Politics And Current Events
Politics And Current Events
New email from HR saying they will reimburse us up to $5K in expenses if we or dependents have to travel out of state to get "health care services'"
Politics And Current Events
Certainly people should come to the table to meet somewhere in the middle.
-
- Posts: 18176
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:35 pm
Politics And Current Events
No it isn't.This is gibberishNo one is "comparing guns with anything else", it's a contextualized, micro-concept that's being discussed...
You said arguing in support of something potentially dangerous that you like and can handle responsibly is invalid.
Others are telling you it's valid and citing similar examples.
-
- Posts: 27649
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
You mean if I argued that I can drive drunk responsibly and the laws against drunk driving are unnecessary, that's valid?No it isn't.This is gibberishNo one is "comparing guns with anything else", it's a contextualized, micro-concept that's being discussed...
You said arguing in support of something potentially dangerous that you like and can handle responsibly is invalid.
Others are telling you it's valid and citing similar examples.
Politics And Current Events
I like guns. I would prefer no restricting laws because I feel that I am responsible with them, and take all the precautions necessary to not cause harm.
I like booze. I would prefer no restricting laws because I feel that I am responsible with it, and take all the precautions necessary to not cause harm.
Both situations exist, and both situations have the chance to cause harm no matter what. One is "narcissistic" and one isn't?
Oh and both have laws if people go sideways with both guns and booze.
Alcohol's only requirement is that you're 21. Put an age range on guns, I don't care.
People have likes that are dangerous to society as a whole. Not all the time, mind you.
I like booze. I would prefer no restricting laws because I feel that I am responsible with it, and take all the precautions necessary to not cause harm.
Both situations exist, and both situations have the chance to cause harm no matter what. One is "narcissistic" and one isn't?
Oh and both have laws if people go sideways with both guns and booze.
Alcohol's only requirement is that you're 21. Put an age range on guns, I don't care.
People have likes that are dangerous to society as a whole. Not all the time, mind you.
-
- Posts: 27649
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
Both arguments are narcissistic. It's being unable to understand the entire situation because you only recognize your relationship with guns/booze.I like guns. I would prefer no restricting laws because I feel that I am responsible with them, and take all the precautions necessary to not cause harm.
I like booze. I would prefer no restricting laws because I feel that I am responsible with it, and take all the precautions necessary to not cause harm.
Both situations exist, and both situations have the chance to cause harm no matter what. One is "narcissistic" and one isn't?
Oh and both have laws if people go sideways with both guns and booze.
Alcohol's only requirement is that you're 21. Put an age range on guns, I don't care.
People have likes that are dangerous to society as a whole. Not all the time, mind you.
Basing you opposition to gun control on your individual circumstance is what I am calling narcissistic, and also not a convincing argument. There are valid arguments around your constitutional rights and your self-defense wants/needs. But saying guns are cool and i like them is not a valid argument for limiting regulations on availability or legal uses.
Again, this whole debate was started on the notion of whether the preponderance of illegal guns in this country being an argument against gun control. This isn't some zero-sum dilemma here between outright gun confiscation and mandatory gun ownership. It's a question of whether the existing laws controlling gun sales, use and ownership are achieving their desired outcome. Hard to answer yes to that question. So instead it's just flooding the zone with nonsense and relying on a garbage supreme court that is set on limiting the ability for government to impose restrictions on guns.
Extending the current pathway, people are going to be forced to consider whether or not being the "good guy with the gun" is the only way to engage in the public sphere. And it's necessary to recognize that this is a desirable outcome for people that are both crazy and far too influential
Politics And Current Events
If we're going back to a 'will of the people' consideration, those protests that have persisted over the last five decades represent a pretty sound minority of the overall population. A decent sized minority (40%-ish), but a minority nonetheless.Concerns are perfectly legitimate, and I was in fact wrong about Roe. But I think Roe differs from the other topics. The case not only was immediately opposed as soon as it was announced, but that opposition did not diminish over the years. There's been a March for Life every year in Washington DC since 1974. There are no similar annual mass movements or demonstrations to reverse gay marriage, for example.
Politics And Current Events
This is the reason they expressly will not engage in hypotheticals about specific cases. "Do you believe in stare decisis and the precedential significance of Roe?" is not the same question as "Do the facts presented in Dobbs merit a reconsideration of the soundness of Roe?"If a judge presented one line of thinking in order to get confirmed and then decided cases differently from that stated line of thinking when it was time to decide cases, is that how a judge should act?
Politics And Current Events
All this time I thought they didn't cast shadows or reflections in mirrors. #TIL
Politics And Current Events
I was just going back to your original argument.
That's probably how I read it, and how I find it to be nonsense from my POV. No matter what I agree to, it's never going to be enough, and one outweighs the other in severity.
Per Brady United - 40K gun deaths per year
Per niaaa - 95K Alcohol related deaths per year
That's the reason why I compared guns to alcohol. One is seemingly more dangerous numbers wise, and they both kill the same demographic with one receiving way more attention than the other.
It's "nonsense" because I like guns, and you don't. This comes back to meeting and the middle and good faith. I'm here to tell you that I would agree to new laws and regulations, but it comes across as disingenuous with statements like that. So why even budge? Why compromise with something I like, and can be responsible for?That's just narcissistic nonsense. Just because you are comfortable handling a weapon does not translate to those weapons being made to available to every 18+ person that doesn't have a criminal record or been institutionalized.
It's not valid, this argument should not persuade right-minded people that recognize the aggregate harm caused by the proliferation of gun ownership / fetishization of a dangerous consumer product.
That's probably how I read it, and how I find it to be nonsense from my POV. No matter what I agree to, it's never going to be enough, and one outweighs the other in severity.
