5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 12/29/13 06:41 PM, Fim wrote: ...Tony brings nothing new to the table with each post. It's just a variation of...
Here's one problem with this though...when does a pro-gun control poster bring something new to the table?
Furthermore, at least what Tony brings to the table is rooted in facts, instead of the emotional tripe that is recycled everytime this subject is brought up in the media (and in the US media it has come up several times recently). The pro-gun control argument is a variation of "guns are bad" "the 2nd Amendment is obsolete" and "no guns=no gun crime".
At 6/6/13 05:07 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Tattle tale much? You little fifth grader. It's because I have real points to make. I'm only returning fire when it comes to the insults. You guys should see how you are trying to gang up on me and I'm putting all of you back in your place with little to no effort.
First of all, the only point you have in this thread is: "no one on NG agrees with me and my worldview, my worldview is right, well-informed and gospel truth...and if they disagree with me they are brainwashed by the Matrix and deserve to be slaves". To give lip service to being a champion of 'original thought' and then whine that no one believes your extraordinary claims and disagrees with you...is rather hypocritical. But it is not a "real point".
Secondly, you are not putting us "back in our places" with little to no effort. In your mind maybe...but in reality they just come across as self-deluded petulance.
Finally, (I saved the best for last) perhaps the reason so many people are "ganging up" on you is that YOU created what is essentially a troll thread which you then proceeded to criticize and otherwise open rhetorical fire on the vast majority of people who regularly post on this BBS.
Dude, that is no way to win friends and influence people!
I mean shit, I haven't engaged your threads because I don't have enough time to take your line of reasoning (which looks like it was drawn by a 5 year old on meth) and straighten them out. But here you're attacking friends of mine...so I'll engage.
Ah, the lawyer again. Can you use words like "zoomin'?"
It's actually a legal term for: "train wreck caused by insane engineer".
At 6/5/13 09:09 AM, Earfetish wrote: You know nothing about any of us and just made that post so you can feel smarter about yourself and superior over the rest of us.
You nailed it on the head, my friend! Psychologically speaking those who give themselves over to conspiratorial thought are searching for something to make them feel safe, secure, and just a little bit special...after all they have special, esoteric knowledge that the rest of us poor slobs do not! Also, they do not need to be bothered with silly little notions like proof!
At 6/5/13 08:17 AM, Poniiboi wrote: original thought. However, most of the people here don't question anything when it relates to government. It's sad to see how completely beholden you people are to the filtered opinions of the media. You deserve to be led around like sheep, pay all of your earnings to the government in taxes and then die shitting yourself alone with a bag of McDonalds as your fucking fitting last meal.
It is...it's just that we also don't bite at other would-be sheppards who want to control our thoughts and distort our worldview so our perception matches theirs.
Original thought is...well...original. What you are doing here is trying to say that anyone who does agree with you or think the way you do...are brainwashed sheep who do not question. It is funny because it is a taunt to get people to not question your worldview and thought process.
In the end, you are the very thing you attempt to decry.
I guess I have to ask a question. Why do you people never question what government tells you and why do you get your moral authority from the words of others?
Hmmm...because I do not get my moral authority from others. I get mine from experience, education, and observation. Furthermore, I question everything...no matter who is in the White House or controls congress. And in the end, I know the government cannot provide me with the security it advertises...so I strongly support the second amendment.
I should really just join government and shit my decrees down on your heads. Why do anything else if the people only want to be fucking lied to? Give em what they want.
Yes...because a rejection of your paranoia is turning-off our brains and deserving of tyranny.
*braces for disrespectful and expletive laden temper-tantrum*
At 5/29/13 09:17 PM, Warforger wrote: We've had a standing army for along time, it's just it wasn't that large.
We had what was called a "collapsible Army" until WWII. The philosophy was a professional, standing Army was a temptation to tyranny. So they did two things:
1) Put it in the Constitution that the Army could only be funded two years at a time (compared to the Navy which got permanent status).
2) In peace time the Army would only be 20% of its wartime strength, therefore when we expanded it for a contingency we would draw from the militia, volunteers, and draftees. Once the crisis was over, the Army would shrink by 80%.
Now, standing army is one where it is maintained at full (or near full) strength even during peace time.
...but armed civilians.I highly doubt how you would've been able to mobilize such a large population with no training in firearms to do that.
Wow! Thanks for making my point for me! :)
First of all, why do people who make these arguments assume that it takes near-Jedi training to become proficient in firearms? I could train you to defend your home, if you have never touched a firearm, in an afternoon (maybe a day if you're not motivated).
Secondly, many people know how to use firearms...they do not need specialized firearms training. The Air Force and Army training I've received have not really taught me anything I did not know already.
Third, a foreign invader or a US military regiment coming from out of state is not going to know the lay of the land where I live. That makes guerilla/militia fighters extremely confounding for conventional forces. They do not leave a large footprint for soldiers to follow, plus they know when and where to hide or dig-in.
You make a point for the other side.
Right, it's only those such as in Libya which did. The difference being that the Taliban do not seem to be able to overthrow the government nor could the Iraqi insurgents do the same.
Actually, the Taliban did overthrow the post-Soviet government and fended off the Northern Alliance in a civil war. And the Iraqi insurgents did a pretty damn good job there for a little while.
Turn them back in some cases, I highly doubt they could do it consistently to the point that they're effective anti-aircraft weapons.
We have examples going back all the way to Vietnam. Furthermore, it is not only bringing them down but the attrition that comes with repairing even minor battle damage.
Secondly, in the US we have mountains and woods that blunt conventional force's abilities. Hit & fade tactics are very viable...and do not require heavy arms such as stingers and RPGs. In fact their weight makes them more of a liability for highly mobile units.And again gun shops are not selling guns so people can do this.
Huh? You really do not understand guns or guerilla tactics do you?
1) Deer and hunting rifles are far more lethal than what soldiers carry. A crazy redneck in his own woods with a deer rifle would be more effective than a squad or platoon of soldiers with AR-15s trying to hold the same ground.
2) Gun shops are selling firearms that are dual purpose...that can do this AND take care of small varmits such as coyotes or game like deer.
Also...I do not see where the reason why retailers are selling guns is in any way relevant to the outcome. After all, the vast majority of gun shops do not sell guns so they can be used in murders and hold-ups!
Which is partly why the miltia argument isn't that good.
Not really. There are some advantages to civilian participation in the militia:
1) If a civilian can provide their own guns and ammo...it relieves a logistical strain. After all, you need more small arms than you need heavy arms!
2) You don't have to worry about training as many people because they come already familiar with their weapon.
In no way is the militia argument negated by this.
Um yah, but my point is that since they're probably illegal then it doesn't fit well in the militia context. Unless you want it to be legal.
False analogy.
It is far easier to build an IED than build a firearm from scratch.
That doesn't matter, what matters is that Americans should be able to buy weapons that allow them to blow up tanks according to your militia argument.
No because of the historical context. The Founders were not going out and advocating civilian ownership of cannons or ships of the line. They meant small arms, and they used the general term 'arms' so that future governments would not use technological advances to take away this right. After all, civilians had access to firearms with rifled barrels while the Army only used smoothbore muskets (which were less accurate than their civilian counterparts).
My point was that it was a bit of an evil gun in the sense that it did not leave behind finger prints. Perfect for murderers. So gun manufacturers aren't above those kinds of things to help out murderers.
OMG! That's so horrible! Did they also infuse a piece of satan's soul in the firearm too?
Because really...this is much ado about nothing. You don't want to leave behind fingerprints: wear gloves. That's not a new concept!
The attraction for legitimate shooters: keeping the finish in good condition. But if it really helps out criminals, I get it. But fingerprints? Really? Something criminals already have easy ways of getting around?
But my point is that gun manufacturers are not producing guns designed for rebellions or combat situations with the military for commercial sale.
And that point is irrelevant if the firearms they are producing meet the needs of rebellions and combat situation AND can be used for situations like hunting where lethality is maximized.
This point is silly and not based on reality.
Not really. The Viet Cong fought with improvised weapons like sharpened sticks covered in shit (literally) to discarded rifles.Not all, and they were being armed by the North.
