Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/14/14 09:57 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its the ATF being a waste of taxpayers money, like usual.

happens when you underfund and don't give them the legal tools to enforce the law. So we get dumb schemes like Fast n' Furious.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ptyuhz/there-goes-the-boom---atf

At 2/8/14 08:17 PM, TheKlown wrote: Gun Control doesn't work because anyone can lose it and go crazy.

While true, gun control will not stop a determined individual, it will make it harder for these kinds of individuals to acquire a gun. So statistically speaking there would be less people that lose it AND have a gun. That would indicate to me that gun control works.

But it hardly matters to a pro-gun advocate whether gun-control works or not, because to them it's all about the individual right. It doesn't matter that having a gun at home increase your chance of getting shot by one, or increases the threat of gun violence to yourself and everyone around you, as long as the individual can protect themselves or be a hero.

Take a look at Japan or Australia to see the effects of gun control. The general trend is that they work, and work well. Of course you'll run into sites that tell you that gun-control in Australia failed, because these pro-gun advocates cherry-pick the data by taking a 2 year period where it may have increased or restricted it to a locality. Don't be fooled, good gun control laws work. Everyone knows it, even intelligent pro-gun people know it.

Geometry Wars
Carnage Heart
Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past
Terraria
Escape Velocity (AmbrosiaSoft)
Half-life 2
Marathon
Bushido Blade
Soul Calibur
Secrets of Mana.

At 12/10/13 06:41 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/10/13 11:40 AM, lolomfgisuck wrote: If there wasn't, we would all use shovels in war.

What's a trench?

your sad attempt at thread derailment, apparently

So what's with that McAuliffe win in Virgina, in an off year election. He got a big fat 'F' from the NRA, but he still managed to win in same state where the NRA's headquarters is located. NRA losing their clout? maybe they just don't matter anymore except in very low turnout elections.

Oh, I hear that the NRA headquarters is a gun free zone, lol.

GraalOnline seems to want to be a zelda mmorpg.
Spiral Knights is also somewhat Zelda inspired.

But I really don't see LoZ being an MMO, The best you can expect is 4 swords.

At 11/26/13 07:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/26/13 05:42 PM, Light wrote: or if the fetus has been found to possess serious genetic defects, such as Down Syndrome.

First half don't match with the second half.

Shit, if mere down syndrome is a serious genetic defect, what the hell else will be included?

I can understand for severe, and I mean SEVERE, defects, ones that would lead to a short life filled with only pain (such as being born with organs on the outside, Tasak's (sp?) and alike, but a mere developmental disability? That's taking a trip down a VERY dangerous road.

I reroll the dice when my stat attributes are critically low during character creation. Why can't the same be true for making babies? shouldn't parents demand to have the perfect child?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-nuclear-option-senate

"Here's how it happened. First Democrats called for a simple-majority vote to move to reconsider the failed Millett nomination, whicwas approved 57-40. Then McConnell scrambled to head off the coming rules change by calling for a motion to adjourn the Senate until 5 p.m on Thursday. That vote failed, 46-54. Then Democrats moved to advance the Millett nomination, which had to be at a 60-vote threshold, and Republicans filibustered her again, 57-43.

At that point, Reid took the historic step of raising a point of order that when the Senate votes on cloture again, the threshold should be at a simple majority. Under standing rules, the presiding officer ruled that motion out of order. Reid then appealed the ruling, and a majority of senators (52 -- all Democrats) voted against upholding the filibuster. The vote was 48 to keep the filibuster, 52 to scrap it. That historic vote created a new precedent by which a simple majority may bypass cloture on nominations."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the above.
I get that Reid made a point of order, basically saying that the threshold should change. Then the presiding officer ruled that Reid's point of order was out of order. Then Reid appeals, but then how is a no vote a vote to end the filibuster? or did that 'no' vote come after when McConnell tried to overturn it?

