animals have), but tool-improving. We're also built for projectile weaponry, it's evolved into our eyesight, our reflexes, our strength level, and our complex brains which it takes to manage hunting via projectile weapon (be it spear, atlatl, bow, or firearm). And we're pack hunters....and complex hunting in a pack, using projectile weapons...you better damn sure know how to communicate with your packmates. It's nothing special about us, nothing secret....simple survival traits as applied to one animal.
The problem with the bias though, is that it causes people, including scientists, to make an assumption. That other animals cannot be almost as intelligent as we are, or think in ways that we do...or even think at all, or communicate on any meaningful level. They're just "apeing us" because they're "just dumb animals." Dolphins may be as intelligent or nearly so (or more so) as we are, but in an utterly alien way...yet you'll find few scientists with the guts to say so, even though there is a massive amount of evidence to back it up. Why? Because they are animals, of course!
1) The Continental Army fought much the same way as the British army. The idea that the Americans 'hid behind rocks and trees' while the British fought in lines is a tired old chestnut with no basis in fact. Both sides used skirmishers, light troops who fought from cover, to great effect. The Brits were unhappily surprised by the lethality and range of the American rifles, but in general the US Army was beaten in almost every engagement except for the critical battles of Saratoga and Cowpens.
You're looking at the Army of the Continental Congress of the United States. The militia was much more sucessful. Take for example, George Rogers Clark of the Virginia Regulars. He lead a major campaign in the west (in what is now Illinois and Indiana, but what was then just part of frontier Virginia), winning the Battle at Fort Kaskaskia and again at the Battle of Vincennes, securing the region from the British and ensuring the future US claim on the region. He did this with few men, short supplies, surprise, a lot of luck, brilliant strategy, and out and out balls against heavily fortified and well supplied British positions.
You know...they will come up with that, probably before too long right? Artificial wombs have long been a biotech and sci-fi dream, and tissue engineering is making some pretty good leaps right now.
Most patents these days are bogus and will be toss out of court if challenged by anyone with even half a brain. And all software patents are doubly bogus. Just ignore these brain dead, moronic things, do what you want, and say a big, "fuck you" to the corps that decided to patents obvious, already in use, even public domain things.
France fought the most wars in modern history (that's since the 15th century). It fought more than Great Britain, Prussia and Austria (the other large nations in Europe with many battles) together. As far as I remember, it was more than 2000 wars with french involvement, compared with 500-700 for each of the other nations. The U.S. come not even close to a 10th of the numbers of France.
So you're saying that the French are violent, warmongering, cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Jokes about France surrendering sheet more light on uneducated jokers than on french national characteristics.
The behavior of France in WW2 is enough to joke about. They hardly even gave the Germans a good fight, and didn't fight at all for their most beloved city, simply gave up when they got anywhere near Paris. And the Germans hadn't even taken all that much of France yet.
If you really want a nation to make jokes about because of constant bad luck in battles, take Saxony
A place that hasn't been it's own country for quite a long time now... What's the fun in that? Honestly.
If the grandparent was living in the bush in Alaska and ate his bear there, it may well have been living entirely off of salmon runs, in which case it would have been carnivorous when he ate it.
A meat-eating predator perhaps, but still not carnivorous. Not any more than human vegitarians (who I will never understand) are herbavores. A bear living off meat is still an omnivore, as is a human living off plants.
Also the "teen homocide" figure is inflated...most of those teens are gang members killing other teenage gang members, usually over the profits that can be had in the drug trade. In virtually every case, their guns are not legally obtained, but black market items, obtained with drug money. Gangsters are not indicitive of "regular people with guns."
And regardless of the exact statistics, does the point not remain valid? Knives are still extremely dangerous, and everyone has them in their home. Everyone has several in their home. Many places of business have them as well. In most cases, these "deadly weapons" are not locked up in secret hardened vaults like it's demanded that guns must be. The reasoning that guns must be locked up like this is to prevent theft by someone who would do harm with them....and that anyone who doesn't secure their firearms in such a fashion is responsable for that harm. So why does that not equally appliy to kitchen knives? Why is there not a demand that every house have an expensive "knife vault" into which all knives must be securely locked when not in use to prevent theft? If anyone steals your knife and kills someone with it...clearly that's your fault. Right? That's the argument being put forward here with regards to guns. Why doesn't it apply to anything else?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, I mean an insufficient majority voted to kill the filibuster I guess. But those that supported the filibuster included members of both parties. For that matter, I don't doubt there were members of both parties in the pro-Patriot Act group.