Um yeah...they Viet Cong relied on hit and fade tactics. Things like RPGs and MANPADs are heavy and not conducive to this type of warfare.
I said the policies I talked about. Background checks, banning certain guns etc. does that mean those are illegal now? Because that does not address those policies.
And I've addressed this.
1) Background checks are ok.
2) Demonstrate a need for these guns to be banned.
Right but few gun manufacters are producing guns based on how well they kill other humans when they're selling to civilians.
Actually pretty much every handgun manufacturer is.
Right, so should that mean the government be able to regulate or ban them?
It means that there is no reason to ban them. Demonstrate how they are worse than a shotgun, or produce more deaths than a handgun used in a similar crime.
Then either the Constitution failed us or the American people failed the Constitution. What if EVERYONE in government decided to burn the Constitution and establish a dictatorship? If everyone in the government agree's to go against the Constitution then we're screwed no matter what legal barrier we put up beforehand. But otherwise if the President does not enforce a Judicial ruling he should be impeached and convicted.
There are examples in history of executives (presidents, prime ministers, chancellors) who are elected...turning into dictators and tyrants and ignoring the balance of power between the other branches of government. So it is not that far out there to use the same thing happening here as a hypothetical.
:)
At 5/27/13 12:33 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Case in point: Joe the Plumber ran for a House seat in 2012. Would anyone honestly consider him more qualified for the House of Representatives than, say, a 23 year old PoliSci graduate?
And that's when I look at the write-ins!
At 5/27/13 12:21 AM, Entice wrote: How? Campuses aren't bubbles that stop people from taking on responsibilities. There's quite a few people that begin working at 16 and have to find ways to get through college without their parents help. Saying that no college students take on "real-life" responsibilities is a huge generalization.
There's quite a few, yes. However, the vast majority of kids attending college ARE living in a bubble that shields them from responsibilities. I've been there, done that, and come back for more. And parental help is not all that much of an argument. I went back to school for a PhD without Mommy & Daddy's money. I also know a great many people who went to college whose parents are poor and can contribute zero to their education. Scholarships, student loans, and various grants allow students to defray the cost of living while they go to college.
But in the end, I'm not saying "no" college students take on real-life responsibilities. I know they exist.
* My parents went to school after getting married and having me...Dad worked his ass off to support the family. But he was in a minority.
* My ex-wife got her undergrad with no parental support. She got a scholarship, work-study, and student loans.
* When I went back to grad school...I went back to school with kids who lived off grants, scholarships, and loans without having to work.
See colleges have this philosophy of in loco parentis in which they assume responsibility for students living on campus or attending events on campus. Meal plans, dorms, on-campus apartments leave kids in a place where maybe they are paying for cable but do not need to worry about shelter, food, or utilities. This does insulate kids from living on their own. So again...it is a generalization but one based on fact and not exclusive of exceptions.
Now, where I think we would find a few exceptions are in small redneck towns.Those are just stereotypes lol. I know a gay Indian guy that's putting himself through med school by working as a manager at a retail store. What would you do if I said that rednecks can't work based solely on my personal experiences?
Unlike many of the tech whiz kids...
Um...I'd say you missed the point? The point I was making was you have kids who create an app or website while still with their parents or living in an in loco parentis environment and suddenly they do not have to worry about money. On the other hand, you've got kids (mostly from the lower classes) who have been learning a trade from a young age and are prepared to go into business either without college...or right after since they have had the hands-on experience to go along with their book learnin'!
:)
NOTE: Also, by pointing out stereotypes...you miss the forest for the trees. I'm talking in trends...now in a world of about 7 billion people there are exceptions to these trends.
As for the rest of your post... economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to govern. Running a business has nothing to do with politics or public policy. Given the choice between a political science major that understands the field and a small business owner with considerably less knowledge, I'd choose the former. That knowledge comes from real life, it can be used to make real life decisions.
I love your example for two reasons: first of all it's personally gratifying. Most of the time people have this opinion that political scientists who study government for a living...hold opinions that are of equal quality as their own. The second, is being a political scientist myself...I can say this argument holds no basis in reality.
See, business does have a lot of correlation with the ability to govern. You have to know how to manage people & resources, you have to know how to lead. See...a PhD in political science does not teach you to do that. Running a business on the other hand...does. Running a business also gives you insight into finances. I'll give you some examples:
* I was teaching a lesson on economics and I've got two kids who normally don't care about govt or history. They are both sons of mechanics and have ambitions of owning their own garages. They connected with the economics lessons very well...it was intuitive for them. They got the relationship between the Fed and banks lending/borrowing money. They understood municipal bonds, stocks, etc. Economic issues are a HUGE part of governing. In fact the most powerful parts of the elected government are the House and Senate finances committees. A business person would be far more qualified than I (and I've concentrated on political economy).
* I'm a political scientist, my dad is an accountant (actually worked in government finance). He and my mother now own their own school. He knows far more about the economy than I...and on the local level he understands how government works far more than I. My mom runs the school's day-to-day operations. She gets to deal with public policy every day. She has to deal with government regulators who make the laws legislators pass...work in the real world. Myself on the other hand...I watch these things from a macro-level. A political scientist makes generalities and observes trends. What we don't see happening...how those laws and how government works on a micro, day-to-day level.
So in conclusion:
* Running a business teaches a person how to run an organization...studying government does not.
* Much of running a business means you're dealing with government and public policy...it is something that effects you on a daily basis. To a political scientist ALL politicians are monkies to be studied and observed from afar and laws are just experiments that only occassionally effect us directly. (So the notion that running a business "has nothing to do with politics and public policy" is so wrong...it's kinda funny!)
* If you pick a political scientist with no real world experience running anything over a business person...you deserve what you get! ;)
* To dismiss experience as you do in your last sentence...wow! Laws are not something that exist in fantasy land that magically makes things better. They directly impact the daily life of those individuals who make the economy run. If you have a bunch of ideologues (no matter the ideology) making shit up in DC with little concern as to knowing how it will impact people...you're heading down the path to a highly disfunctional government and society. This is why experience matters with elected office.
At 5/27/13 04:12 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I suppose this question could be answered if 18 year olds were allowed to hold office.
Again...for the reasons I set forth above: at this stage of intellectual and emotional development the vast majority of 18-24 year olds are still in an immature state of narcissistic and naive idealism. It's social science! ;)
Perhaps you are forgetting the part where you are not required to vote for someone you feel is inexperienced - unless I am misinterpreting the purpose of democracy, in which case 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote for the same reason.
No...not forgetting it. Just remembering that Plato in The Republic held that democracy is one of the bad or tyrannical forms of government. See we are a representative republic, the Founders made it this way because they understood:
* Majorities often opress minorities.
* The passions of the people can often be enflamed to vote away their liberty.
* Democracy is chaos.
:)
At 5/27/13 04:06 PM, Warforger wrote: That and an actual invasion would receive so much hostility that the Japanese could not hold the territory in any capacity.
Yes...but not because of the shield of the US military (we did not have a standing Army)...but armed civilians.
There's a difference though. They had things like anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons, they were also armed by foreign powers. Last I checked you could not buy anti-aircraft weapons at your local gun shop, or any weapon like an RPG for that matter. I guess my point is that no one is buying guns to be in a militia and consequently the guns that are being sold are probably inadequate for any military resistance.
To begin with, in Iraq and Afghanistan we're not facing that significant of a threat from RPGs and anti-air missiles. So your assumption is starting from a flawed premise. The largest threat we are facing is IEDs. Also, Iraqi rebels were able to turn back an AH-64 Apache assault with only AK-47s.
Secondly, in the US we have mountains and woods that blunt conventional force's abilities. Hit & fade tactics are very viable...and do not require heavy arms such as stingers and RPGs. In fact their weight makes them more of a liability for highly mobile units.
Part of it is morale, but I highly doubt you're going to be able to consistently take on everything the United States military can throw at you with mere assault rifles.
Again, you start with a flawed premis: the US military would probably fracture. Especially in Natl Guard units, so the anti-Ghost Hitler resistance would end up acquiring some of these weapons. Also, it wouldn't just be the military...but states as well. Texas and several Southern, Midwestern, and Western states would probably succeed...taking Natl Guard (and possibly DoD) assets with them. Then providing arms to resistance groups in other states.