Anyway, this all seems rather ham-fisted. So now the Senate can just pass appointed officials on a partisan basis, the minority can not object even when they might have valid points. Not like they having serious objections currently. The filibuster was obviously being abused for partisan gain. Withholding nomination just because want to extract concessions. Even so, it seems like this will weaken the position of appointees because they had the backing of basically the majority of the senate. With this change I feel they'd be as ineffectual as acting heads of their organization.

Could this point of order be used to change the requirement to amend the constitution?

As a side note, I now get why there is all this talk about impeaching Obama. It's not because he did anything that is an impeachable offense (besides getting elected by a majority), but because House can . And the Republican base wants to use any parliamentary procedure to subvert an election.

I'm surprised that Reid didn't do this earlier, before the 2012 presidential election, with the way Republicans have been stonewalling nominations. I have no doubt that once a republicans get control of the senate and the presidency, they will would of 'dropped the nuke' right away so they can fill those positions and pack the court with conservative judges.

I wonder if this is going to be a slippery slope kind of deal where the senate turns various decisions from requiring 2/3 or 60 votes to an up and down majority vote. I wonder what would be the consequences of this decision.

At 11/5/13 07:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and in other news TODAY IS THE LAST DAY OF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG BEING MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY!

thank god.

Why celebrate? Doesn't this just free up his time to pursue a pro gun-control agenda nation wide?

At 11/5/13 07:15 AM, FlakJaketPro wrote: Disagreeing/Criticizing something ≠ Hating Something.

Well there might a difference of severity, but all of them show a dislike for something.

While you may present yourself as 100% factual, I'm not going to take your word on it. The way you presented your story immediately makes me suspicious. If you weren't trying to appeal to the sympathy of others in dealing with an unreasonable person, I would have agreed that you have made reasonable statements. But now, I'm pretty much convinced that you lacked tact in the situation and it was probably your fault. So you can see what I mean, I'm going to use a different quote, I don't even want to argue on the merits of your so called "factual statements"

Quote Jon Stuart Mill

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

I would say this quote is completely factual, if you agree with various studies linking low IQ with conservatism. When said out loud people will take it too mean that if someone is conservative then they are stupid, and rightly so. Saying this in front of a conservative is in fact an insult. You do not know them, and you've pretty much established that you hold them in poor regard due to their political stance. This naturally lets them deduce that you probably don't have their best interests in mind. You aren't just giving "constructive criticism" now, you are being antagonistic.

If you really are upset and butt hurt about people being mean to you due to your politically charged comments, might I suggest discussing "the game" or that show everyone watches. Find other interests besides the political propaganda you've been spoon-fed. Establish a good rapport so at least they accept you as a decent human being before letting loose your offensive opinions. Then they'll write it off as some sort of quirk or being misguided instead of you being a total jerk. Maybe they'll even consider what you've said because you've established that you are a decent person, at least.

I'm going to also guess that you probably also disdain conformity. You'll find that it's required if you want to integrate into society in any sort of manner. I'm sorry you are having to learn it the hard way, but that's the price you pay for your social stupidity.

At 11/1/13 07:11 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I don't like having to pay for things I find morally objectionable myself, like Obamaphones

What!? This has already been debunked. "Obamaphones" do not exist.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

At 10/30/13 08:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Just say, "more people" because that's really the only point you've managed to stress.

I stress it because Tony is looking at total deaths, and he keeps going back to it, so I felt I needed to illustrate to him the difference.

Anyway, we are discussing the article that Tony linked. Where do you stand on that issue? Are total deaths a better metric to gauge whether gun control is working, or is it death rate?

no, it's not just total deaths. If that were the case, then high population areas have more people that graduate from high school, more people that die of natural causes, more scientists, more homeless, more everything. It's makes sense to look at rates, and by that measure, areas with lax gun laws have increased the gun death rates, as the data in the article you linked shows.

And of course higher populations would have all of those things that I've stated, but that doesn't mean they rate the highest in those areas.

At 10/29/13 09:49 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

New orleans has lower gun deaths believe it or not and they don't measure deaths by X in 100,000 its total deaths. as of 2011 there is a huge difference between Louisiana and Illinois and California by 600-800 deaths (depends where you cite). but out of it California is worse.

no, it's not just total deaths. If that were the case, then high population areas have more people that graduate from high school, more people that die of natural causes, more scientists, more homeless, more everything. It's makes sense to look at rates, and by that measure, areas with lax gun laws have increased the gun death rates, as the data in the article you linked shows.