Indeed, the majority voted against it because it was bad legislation. This was a success in killing an aweful bit of stupidity, not a failure. And for those of you praising Democrats and booing Republicans....both Republicans and Democrats voted against this. And both Republicans and Democrats were filibustering.
The Senate still represents the States, and the Senators are still representatives of their States. They are just elected by the people of their State, instead of appointed by the State government. It is still a force of power of States Rights.
There are varying degrees of threats to defend oneself against. And passive security is no replacement for an active ability to protect your life when it's threatened.
Of course....guns are also used to protect other rights as well...all of them in fact. But "right to life" is typically the most urgent.
Well, the U.S. isn't a democracy (or really a republic in the roman sense of the word although certainly in the modern sense...). Because the People of the United States do not act as a single people in electing it's officials. We elect them as a group of States. Any individual State could be called a democracy, but the United States is a federative union.
So what you're saying is that he has no right to life? Having a right to something also means the right to fight for that right. If he has the right to life, he has the right to defend that life. If he has no right to defend his own life (as you suggest), that would suggest he has no right to life. So at what point did hypothetical Timmy cease being human?
That's because there's a bias among many humans, including a vast number of scientists, which is that humans and animals are somehow two different things. That we are somehow special, different, unique. We are just another animal. One of the smarter animals perhaps, but just another one of the many beasts on this world. We've got some neat, hyper-specialised abilities that evolution tossed our way in order to survive in this otherwise pathetic form....like not just tool-use or making (which many animals have), but tool-improving. We're also built for projectile weaponry, it's evolved into our eyesight, our reflexes, our strength level, and our complex brains which it takes to manage hunting via projectile weapon (be it spear, atlatl, bow, or firearm). And we're pack hunters....and complex hunting in a pack, using projectile weapons...you better damn sure know how to communicate with your packmates. It's nothing special about us, nothing secret....simple survival traits as applied to one animal.
The problem with the bias though, is that it causes people, including scientists, to make an assumption. That other animals cannot be almost as intelligent as we are, or think in ways that we do...or even think at all, or communicate on any meaningful level. They're just "apeing us" because they're "just dumb animals." Dolphins may be as intelligent or nearly so (or more so) as we are, but in an utterly alien way...yet you'll find few scientists with the guts to say so, even though there is a massive amount of evidence to back it up. Why? Because they are animals, of course!
Isn't it RIAA that's holding back the music industry?
You know...they will come up with that, probably before too long right? Artificial wombs have long been a biotech and sci-fi dream, and tissue engineering is making some pretty good leaps right now.
A cat is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to.
More along the lines of "temple attendant." They never have gotten over the whole "worshipped like gods" treatment with the ancient Egyptians.
Most patents these days are bogus and will be toss out of court if challenged by anyone with even half a brain. And all software patents are doubly bogus. Just ignore these brain dead, moronic things, do what you want, and say a big, "fuck you" to the corps that decided to patents obvious, already in use, even public domain things.
You're assuming that all stabbings are fatal.
Also the "teen homocide" figure is inflated...most of those teens are gang members killing other teenage gang members, usually over the profits that can be had in the drug trade. In virtually every case, their guns are not legally obtained, but black market items, obtained with drug money. Gangsters are not indicitive of "regular people with guns."
And regardless of the exact statistics, does the point not remain valid? Knives are still extremely dangerous, and everyone has them in their home. Everyone has several in their home. Many places of business have them as well. In most cases, these "deadly weapons" are not locked up in secret hardened vaults like it's demanded that guns must be. The reasoning that guns must be locked up like this is to prevent theft by someone who would do harm with them....and that anyone who doesn't secure their firearms in such a fashion is responsable for that harm. So why does that not equally appliy to kitchen knives? Why is there not a demand that every house have an expensive "knife vault" into which all knives must be securely locked when not in use to prevent theft? If anyone steals your knife and kills someone with it...clearly that's your fault. Right? That's the argument being put forward here with regards to guns. Why doesn't it apply to anything else?