We'd have to legalize IED's or other explosives so that we can take on tanks, otherwise I don't see how well a shotgun will work. But again no one is buying their guns so they can shoot them at Apache's and no is arguing that they should be able to
* Making IEDs illegal DOES NOT make them less or unavailable! The I in IED stands for improvised which means you make them out of what is available to you. In Iraq this was unguarded munitions. But you can make them out of plenty of perfectly legal household chemicals. You can make building IEDs illegal...but you cannot make the components illegal.
* Tanks, planes, and even drones would be marginalized by terrain. See you cannot take a tank into the woods, they require roads or open land. Air forces also need to be able to see their targets to shoot them. The American terrain is very conducive to effective guerilla warfare.
* In such a scenario...(or an invasion one) of course we want people shooting at Apaches or Hind-Ds!
Gun manufacters also are certainly not producing guns in such a scenario either (not that they're above that considering some made the TEC-9 gun).
You do realize the TEC-9 gun is a piece of shit and not really good for anything be it home defense, mass shooting, or military.
Also, gun manufactures make firearms that are far more lethal and capable than what the military has. A deer rifle beats a M-4 or AK-47.
Like in Iraq and Vietnam they were not just using assault rifles, they were/are using explosive and more sophisticated weaponry.
Not really. The Viet Cong fought with improvised weapons like sharpened sticks covered in shit (literally) to discarded rifles. In Iraq, they have some access to Saddam-era munitions...but by and large it is AK-47s and IEDs.
Which sounds incredibly broad and open to interpretation and doesn't address the specific policies I laid out.
Not really. If I made a gun that fired bullets that had heat-seekers and micro-nukes in them that guarenteed to kill one person with each bullet fired that would be unreasonable and uncommon.
Now an AR-15 or AK-47 clone fires a round that has less killing power than a deer rifle. Also, from the beginning US commanders have typically fielded firearms less technologically advanced than their civilian counterparts. Civilians had rifled barrels, repeating arms, and cartridges before the Army.
Thus it makes a poor weapon for militias right?
It makes is it a poor weapon for anyone! (I'm not a fan of the black gun!) However, the AK-47 shoots a round that is more powerful (albeit less powerful than a deer rifle)...so it has many uses such as hunting deer. However, it is not used in crime and when used in spree shootings typically produces less death than other, non-military firearms.
2) On background checks, I think the Founder's would say that is reasonable...but urge caution. After all...what happens if you get a Hitler in power who cannot get rid of the Amendment, so instead he uses background checks to keep guns out of the hands of Jews or Democrats/Republicans?The Supreme Court would overturn as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Irrelevent to the point...besides what happens if the tyrant packs the Supreme Court? Also, what police or military does the SCOTUS run that could enforce its will? If the hypothetical tyrant was walking all over the Constitution why would he give a fuck what they had to say?
At 4/22/13 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You're missing very key nuance distinguishing terrorism from every crime that naturally creates fear in the victims. Terrorism is more than just creating fear in those who are directly victimized by the act (i.e. those who are physically hurt, killed, or witness it firsthand). It's about the intent to create fear among a large group of people beyond the specific crime.
I am not missing this nuance at all. In fact, I am saying that this is the case in the Aurora shooting, and you seem to be missing some key facts that show that Holmes had this intent.
No it's not. It's a practicality. And YES, firecrackers CAN cause harm to the victims, but the harm it causes can in no way be considered a weapon of mass destruction, same as tear gas. Mass crying and coughing is HARDLY by any definition of the words, a "weapon of mass destruction" needed to be a per se terrorist act.
Not true at all.
1) What is mass destruction? It is the targeting of multiple people at the same time. A weapon of mass destruction is ONE that is capable of effecting a large group if people with just one shot. An AR-15 with a 100 rd drum is not a WMD because it requires 100 shots. Tear gas on the other hand is capable of effecting many people with just one canister.
2) To say that it is only capable of causing crying and coughing is to downplay its capabilities. An incapacitant works by constricting and otherwise reacting with the cardiovascular system...causing an extreme physical reaction. In most people the effects are painful and incapacitating...but temporary. In other people with underlying cardiovascular issues the results can be deadly.
3) He was using the incapacitants in order to make his other weapons more effective.
Again you miss the nuance above. ... It's the intent to spread the fear far beyond the actual crime. ... the evidence only shows that his intent to create fear was very isolated.
Still not missing the nuance.
Holmes is unique amongst mass shooters. He wore body armor, had a plan of escape (more on that in a minute), and did not kill himself when police arrived. Practically every other mass shooter is a suicide mission, why wasn't Holmes'? My gut instinct, and we'll see if this comes out in the trial or after the trial as we study the guy, is that he would have continued his terror campaign.
His attack did target Federal Agents, yes. But (here's the key) it also intentionally targetted civilians as well.
No...he did not target civilians. The target was federal agents.
Did he know about the civilians in the building? Yes. But they were, in his sick mind, collateral damage...and not what he was targeting.
In war the US military tries to minimize collateral damage. We strike key military targets when the least amount of people are present. For example, say there is a building where Dictator X is creating a biological weapon. We know it is operational from 6 am to 9pm. From 9pm to 6am there is only a janitor and security guard. So we blow it up at midnight killing the janitor and security guard. Are we targeting the janitor and security guard? No. We are targeting the building.
Same thing goes for McVeigh's logic.
Likewise, the Pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't qualify because it was a military target.If it were merely an attack on the Pentagon and not a part of a coordinated attack on civilians as well, I'd agree.
And you would be wrong.
Terrorists who are politically minded seek out targets that fit into three categories:
* Government
* Economic
* Military/Law Enforcement
Terrorism can be targeted against military and law enforcement personnel & agencies...that the target is military or LE in NO way disqualifies an act as being terrorist in nature. To assert otherwise is just plain wrong.
Believe it or not, it was not until after 9/11 that UBL issued a fatwa that said al-Qaida could target civilians. Up until the war in Iraq, al-Qaida believed that targeting civilians who were not engaged in actively supporting the US government was a sin.
So why was the WTC hit? Because it was, to al-Qaida's thinking, an economic target that directly supported US hegemony...and therefore just as responsible for killing Muslims as a soldier with a gun in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia.
Like I said this is the closest part to terrorism. Something about it does not strike as terrorism though (perhaps it's the timing). As he had already perpetrated his non-terrorist act, the boobytrapped apartment appears to be more of a trap for police than for civilians, and seems to be more a punishment for capturing/killing him than an act of terrorism. It fits many of the elements, but I have a very hard time seeing this (the apartment booby trapping) actually classified, prosecuted, and convicted as terrorism.
2) You are wrong at the core, even if the targeting point were correct. It was indiscrimate targeting. It was just as likely that his neighbors and/or landlord would enter his apartment. In fact one woman claimed she almost entered the apartment...but something stopped her (gut feeling). And even if it were the cops who entered...he designed it in such a way as to kill many of his neighbors.
Again...absolutely wrong.
It was not set as a trap for police. Think about it, it was an apartment complex that rented to college students. He set-up a timer to blare music in the middle of the night. From reports I've read, what he wanted to happen was his neighbors to open his door...set off the trap and level the building. He was targetting his neighbors! While he probably figured that it was equally likely the cops would be called as a neighbor opening the door...he still intended to kill his neighbors.
You're assumption that this would 'revenge' for apprehending him is also wrong. He planned his attack inside the theater to coincide with the destruction at his apartment because it would tie-up police and first responders at that scene which would allow him to get away. Secondly, if it was revenge...why the timer? The timer draws attention to his apartment and would be unusual behavior that would alert police to the trap. Instead, if it was revenge for arresting him...there would be no timer and no loud music because the cops would be coming there anyway...no need to draw attention.
So here is where the nuance you think I'm missing comes into play. He planned multiple attacks, and had he been successful in getting away we would have seen the entire Aurora, CO area on lock-down and terrified of this manic on the loose. He would have spread the terror past the victims of the theater and his apartment complex.