At 10/29/13 06:44 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/28/13 10:42 PM, Fim wrote: No, Chicago isn't proof that gun regulation does not work

This article which cites the CDC says otherwise not that gun control in general but LA and Chicago are number one cities for gun crime which each having nearly 1200 gun deaths a year. thats like 3 people a day every day.
and Mcdonald V. Chicago which chicago citizens had there rights witheld to own a handgun for home defense and Concealed Carry.

I also observe in the very same article that Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are not even on the list of gun murders per 100,000 people. However, New Orleans is one of the worst, and it's a known fact that they have the lax gun regulations. In fact most of the those that made that list are in States with lax gun control laws. Statistically speaking, I'd have less of a chance getting shot in Chicago than I do In New Orleans. It seems to me, with the source you provided, that gun control works in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.

Proteas wrote:

So you won't even consider links that contradict your viewpoint, even if they come legitimate sources that AREN'T right-wing gun blogs, just because it came from Dante? And you think we're the unreasonable ones?

I considered it, what now?

At 10/26/13 09:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

Then how do you explain the decrease in firearm related homicides from 2008 on?

loosened gun laws and awareness of the amount of people who conceal carry. its a deterrant.

The real reason is that the overall percentage of gun ownership has been steadily declining. It's been declining since the 70s and the trend continues. This shows there is a definite correlation between level of gun ownership and gun homicides in an area. A lot of pro gun people site concealed carry laws as being responsible for the reduction in crime and gun homicides, when really it's just riding the wave of less people owning guns and improved policing.

And while gun sales have been increasing, it's usually bought by people who already own guns. They are kind of like weebawoos except they love guns, a gun weebawoo if you will.

At 10/25/13 09:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/25/13 07:29 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: thats just feel good legislation to shut the gun control idiots up. it has so many loop holes like the AWB did that its virtually useless like Obama!

You do realize the NRA backed that piece of legislation, right?

That's because NRA == republican party

At 10/25/13 05:26 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/25/13 07:55 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obamacare phone operator who talked to Sean Hannity loses her job

I'm not entirely sure what to say about that... Of course, nothing will ever be made of it.

Yup, a complete non issue

That's good, I just wonder how this will be spun to demonize Hannity.

He did a good thing.

theres some Hope and Change! talk about the cons and you get the AXE.

Be a good little worker drone. Eyes forward, head down, mouth shut.

She worked for a private contractor. If she were on the government's payroll, she'd most likely be in a Union and it would be tough as hell to fire her.

At 10/20/13 04:28 PM, Korriken wrote: To me, a rigid moral code is a hindrance. There are times when doing the wrong thing is the only way to solve a problem.

My moral code is rather flexible, but only if the situation calls for it.

You are lost in a maze of moral relativism, Korriken.

At 10/15/13 09:31 PM, Proteas wrote: Since you clearly didn't read you're own link before you posted it, I'll point something out you probably didn't notice; the number of people being killed annually with a firearm is on a decline of 4% annually.

gun ownership is also in decline. This would indicate a correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides, right?

At 10/10/13 05:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Yes, because it was closed, like the National Mall. So I don't really get your point, if you have one at all.

oh yea, what about Mount Vernon? did the government had to force a privately funded, privately owned site to shutdown( for like a day or two)?

Did the government have to shut down the 100s of other parks that were maintained with private money? Which are a source of revenue for the government in the form of taxes. Clearly Obama hell bent and making Americans suffer, and raising the debt when he doesn't need to..

At 10/2/13 01:38 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/2/13 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

So? There are lots of laws the public doesn't support. There are ways to remove them.

One way is for the house of representatives to not allocate any money for any specific program since they're Constitutionally in charge of the purse strings....

Oh wait, what were you bitching about again?