Fear of the direct victims is 100% irrelevant to the determination of terrorism.* His intent was to terrorize in the mode of the fictional Joker, the terrorist incarnation.
* His chemical weapons choice was selected so that he could inflict more pain and fear into his attack.
You miss the point:
* The Joker he was portraying spread fear beyond his direct victims.
* Had he gotten away as planned, his use of homemade CW and explosives would have caused fear in the entire Aurora, Co area.
A key part of terrorism is civilians. Attacking police officers on duty does not count as an attack on civilians (unless the actor is part of a foreign organization).
Again...not true at all.
We don't know who he was targetting. He hasn't said. However, the nature of his boobytrapping while he went off on the attack indicates it was a trap for the ensuing/inevitable investigation.
Not at all.
* He timed his attack in the theater to coincide with the bomb in his apartment going off.
* If he wanted to trap the investigators...why set the timer off? Why draw them in when it was inevitable that they would investigate his apartment?
There is very little in the nature of his booby trapping that indicates it was a trap targeting law enforcement.
At 5/26/13 07:54 AM, Korriken wrote: after the way the media managed to pin the economy's woes on Bush? a can of potted meat could have won the election. if it ran as a democrat.
50 years from now, historians may say that is actually what happened in '08!
At 5/25/13 06:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I must say that I am extremely pleased with how I voted given that she is among the most capable and intelligent politicians I have ever seen. I hope like hell that she decides to run for reelection in 2014, in which case she is guaranteed my vote.
Here's the question for you though: how can you be sure when you're the same age as her and still at the same level of maturity?
The votes she casts may fit with your sense of idealism...but are they votes that will result in good policy? Or will they produce unintended consequences that will hurt people.
This is the problem though: intelligence is only one quality we should look for in our elected officials. It is not necessarily the most important.
I believe we ought to judge a candidate based on his or her merits rather than using their age to disqualify them. Capable and intelligent under-25 candidates are no doubt less common than capable above-25 candidates, but that's not to say that there aren't any at all or that we can write off the whole entire age group as incompetent.
Here's the thing though: what merits does someone really have at 18-25?
* At 18 you have a high school diploma.
* At 22 you're graduating from college.
* At 25 you can have a law degree.
* At 26 you can have a medical degree.
* At 27 you're getting your PhD.
Those are all notable achievements...and indicative of your intelligence and capability. But you're missing one very important qualification: experience. University shields students from the real world. You do not have grown-up responsibilities while you're in University (I'm a lifelong learner...so I'm pretty in touch with campus life and issues). This is why many sociologists and psychologists think we're extending adolesence into the late 20s in the Western World.
Now, where I think we would find a few exceptions are in small redneck towns. The reason: there are some kids who start working the family business in middle school and pick-up a lot about real world responsibility. Some have even paid off car loans by or buying a house at 18. Some of these are real entrepreneurs who start businesses themselves from the ground up and struggle to make them work.
Unlike many of the tech whiz kids who every once and awhile piece together other's innovations in a new way, while safe under the umbrella of Mommy & Daddy's money. While I do not want to diminish the accomplishments of someone like Zuckerberg, at the same time I do not want to over-inflate them either. He didn't have to worry about grown-up responsibilities and make ends meet, or struggle or sacrifice like 99% of business owners and CEOs have had to do. So how helpful would his experience be in helping him legislate over issues that cover all of American business?
Experience matters...combine it with intelligence you have wisdom. And wisdom is the most important qualification/merit for elective office. So by your own yardstick of measuring people by their merits: how high do the vast majority of 18-24 year olds possess enough wisdom to be entrusted with legislative responsibility?
====
There is also another problem with electing younger people to office: do we really want to encourage elected office as a career? Do we want legislators and presidents/prime ministers who know nothing other than electoral politics? This is how we get bad public policy: people in office passing laws that are popular...not the right/wise/good thing to do.
Obama is an example of this. I've said it before: I find the guy personally likable. I think he is high intelligent. He fits my perception of how a president should look and carry himself. However, the man (even after amost 5 years as president) lacks the experience to be president. He did not come into office with any real accomplishments in either the public or private sectors. And the result is his signature/legacy piece of legislation is a nightmare of implementation and there are three scandals going on that highlights he is not even an able politician...the one thing you could say he's made a career of. The reason he is struggling: he lacks experience.
At 5/25/13 03:06 PM, naronic wrote: The age of candidacy should be 18 for all government offices including presidency, the same age as the age of voting.
your thoughts?
Not just no...but fuck no.
At 18 or 20...what do you really know that equips you to handle the responsibility of holding those offices?
Also, let's look at the stereotype that it is the youth behind innovation: it is dead wrong. Here is an excerpt from a 2010 Newsweek article:
It turns out that many of the most common stereotypes about aging are dead wrong. Take the cliche of the youthful entrepreneur. As it turns out, the average founder of a high-tech startup isnâEUTMt a whiz-kid graduate, but a mature 40-year-old engineer or business type with a spouse and kids who simply got tired of working for others, says Duke University scholar Vivek Wadhwa, who studied 549 successful technology ventures. WhatâEUTMs more, older entrepreneurs have higher success rates when they start companies. ThatâEUTMs because they have accumulated expertise in their technological fields, have deep knowledge of their customersâEUTM needs, and have years of developing a network of supporters (often including financial backers). "Older entrepreneurs are just able to build companies that are more advanced in their technology and more sophisticated in the way they deal with customers," Wadhwa says. [emphasis mine]
Furthermore, your point is blunted by the fact that holding elected office is NOT the only way that people can exert influence over government. I read somewhere that Congress creates less than 200 new laws every year...while agencies (part of the executive branch) create over 2,500 new regulations that have the force of law per year. Guess what? Go to college, get a degree and at 22 get a GS job in a federal or state agency that deals with the concern you find most pressing...and learn how to influence what the government does with that issue.
You'll start to learn what works and does not work, and understand why what seems such a simple fix...does not work.
See modern society has extended adolescence. So the level of maturity of an 18yo in 1975 is not acheived by today's youth until about 24-25. This means many teens and young twenty-somethings are still in this stage of immaturity that sees themselves as somehow unique and different from older generations as they develop an identity (ie: find themselves). Idealism sprouts from this, here's an excerpt from a psychological journal:
Adolescents' idealism coincides with their enhanced sense of uniqueness, self consciousness, and critical thinking. Combined with the increase in family conflict during early adolescence, these changes heighten adolescents' need for peer approval. Conformity to the peer group peaks at approximately twelve to fourteen years of age.
SOURCE
The psychologist Piaget defines Naive Idealism as:
Hypothetico-deductive thinking leads to this outlook. Adolescents can use this powerful intellectual tool to think of an ideal world and to compare the real world to it. Real world falls short of ideal world--> dissapointment. (may want to change it)
SOURCE
and:
Thus they may be idealistic about and devoted to social, political, religious, and ethical issues- global warming, world hunger, animal rights, and so on. Piaget suggested that adolescent idealism reflects an inability to seperate one's own logical abstrations from the perspectives of others and from practical considerations. Only through experience do adolescents eventually begin to temper their optimism with some realism about what is possible in a given time frame and with limited resources. [emphasis mine]
SOURCE
====
It would be foolish to lower the age for holding office to 18. You may be very smart, but you are only book smart at this age. You haven't had the experiences of success and failure in any real or meaningful way (yes...I know there are exceptions; my ex-wife was one of those when we were 18).
If anything, given that people's maturity rate has slowed...perhaps the age to hold office needs to be increased from 25 to 30.
At 5/23/13 08:57 PM, Warforger wrote: To begin with the signature he has has Korean text if I've ever seen it. Otherwise looking at his profile he says his name is Bak Gu Lau Rawoogwa. I looked up Bak Gu and it corresponded to a place in South Korea.
And it may amaze you, but not all people in every country have the same proficiency in English.
As someone who has lived, and did a small amount of teaching English in Korea...I can attest to what you are saying is 100% absolutely true.
Not necesarily. North Korea isn't a textbook Communist nation, in comparison to past Communist nations they don't even appear to be trying. Most Communist governments after taking power expanded their economies very rapidly, they built tons of infrastructure and heavily built up the economy. Even under Mao who is viewed as a terrible leader after the Great Leap Forward had the economy grow under his watch as well as the population of China double from around 450 million to 900 million. While Stalin murdered many people no one could deny he industrialized the Soviet Union rapidly and made it the machine that would defeat Nazism. Now by comparison North Korea doesn't even have much of an electrical grid. In fact Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels are unknown names in North Korea, perhaps even Lenin and Stalin by extension, the countries devotion to the actual end goals of Communism are laughable. Effectively the country is well a Monarchy, there's no better way to describe it.
1) The DPRK DID expand their economy very rapidly. They used aid from the Soviets and the Chinese to build up their industrial base. In fact, they were better off in terms of economics and industry than their Southern counterparts. In the South the Rhee regime took the tactic of slowly developing the Korean populace from peasants to an educated, and industrial populace. The thing is, the South's tactic proved right. Starting in the 1970s the North's economy and tech began to stagnate (like the USSR and their European satellites...China escapes this by growing closer to the West instead of the USSR).
2) That Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin are not really known in the DPRK DOES NOT mean that the country is not Communist nor run according to the philosophy. The thing is the Kim regime appropriated the philosophy as their own. It is a massive case of plagerism. But that is not evidence for the claim that they are not Communist.
3) The only part of your argument that is supported by fact is the notion that the DPRK is a monarchy. This makes them unique amongst Communist nations: they are the only fuedal communist state. So in the end they are the country that most completely abandoned the ideal Marxist society of a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariate' by establishing a ruling dynasty. But then again...Moscow and Beijing were/are not all that willing to turn power over to the now 'liberated' working classes of their countries either. So it is not really that important of a distinction in the end.
:)
At 5/12/13 07:19 PM, Fisplen wrote: I've recently remembered about a petition a made a while back to get the UN to address the issue of human rights and such in North Korea , very saddening to hear story's from survivors , which is why I made the Petiton , to get the UN's attention , I realised now I'm active on Newgrounds I'd thought I'll share it with You.
I like your enthusiasm on the issue. Unfortunately, doing a petition to the UN is just a feel good exercise that will absolutely zero effect on the situation.
Sadly, the options available that will help the poor souls trapped in this hellish regime are limited. There are ony two:
A: Actively subvert the regime so it collapses and we deal with the massive humanitarian and refugee crisis that follow.
B: Military invasion. We get China and Russia on-board...and go in and take the Kim family out.
See many International Relations scholars (and I am one who shares this view) do not believe that such a thing as 'International Law' truly exists. Sure, it exists in theory...but not in fact. There is no 'World Police' that enforces treaty conditions or the resolutions that come from the UN. Also, since the first Korean War in the 1950s the UN has been shown to be toothless.
So Kim is going to do what Kim wants...without a single concern or shred of attention paid to what anyone in the international community wants.
But do not take this as meaning you cannot do anything....about anything.
* There is the Peace Corps.
* If you are physically fit, there are Civil Affairs jobs in the military. Also, I believe the Green Berets do this type of work more than combat.
* Become a scholar who studies rogue regimes.
Again...you show passion and concern which I find admirable. Just don't become disillusioned when you find out that some high-minded notions about participatory democracy are just feel-good exercises.
And on the subject are there ANY Newgrounders here that has visited North Korea?
When I was stationed in S. Korea I visited the DMZ and we went into one of the diplomatic buildings that straddles the border. So I got to go like 20 ft into the country...does that count?
:)
Or even still , once LIVED in North Korea?
Anyway tell me what You think of the camps in North Korea , if You want details about it then here's an extract from my description...
Ever read The Aquariums of Pyongyang? Very good read. The DPRK regime are a bunch of assholes who deserve to go the way of the Nazis.
ter·ror·ism
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
SOURCE: Dictionary.com
At 5/25/13 06:25 AM, Fim wrote: This shouldn't be branded as terrorism, this was an isolated incident of a psychopath who just happened to be Muslim.
1) Someone does NOT have to be part of a larger group in order to be classified as a terrorist. Examples:
* Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols
* The Unabomber
* Nidal Hassan
* Tsarnaev brothers
2) An attack does NOT have to be part of a larger campaign as being classified as an act of terrorism. Examples:
* Oklahoma City Bombing
* Ft. Hood Shooting
* Boston Bombing
3) Considering that the two terrorists spent 30 minutes telling those around them that this was retribution for Afghanistan, and the killing of Muslims there...the fact that they are Muslims is extremely relevant. It describes the political and religious reasons for the attack. That they specifically told an onlooker: "We want to start a war in London tonight." indicates that this was intended to achieve political and possibly religious aims.
You can seperate the mainstream Muslim religion from Islamic extremism that promotes terrorism...but in this case you cannot seperate the Islamic beliefs (distorted they may be) of the attackers from the attack. To even try involves controting and abandoning logic and reason.
I can imagine the groan of shame and exasperation coming from the vast majority of decent, good willed, law abiding moderate Muslims in Britain when they heard about this news,
Irrelevent palaver. I consider myself a patriot, and while I was not in the military in 1995 I come from a military family...so when I heard that McVeigh had carried out a terrorist attack in the name of patriotism and he was a veteran I felt shame. I felt shame that someone who looked like me and shares some of the same values with could do such a horrific thing.
So I get it, and I'm empathetic to the vast majority of Muslims. They should not be held accountable or harassed for the misdeeds of radicals. Just like I am not accountable for the misdeeds of Christians who kill abortion doctors.
But that DOES NOT change the fact that these two psycho/sociopaths committed an act of terror! To assert this is foolish.
since its just fuelling those who already had racist or anti multicultural beliefs.
More irrelevant chatter.
The actions of radicals from the opposite side of the opposite side of the political spectrum DOES NOT change the fact that this was terrorism! Your statement is more about emotion rather than reason or logic.
It's worth noting that in the aftermath every single Muslim group in the UK came out and condoned this.
Again...irrelevant to the assertion you make at the beginning of this paragraph. Many Muslim countries and religious leader condemned the 9/11 attack...that did not change the nature of the attack. Just like Christians, military members, and patriots who condemned McVeigh did not change the nature of his attack.
====
You fail to establish how this was not an act of terrorism. All you provide are appeals to emotion that require abandoning logic and reason.
At 5/25/13 12:25 AM, Warforger wrote::
Well yah, but those aren't psychological, like you can't find warning signs several years before. Those are just "they're getting crazy" and "they have a gun".
They are still part of a pattern of behavior that school officials and law enforcement use to profile at risk individuals.
Yes, but Lanza wasn't killing professional military forces he was killing infants. As far as I know it isn't that hard to kill infants not does it take that much professionalism.
You are still invoking emotion, not articulating a point.
1) Yes, children (he was NOT killing infants...infants are babies aged 1mth to 1yr) are more suceptible to trauma so they are easier to kill. That is one reason the death toll at Newtown was unbelievably high for an assault rifle only shooting (the next highest is 9 ppl...while the highest handgun only shooting is 33 dead).
2) His magazine changing and the way he shot (rather than spray-and-pray) allowed him to hit and therefore kill more people. Changing mags about halfway keeps the gun from jamming (this is why Holmes' AR-15 failed after less than 30 shots from his 100 rd drum). Secondly, sparying wildly like Holmes' and every other nutter with an assault rifle greatly reduces the ability to hit anything.
These are tactics that Lanza apparently learned from video games. There are other instances (ie: Purdy in Stockton, Ca) who did not have this tactics but targeted children who were the same age with far less carnage.
You cannot make a point following this line of reasoning because the facts contradict it.
Yeah...I'm going to call bullshit on this idea.... I'm not saying that income inequality is responsible for these school shootings what I'm saying is that targetting violent video games is unfair because something like income inequality, ... all of those can contribute to school shootings and probably have a much bigger effect than violent video games.
I'm still calling bullshit.
1) The demographics of school and spree shooters would not be so uniformly white and middle class where this true. As you said...income ineguality effects everyone not just the poor. If this was a factor in these shootings, and this assertion was true: then there would be a distribution of SEC classes, races, and gender...but we do not...which means that this explanation does not hold water because it is not observed!