The fact that the Affordable Care Act is not affected by the Continuing Resolution. Kind of like putting abortion language in a law for carbon emissions. The fact that this is really a manufactured crisis. Republicans have been asked for 6 months to negotiate, but instead thought they would get a better deal if they negotiated in the last few seconds. Really it comes down to Republicans not wanting people to get insured, because once they are, people aren't going to give it up. And they are just making people suffer for no reason. OR it could just be incompetence, since 2010 even passing simple easy bills that aren't controversial has been a herculean task.

May they reap what they sow.

At 9/26/13 11:44 PM, AmateurPsychonaut wrote:

essential functions.
How any of the aforementioned bureaus, offices, etc. have anything to do with these is beyond me.

so you think that the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs has nothing to do with Copyright protection?
A lot of those Bureaus provide a supporting role to the essential function, and typically supporting roles account for 10 times the positions filled for every 1 that is directly responsible for the essential functions.

It's the same in the military you need at least 10 service man on support for each marine in actual combat. Also Think about what is needed in order for you to go buy a gallon of milk from the grocery store. The infrastructure that has to be implemented and maintained.

I would like to see some real impact analysis to properly judge whether a bureau isn't supporting an essential function of the federal government.

At 9/18/13 11:28 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 9/18/13 11:03 PM, MOSFET wrote: Staying silent is not a way to increase momentum or support. As Rahm Emanuel eloquently said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

she's been more than loud about it. but with continuos losses to the gun lobby on Federal and State Legislation, Supreme Court rulings and the Colorado Vote Recall on state legislators, I can see why they lose momentum and support. plus the gun debate in the US hardly constitutes as a crisis.

The crisis I'm referring to is the DC shooting.
And Momentum can be reversed, court rulings can be undone, new precedents can be made. If you are so unafraid that it could ever happen, why do you bother debating it?
The Colorado thing happened in an off cycle, mostly likely people didn't vote unless they really really cared, They can probably run again during an election cycle and probably win.
The Columbia v Heller decision was split 5-4 along ideological lines.

Really, there is public support for more gun laws, It's just not a priority for most people. But, as these mass shootings continue to happen, don't be shocked when people start to care a bit more and do something about it. You wouldn't waste your time debating the issue if weren't so close to the tipping point.

At 9/18/13 08:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Feinstein: restrict the second amendment!

When will this bitch learn she's lost the momentum and support? She lost her two "revolutionary" bills this year and many others since 04.

Staying silent is not a way to increase momentum or support. As Rahm Emanuel eloquently said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

At 9/11/13 06:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I have one question for you: Why does it matter if he used sarin gas? Had he merely shelled the cities, or burned them, or cut their food and water supply, or called an airstrike, or declared the entire town an enemy of state and THEN razed it to the ground, would that have made a bit of difference?

Why so serious with chemical weapons? Are we going to get all up in everyone's shit if/when they start deploying cutting-edge acoustic and microwave weaponry against general populations? What kind of argument can be made for military intervention in Syria, and not Egypt?

It's pretty much about maintaining boundaries of war. It's to prevent seeing Sarin gas, or cutting-edge acoustic and microwave weaponry as the new normal when combating the enemy. It's a way for us to control what we see on the battlefield if we are forced into a situation to get seriously involved. The fact that Assad has been very careful in it's use, shows that such policy is effective in making war a little bit nicer.

At 9/11/13 09:42 AM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 9/10/13 10:44 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 9/10/13 10:17 PM, TheKlown wrote: Wait, whats the plan? Bomb Syrians and most likely hit Civilian targets creating more Terrorists that want to attack US and Israel?

The plan is to prevent the use of Chemical Weapons by all governments.

By bombing the CW storages? Smart move. It exploded and tons of civilian died. Moar enemies for the US. Assad can sit there a laugh his ass off. TheKlown was right.

TheKlown would be right if a strike was called down on a stockpile surrounded with civilians in terrible wind conditions. I do not know exactly what the targets are, or how the strikes will be executed, or if they would be executed at all. Clearly, Obama doesn't want a military engagement either and would prefer a diplomatic solution, but that doesn't mean he should hamstring himself by saying he won't use every tool available to him.