2) I agree that some of the things (especially the culture of the school) do play a huge part in it. However
3) It would be foolish to dismiss the notion that video games play some role.
Well...that particular point does not support what you're saying because it is not observed as being a factor...if anything it would be a factor that reduces the phenomenon.Nor are violent video games.
I don't think they are a deciding factor in comitting a school or spree shooting more than in one or two cases. Much like the non-availability of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will stop or make less gruesome the next shooter.
As for the point you are making, I agree with you that there are many factors. In no way am I saying that video games are THE END-ALL & BE-ALL FACTOR IN SPREE SHOOTINGS. What I am saying is that in the very small portion of the population that are prone to spree shooting...it may be a contributing factor. In Newtown...it appears that Lanza used them to make his spree more violent.Right, and Oliver Wendell Holmes didn't even play video games.
Considering he died in 1935...I agree: he probably did not play video games.
As for James Holmes the Aurora, Co theater shooter (aka: The Joker)...yeah he did.
Let's not ignore the fact that he was acting out in the name of the psychopathic Joker...so yeah he was influenced by violent media of several types.
What you seem to be implying is that they act as a way of building up to it, they don't make the person actually want to commit a shooting but they just train him to get better at it?
Yes.
1) They can learn better tactics and better ways like Lanza did. Police describe his research into past spree shootings as "PhD level"...and it appears his motive was to get to the top of the Leader Board of Mass Shooters!
2) Holmes was obviously influenced by popular culture and media...hence adopting the Joker persona.
So I think the following things:
A) Violent video games DO NOT turn normal, healthy people into mass shooters. Nor do they turn people suffering from the majority of mental illnesses into mass shooters.
B) Violent video games MAY, because they are used to desenstize military and some law enforcement to shooting at humans, help enable or play some part in enabling a very small (tiny...miniscule) portion of the population into spree shooters.
C) Vioent video games, with their combat realism, may teach shooters tactics and other things to be more successful in carrying out their vile crimes.
This is where the evidence points me...but that does not mean I support censorship or taxes on violent video games. Hell, I'm a gamer! It's my generation that has pushed for them to become what they are today!
Biden on the other hand, whether it is guns or taxes, lets the evidence lead him to false conclusions that energie his political base and advance ill-concieved policies that he supports.
At 5/24/13 12:29 PM, Earfetish wrote:
Christianity - forgiveness? Not to forgiving of that abortion doctor, were ya? "Judge not lest ye be judged," "turn the other cheek," just like how you protest against funerals with your 'God Hates Fags' signs?
Here's the thing though:
1) Gosnell was prosecuted through the criminal justice system. Now I'm not a huge wear-it-on-my-sleeve pro-lifer, but in this case what he did was truly evil and unethical and as such he needs to punished. Not with a public stoning...but through the court system. Whereas under Sharia law and in many Middle Eastern countries, the law (especially as it applies to female honor and/or offenses against God) can be taken into the individual's hands.
After all, he did violate civil law as well and man can sit in judgement of his own laws.
2) The activities of the Westboro Baptist Church are not condoned by the mainstream of Christianity...in fact they are condemned by most Christians.
do you see what I did thereThe way the UK's right wing has run with this solitary murder is shocking and disgusting
How have they been 'running with it'? I haven't seen much to object to.
At 5/14/13 11:51 AM, Fisplen wrote:And yes it needs to be more well-known that North Korea (and by extension, all communist nations) are failing states.What about China? They seem to be catching up with the US and in 20 years or so I'm not surprised if they become another superpower altogether.
There are some examples that their progress is slowing. They are building entire cities that are completely uninhabited so as to keep people employed. So China has some very big problems to overcome...that their current political system may not be able to address.
At 5/21/13 11:54 PM, Feoric wrote: Perhaps this is the only part that should be in this thread. I don't really see how the dots connect the way you want them to. Nobody is going to take up arms against the government to counterbalance the DOJ trying to sniff out somebody who is very arguably a threat to national security. If we didn't do it after Nixon I don't know when. It's just an extremely silly argument to me.
It's because you're adding dots...I'm not saying that this should trigger revolution.
What I am saying is that this trio of scandals (especially the IRS and AP/FOX scandals), is a PR problem for gun-control advocates. In the most recent push, 2nd Amendment proponents who argue that it is a protection against tyranny were mocked by the other side. I remember Obama talking about how "the government is not out to get you".
Well...when the IRS singles out one side's 501 (c)(4) groups that is government out to get someone.
The DoJ secretly violating the privacy of news organizations as well as the private communications of their reporters for work as investigative journalists...that is the government out to get ya.
Hell...even Piers Morgan and Jon Stewart recognize this!
Now this may have little bearing on background checks (which Biden said they'd bring back up after the immigration bill), but it could be the final nail in the AWB.
At 5/23/13 11:36 PM, Warforger wrote:The guy is right that there is not a correlation between violent video games and overall violence.I don't know, last I checked the opposite was true, minors in school got in trouble alot less in school when they played violent video games.
You're right, that would be a negative correlation. But I haven't seen any study that shows a negative...what I've seen are all flat (no correlation).
The part I don't like about this is that it assumes they're similar. There is no shooter profile, there is no list of similarities they can go after, well there is one similarity and that is that they have clinical depression. ...
There are other similarities:
* In school shootings 95% of the time they are current students.
* 93% plan out their attack in advance.
* 93% exhibited a behavior that raised concern.
* 68% acquired the weapon from home (school shooters).
So yeah...we are starting to get a profile of these shooters. One of the first things that we're discarding is the idea that these guys are loners. Instead, we're seeing people who desperately want to be part of a group...but are rejected.
Consider that Lanza used tactics he learned in first person shooters...How many games do you go around killing infants?
Irrelevent. This is an appeal to emotion and not an answer to the point. (Although, in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, you do shoot-up an airport full of civilians.)
Lanza's frequent magazine changes, and I've heard he may have changed to a handgun when the sling on his rifle broke, are things he may have learned using FPSs as combat simulators.
and the fact that the US MILITARY uses these types of sims to override the inhibition in most humans that keeps us from killing. Even in war.I've seen them being used to train people, but I haven't seen them to override that inhibition.
This is actually a well established psychologial phenomenon. It started after WWII when studies showed that soldiers consciously or subconsciously aimed to miss. This was something like 80-90% of soldiers. So we started shooting at human shaped targets (ie: silhouette targets) and by vietnam 80-90% of soldiers were aiming at the enemy.
Why?
The human mind has a hard-wired inhibition at killing other humans. By training people to reflexively shoot at a human shape before putting them in the position to shoot at humans...they shoot at the enemy reflexively. Thereby by-passing our inhibitions.
Currently, the military is using FPS simulators (replete with AR-15, SAW, and .50 cal mock-ups) as a high-tech upgrade to paper silhouette targets.
There is an impact on the psyche, but in the vast, vast amount of time gamers and movie-goers are able to differentiate reality from the art form. But in a small amount of time...there is connection.The problem is that there are many factors involved and going after violent video games is a more convenient one but it doesn't work very well. It's worth mentioning that the United States has the highest rate of Mental Illness in the World at around 25%, there are many reasons for this but one of the things which correlate with this is things like feeling of superiority and inferiority or trust between parents and children. Yet between the countries the ones with the highest income inequality exhibited the worst levels of this, so the United States scores poorly and it seems more clear cut that it's because of its severe income inequality.
Yeah...I'm going to call bullshit on this idea. If that were the case...why are the vast majority of spree shooters white? Furthermore, the majority are middle-class. Also, they tend to occur in suburbs.
So if it was 'income inequality' the majority of shooters would be:
* Black (the demographic MOST impacted by income inequality)
* Impoverished
* Rural
In fact, there is a negative correlation here...so no 'income inequality' is not a factor here.
Now whether you agree with such an assumption or not isn't exactly the point, the point is that there are many factors that go into this and Violent Video games may be benign at best.
Well...that particular point does not support what you're saying because it is not observed as being a factor...if anything it would be a factor that reduces the phenomenon.
As for the point you are making, I agree with you that there are many factors. In no way am I saying that video games are THE END-ALL & BE-ALL FACTOR IN SPREE SHOOTINGS. What I am saying is that in the very small portion of the population that are prone to spree shooting...it may be a contributing factor. In Newtown...it appears that Lanza used them to make his spree more violent.
On the other hand, those who get used to spray-and-pray tactics may actually make their shooting spree less lethal. So yes...the issue is complex.
That's why I'm not advocating any tax, bans, or other government policy/action.
My goal is to caution against absolutist assertions such as there is no correlation/impact/etc between violent video games and spree shooters.
At 5/24/13 12:32 AM, Warforger wrote:
That wasn't the point. The point was that people don't buy guns to be part of a militia. The militia's themselves have to be professional trained and equipped military forces, not rag tag local militants. While it is true that technically nearly everyone is part of the militia, the actual militia probably won't assemble them all
Sorry...but your point still does not carry water. Let's look at two 'Doomsday' examples:
SCENARIO A: FOREIGN INVASION
The last time there was a credible threat of this was WWII with the Japanese. However, Admiral Yamamoto famously cautioned against this because they would have to "fight for every blade of grass". He was referring to the fact that they would be fighting an armed populace.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that rag tag militants are not effective. There are plenty of examples, and not just against tin-pot dictators in third world countries. Rag tag militants have defeated or significantly challenged superpowers: Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR, US), and Iraq.
SCENARIO B: HITLER ELECTED PRESIDENT
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong were able to shoot-down our helicopters and I've even heard of A-6 attack jets taking battle damage from rifle fire. In Iraq, an entire attack force of AH-64 Apaches was turned back by AK-47 fire...two actually went down. So do not be so convinced that the US military could easily put down a revolution.
The thing here is that it is not specific, at least what I was referring too. Does the 2nd Amednment mean that the government cannot ban types of guns? Does it mean that the government cannot run background checks on people before they sell them guns? This is not very clear.
1) The 2nd Amendment, when you look at the historical context, was referring to small arms. Small arms are weapons that can be used by a single soldier in battle. For example, a belt-fed machine gun is a crew-served weapon meaning a minimum of two soldiers to operate. Thus, it would qualify. Scalia further set forth the criteria that government could regulate firearms that are 'unreasonable or uncommon'.
So take things like the AR-15 family of firearms. It is unreasonable for everyone to have access to full-auto capability...after all the military does not utilize it as much as you think (it's inaccurate and a waste of ammo). As for the civilian versions: there is no proof that the power delivered by it is unreasonable compared to other civilian firearms:
* It is a very low-powered rifle round.
* It only has a very limited capacity to kill.
* The data shows that they are not used in crime...and when they are they are shown to be LESS lethal than other firearms such as handguns and shotguns.
So yes, I believe (and again...an opinion expressed in a SCOTUS opinion) there are some arms that congress can limit such as tanks, fighter aircraft, RPGs, Death Stars, etc.
2) On background checks, I think the Founder's would say that is reasonable...but urge caution. After all...what happens if you get a Hitler in power who cannot get rid of the Amendment, so instead he uses background checks to keep guns out of the hands of Jews or Democrats/Republicans?
At 5/19/13 12:52 PM, Warforger wrote: Yes the National Guard are the state militias. In fact this hurts your argument because they're professional military forces, they have jet airplanes they train their members. They're quite clearly not a local group of organized citizens who use their own guns to do their duty.
Doesn't hurt the argument at all:
* Under the Militia Acts ALL males 18-54 are now considered part of the militia.
* Some states such as SC and Texas have state militias besides the NG...and I'm not talking about paramilitary extremist groups...but actually sanctioned by the state.
There is not any fluidity for something that says something basic like that. Where's the fludity in "Congress shall not...". That's pretty fucking solidUh are you sure you read the 2nd Amendment? ... Either way it's still not absolutely clear. ... Laws are written broadly like this in order for them to be implemented more effectively on the one hand, on the other so they will actually be passed. It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.
Actually, the second amendment is very clear if you have actually knowledge of:
* Grammar
* History
* Etymology
Grammar
First of all, back in the day it was customary for important documents, declarations, and laws to have preambles attached. Even if it is one sentence, this is called a preamble clause. This is what the first part of the 2nd Amendment is...a preamble clause.
Secondly, this is supported by the fact that the first part (the part that includes the 'well-regulated militia' language)...does not include a verb. This is important because a verb is what proscribes action. Therefore, there is no subject in this clause because nothing is being acted upon. The closest you have is 'being'...which is is a noun and/or conjunctive form of the verb 'be'.
So the grammar is simple because once you realize that the 'well-regulated militia' part does not proscribe any action all you're left with is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's pretty clear that it's proscribing a restriction on the government (specifically the Federal government) on infringing a right of the individual.
History
At the time the Founders were suspicious of a standing army. They saw it as both a drain on the economy and possibly tyrannical. And they themselves viewed this as an individual right...afterall the Constitution itself did not address any State or Individual right...so they compromised that there would be a Bill of Rights so as to pass the Constitution which would include these rights.
Etymology
Regulate back then meant to provision...in fact local posses were called 'regulators'.
Arms also means the 'weapons of the warrior', this is where the Founders were more general rather than specific. They understood that the 'weapons of the warrior' would get more advanced and they wanted the individual to keep pace.
====
Oh...by your own standards ("It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.")...what I have just spelled out for is not just my interpretation...it was codified by SCOTUS Justice Scalia in Heller.
At 5/22/13 03:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Considering what happened in 1998, this is undoubtedly what's going to happen.
It will undoubtedly happen if they impeach w/o clear and irrefutable evidence. I'd also leave it alone until Dems in the Senate are on-board a la Nixon. But I do not think impeachment at this point is undoubtedly going to happen.
Obama's approval rating right now hasn't even budged amid the troika of controversies.
I'm not so sure. I like using RCP's "Poll of Polls". We've seen a drop of almost 2% since April. So we do see a drop in approval despite meager economic gains.
The GOP is suffering from the cry wolf effect, ... Which is quite unfortunate, because if they weren't so hysterical the past 6 years they wouldn't have backed themselves into a corner with their own rhetoric.
I agree with this, its a sensible explanation of why Obama's approval has not dropped precipitiously.
They're not doing it without an airtight case which places explicit blame directly on Obama. Until then, everything else is pure fantasy.
Agreed...that was my point too. :)
On Benghazi, I am curious not about the talking points (I don't really care)...but I am curious about the allegations of an order to stand-down military forces that were prepping to deploy to Benghazi. I think this is major, and whoever ordered the stand-down should lose their job.Oddly enough, the stand down order is a talking point. This meme originates from the fact that a Special Forces team was ordered to stand down:
A four-man team of military Special Forces was in Tripoli was organized, geared up and about to drive to a C-130 aircraft, to help those in Benghazi when its commander was ordered to stop by his superiors, Hicks said.
"He got a phone call from SOCAFRICA (Special Operations Command Africa) which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now," Hicks said. "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
Hicks said the commander told him: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military."
This allegation, by someone who was on the ground and witnessed this event, is the most troubling for me. When it happened we were told that there was no one close enough to respond. A team in Tripoli...is not too far.
If you've watched the proceedings this should be pretty straightforward. You of all people here already know that pulling off a military rescue operation with the snap of a finger is extremely difficult (as seen in Mogadishu), especially when the closest assets you have are over three hours away in Italy. ...
Mogadishu
I'd be careful about throwing around this as an example of things going wrong and the military failing. The Battle of Mogadishu was not a military defeat or fiasco...but a political one. All military objectives were meant, and while we suffered losses Americans are not used to since the first Gulf War...they were acceptable when compared to the force arrayed against Task Force Ranger. Furthermore, issues with responding and mounting a rescue were complicated due to coalition issues with some of our allies not wanting to get involved and risk their troops/equipment. That did not exist here.
Time
If those resources were not available...then this is a grave misjudgement on the part of the State Dept and the Administration as a whole. Knowing the dangerous situation on the ground...we should have had a Quick Response Force (QRF) like we have in any other hotspot around the world.
But from the sound of it...guys were locked, loaded and ready to get on a plane that was on the tarmac...only an hour away.