Think of it like this. Obama is a good guy with a gun. You have a maniac gassing and killing people around him. What would have Obama do?

At 9/10/13 10:17 PM, TheKlown wrote: Wait, whats the plan? Bomb Syrians and most likely hit Civilian targets creating more Terrorists that want to attack US and Israel?

The plan is to prevent the use of Chemical Weapons by all governments. Obama argues that if we just let this slide, then it will embolden dictators to mass produce and stockpile these weapons. Not to mention it will give Iran more confidence that it can make Nuclear weapons with little to no repercussions. If the mess in Syria spirals out of control where the world has to act, at least it would reduce the chance that Chemical weapons will be used against our men and women that serve in the military. Yes, terrorists are bad, but at least they can be managed. Fighting against chemical weapons is even worse if we don't nip this in the bud.

At 8/31/13 03:14 PM, Feoric wrote: So Obama chose to ignore the WPA and punted the issue to Congress. He didn't call an emergency session and they don't come back until the 9th, so we're gonna have to wait. The optics are much better this way: if Congress votes no then Obama and pull a Cameron; if they vote yes then he has to "carry out his duties to the American people and the world abroad" etc.

The other side of this is a bit more interesting. Assad's forces are essentially locked in place due to the threat of force. After the CW attacks, the regime had to move all sorts of important war materials and personnel into more isolated positions scattered across the country. They will stay frozen there indefinitely because Obama has not told everyone when bombs will start falling*. While the regime is in limbo with their logistical nightmare, the rebels have much softer targets in their way. Overall I'm actually pretty impressed with the way Obama handled this. He's given himself a ton of room to work with.

*On a side note, Ratheon's stock fell after Obama's speech.

Looks like my email got through!

I have no problem with this congress deciding on whether we should perform military strikes on Syria or not. It is the most unpopular congress ever and they know it. I don't think they want another Iraq either, so I'm sure there will be extra scrutiny all around than there was when they voted on the Iraq war.

I agree that the optics and the political position looks good for the president right now. Congress is too cowardly to vote one way or the other, because they really don't want to be responsible for anything right now. I don't think any vote will come up, unless pressed by Obama, and I doubt he will bring it up because there is the chance they'll vote no and he'll lose the ability to do any unilateral strikes. Why would he hamper himself like that?

At 8/21/13 08:02 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/20/13 10:12 PM, MOSFET wrote: They use the Brady campaign as a Source to determine a state's "legislative strength". Do you disagree with these values? You can draw your own conclusions about them, my point wasn't related to this measurement.

no but what you posted was the Brady campaign as a source citing mortality rates which aren't true. Chicago has one one the highest fatality rates in the country.

apparently you don't like to read.

from the study
:We used data from the Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),1 which provides mortality tables with the numbers of injury-related deaths and mortality rates according to cause (mechanism) and intent of injury (unintentional, violence-related [including homicide and suicide], or undetermined) by year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, and state. These mortality data are compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from multiple cause of death data. The federal government mandates that each state provide information about deaths that occur within its border.9 Mortality data on nonfirearm intentional deaths (suicides and homicides) were also obtained from WISQARS.

Does the CDC also smudge their statistics?

unfortunately we dont use population ratios to crimes in statistics its always overall.

Why not? It seems that gun death rate is a more valuable statistic than overall quantities when comparing the differences between states. Do you not see the trend that the higher the population density the more incidence of crime. The best way to take that bias out of the numbers is to look at the rates, not the straight up quantities.

:and california and illinois which have the highest in country where law abiding citizens are practically disarmed due to laws to stop criminals yet criminals run rampant with them and citizens can't defend themselves in their home if they are being robbed without the threat of being prosecuted.

That's an appeal to emotion. Nobody wants to take guns from people who want to protect themselves. It's a tool like anything else, but it needs to be regulated. Regulation to keep them away from criminals and in the hands of law abiding citizens. And to be honest, I think the 2nd amendment helps protect criminals in keeping their guns more than it does citizens.