Secondly, I think this important because it shows that Hillary has demonstrated a grave lapse of judgement:Is there a credible source for this? Whenever I see something pop up in Infowars my instinctive reaction is to ignore it.
* Selling anti-aircraft rockets to a group of rebels the CIA said was an extension of al Qaida.
I didn't get this from Infowars...I don't typically source conspiracy or far-right wing sources. Much less frequent their sites. (See my signature!)
I can't find where I heard this...but I'll keep an eye out.
* Sending a diplomat to get those weapons back without adequate security.What is adequate security in your mind?
First of all, you should have had a QRF on stand-by 24/7. This could be SF, Marines, contractors, etc. If you're not willing to provide this...don't have a consolate, mission, or embassy. To not provide adequate security is pure negligence. Also, classified info was left unsecured. Who knows what al-Qaida learned from the gold mine we left behind? It also lets them know we have our guard down and it could quite possibly embolden them.
* Not being completely forthright when questioned.How so?
* Not being a whiny bitch and ask: "What matter does it make?" A review by Congress is their job when a fuck-up like this happens. Show some integrity and responsibility.
* Answer the questions honestly...don't obfuscate.
At 5/23/13 12:46 PM, TheKlown wrote: Does anyone know of a Democrat that actually likes Joe Biden?
Last poll I saw on the topic of who should run for the Dems in 2016...and you take Hillary out of the mix...Biden gets 45% of the primary vote. He leads the field, with number 2 coming in almost 20% behind him.
At 5/23/13 01:55 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: ... hardly the stuff of Al Qaeda or any of it's affiliates...
Terrorists come in many different forms. Some are organizied (ie: a group like al-Qaida), others work in small, isolated groups, and 'lone wolves'.
And so while you are right this comes across as 'amatuerish'...that does not disqualify it as being a terrorist attack.
I mean really it's just stupid, and it's really pushed by people on the right more so than the left. Shit like that just alienates the already cautious Muslim community and pisses them off...
It's not really a 'right' or 'left' issue...terrorism exists outside of politics. For example we had terrorism under Clinton, and it was labeled terrorism. Those who think this is a right/left issue are the ignorant ones who are either blinded by ideology and/or part of the tin-foil hat brigade looking for conspiracies.
Since this involved targeting a political-military target combined with a religious-political rant...that is all the hallmarks of political terrorism.
Just treat this as it is, ...
Two, probably lone wolves, terrorists.
I'm also surprised they had time to just waltz around their like clowns for about half an hour, the cops are that slow to react to something like this? I'm not trying to offend British police officers or those in London, but why did no one respond as immediately to this as they should have?
Yeah...they probably did respond as fast as they could. This happened in a major, metropolitan city that has influence worldwide. There is a response time factor, which is why relying on police as a means of stopping a crime in progress is foolish.
:)
At 5/17/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The 4th Amendment is meant to stop harrassing actions. However, the clandestine collection of emails and phone calls is hardly harrassing. If you don;t know it happened, how can you be harrassed by it?
Actually, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect individual's rights to be secure in their homes. Part of this is because the Founders had a proclivity towards smuggling, the other part is because they saw Writs of Assistance being abused by the British to go after political enemies. So it is meant to protect us from the government having the ability to come in and search for illicit goods, seditious pamphlets, or seize our property because we talked ill of our Government. The idea that it is about preventing 'harassment' is a modern contrivance, a vaild expansion maybe...but not the scope.
Secondly, AH brings up a good point of the apartment that applies to email and telephone carriers. We contract with those providers to have access to long-distance communications with the expectations of privacy. This is why our emails come with passwords, along with key locks and passwords on phones and voicemail (traditional landlines being secured physically inside the home). I cannot look into your account, and likewise you cannot look into mine...so it is not a public or 'closed space'.
Something about this strikes me, there is also a fifth amendment implication here: self-incrimination. Since we contract with these providers to provide a secure service...we have an expectation of privacy. So I think that there could be an issue of self-incrimination here.
====
But as I write this...I start to think that it is time our law schools start producing Barristers more interested in upholding the Constitution rather than lawyering their way around it! ;)
At 5/14/13 03:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:At 5/14/13 02:48 PM, Feoric wrote: You need 2/3rds of the Senate on board for a conviction. The only way that the GOP can get a 2/3rds majority is if they win every single open seat in 2014 and get lucky enough to have seven additional Democrats to retire/die and get entirely replaced by Republicans.I know that. Since both parties claim to represent the people, and keep the president in check, this should not be an issue at all ;)
Obama could easily be impeached, since it only requires a simply majority in the House.
Now, what would the consequences of this impeachment begin?
* If the Republicans have not established the clear reasons why...and established the evidence for these 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that resonates with the electorate they will lose big in 2014. This is the overplaying of their (the Republican's) hand that the Democrats are waiting for.
* Removal:
Scenario A) Democrats view the trial as a way to vindicate Obama (the lesser objective) while further discrediting Republicans with the electorate (the higher objective). In this scenario, Obama stays in office and the Democrats strengthen their position going into mid-term elections.
Scenario B) The AP scandal seems to be expanding to other media outlets (Rosen @ FOX, and Attkisson @ CBS). As the press becomes more hostile in resposne, the patience of Senate Democrats begin to wane. If the scandals reach critical mass...the Dems will let Obama know he does not have Senate support and urge him to resign.
Scenario C) The Democrats in the Senate tell Obama to sit down, shut-up, and color. The scandals have reached critical mass and Dems & Reps know that the removal or resignation of the first black president would be very bad for the country. They require Holder and Rice to resign. Obama becomes a rubber stamp for SCOTUS and Cabinet appointtees selected by the Senate. This way everyone saves face.
====
I don't know what will happen, no one knows (besides the players) what evidence or whistleblowers are waiting in the wings to come out. But I do think Obama will fill-out his second term.
====
On Benghazi, I am curious not about the talking points (I don't really care)...but I am curious about the allegations of an order to stand-down military forces that were prepping to deploy to Benghazi. I think this is major, and whoever ordered the stand-down should lose their job.
Secondly, I think this important because it shows that Hillary has demonstrated a grave lapse of judgement:
* Selling anti-aircraft rockets to a group of rebels the CIA said was an extension of al Qaida.
* Sending a diplomat to get those weapons back without adequate security.
* Not being completely forthright when questioned.
This last is a disturbing trend I've seen in the administration:
"It didn't reach my level."
"I found out on the news the same time as y'all."
"What difference does it make?"
Geesh...what happened to "The buck stops here!" of Truman?
At 5/21/13 07:58 AM, Earfetish wrote: This thread has made me realise almost everyone posting on the NG BBS Politics forum is too old to be posting on the NG BBS. :)
Over 30...killl them, eh?
At 5/21/13 01:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/21/13 12:34 AM, Korriken wrote: Biden told Graham that there was "no restriction on the ability to do that, there's no legal reason why they couldn't" tax violent images, Clark added.I'm pretty sure that adding a tax based solely on the content of speech (also includes imagery) is very against the first amendment.
Meh. The assault rifle ban is just as directly against the second amendment...and yet you can still justify that.
:)
But seriously...
The guy is right that there is not a correlation between violent video games and overall violence. However, there is evidence that violent video games (in particular) DO have an effect on a teeny-tiny minority of people who then go out and committ mass shootings.
Consider that Lanza used tactics he learned in first person shooters...and the fact that the US MILITARY uses these types of sims to override the inhibition in most humans that keeps us from killing. Even in war.
There is an impact on the psyche, but in the vast, vast amount of time gamers and movie-goers are able to differentiate reality from the art form. But in a small amount of time...there is connection.
But I do agree with the sentiment.
At 5/20/13 05:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: hey Mason I got a question and I been lookin all over the internet looking for a answer and can't find it. is there a cap on income if you buy, sell and trade firearms before you have to get a FFL or put it on your taxes?
I'm not sure.
If you're looking at it as a full-time business, then you probably should go ahead and get your FFL since you're in a gray area.
But if you're just doing it as a hobby and selling them to someone you know very well, or a FFL dealer I think its pretty much the same thing as selling stuff at a garage sale.
But again...I do not know for sure. A good person to ask would be Camaro, or a tax preparer or tax lawyer.