Per Brady United - 40K gun deaths per year
Per niaaa - 95K Alcohol related deaths per year
That's the reason why I compared guns to alcohol. One is seemingly more dangerous numbers wise, and they both kill the same demographic with one receiving way more attention than the other.
-
- Posts: 35752
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
- Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
- Contact:
Politics And Current Events
That's like saying "I can carry a gun on a plane responsibly, so I should be allowed to." No one is arguing that. That's already illegal and those that try it would be punished accordingly. What they're arguing is "I come home from a long day at work, and I enjoy a glass of whiskey. I should be able to have access to alcohol."Source of the post You mean if I argued that I can drive drunk responsibly and the laws against drunk driving are unnecessary, that's valid?
If you can properly store your gun, keep it locked away from people that could cause harm, use it responsibly such as hunting or keep it in your home, I can understand the argument that you like them and want to keep them. That was the point I was trying to make. Now if you want to talk about the open carry psychos that want to have unfettered access to all guns in all locations at all times. Yeah... sure... go with the drunk driver analogy.
Politics And Current Events
Exactly what I'm saying. The former makes me no unhinged than what you described. I just have a different interest.That's like saying "I can carry a gun on a plane responsibly, so I should be allowed to." No one is arguing that. That's already illegal and those that try it would be punished accordingly. What they're arguing is "I come home from a long day at work, and I enjoy a glass of whiskey. I should be able to have access to alcohol."Source of the post You mean if I argued that I can drive drunk responsibly and the laws against drunk driving are unnecessary, that's valid?
If you can properly store your gun, keep it locked away from people that could cause harm, use it responsibly such as hunting or keep it in your home, I can understand the argument that you like them and want to keep them. That was the point I was trying to make. Now if you want to talk about the open carry psychos that want to have unfettered access to all guns in all locations at all times. Yeah... sure... go with the drunk driver analogy.
-
- Posts: 19792
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
- Location: Iodine State
Politics And Current Events
An 8-year-old who found his father’s gun accidentally shot and killed a 1-year-old and wounded a 2-year-old at a Florida motel over the weekend, a sheriff said Monday.
Escambia County Sheriff Chip Simmons said the 8-year-old's father left a gun in a holster in the closet. After the adult left, the boy found the weapon, which fired while he was playing with it, the sheriff said.
One round struck the 1-year-old girl, who died, he said. The bullet also struck a 2-year-old girl who is expected to recover, according to the sheriff.
The father was staying at the motel with a girlfriend, who was asleep at the time, Simmons said. The children killed and wounded were her children, he said.
The father was arrested on charges of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, tampering with evidence, culpable negligence and failure to safely store a firearm, the sheriff said.
Politics And Current Events
Yea, you're a few pages behind.
-
- Posts: 27649
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
Well, I'm not really arguing here with someone that is open to gun regulations.I was just going back to your original argument.
It's "nonsense" because I like guns, and you don't. This comes back to meeting and the middle and good faith. I'm here to tell you that I would agree to new laws and regulations, but it comes across as disingenuous with statements like that. So why even budge? Why compromise with something I like, and can be responsible for?That's just narcissistic nonsense. Just because you are comfortable handling a weapon does not translate to those weapons being made to available to every 18+ person that doesn't have a criminal record or been institutionalized.
It's not valid, this argument should not persuade right-minded people that recognize the aggregate harm caused by the proliferation of gun ownership / fetishization of a dangerous consumer product.
That's probably how I read it, and how I find it to be nonsense from my POV. No matter what I agree to, it's never going to be enough, and one outweighs the other in severity.
Per Brady United - 40K gun deaths per year
Per niaaa - 95K Alcohol related deaths per year
That's the reason why I compared guns to alcohol. One is seemingly more dangerous numbers wise, and they both kill the same demographic with one receiving way more attention than the other.
I am calling the "I like guns argument" to not be a valid argument for not imposing gun regulations. In the same way that "I like booze' is not a valid argument to limit restrictions on the product. It could be an honest argument, but that's different. Mostly just that folks with direct incentives in this argument are framing this debate in a way that deliberately ignores the negative exernality.
-
- Posts: 27649
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
Great job Supreme Court.
Politics And Current Events
She gonna get tried for murder.
-
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
- Location: Location: Location
Politics And Current Events
“Lawfully”
-
- Posts: 12627
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:16 pm
Politics And Current Events
your hockey takes are always insightful and often excellent. i enjoy them very muchNo one is "comparing guns with anything else", it's a contextualized, micro-concept that's being discussed...
-
- Posts: 12627
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:16 pm
Politics And Current Events
right up there with people prey on one another and when they come for me i'll be readyImagine thinking "laws are useless because they will be broken" is a useful argument.
Politics And Current Events
That's not accurate at all. For example, look at the roster of companies signing up for this. Only the wokest of the Woke Brigade need apply.I was reading some bizarre takes on Twitter last night about how all of these corporations that are paying for their employees to travel for abortions are only doing so to get out of higher insurance premiums for maternal care, family insurance costs, and loss of production while new parents are on maternity/paternity leave.
Imagine living one's life thinking like that. Ugh.
But if that were true, they would've been offer to underwrite those expenses before widespread bans went into effect. The bans didn't suddenly make having a child more expensive than it was six months ago.
-
- Posts: 7669
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm
Politics And Current Events
Is this where we bring up that people are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder?Which all makes sense, and guns should be available for home security, the sense of comfort/security I imagine that provides to people is valuable. And, clearly the sense of home security and self-defense is sort of embedded there, in that you are using the gun at home to protect from someone that has intruded. As soon as you are in Kyle Rittenhouse territory, the idea of self-defense has become completely unraveled and we are free to go be both the one creating threats and the victim.I think a large number of them see them as being necessary to protect their children, wife, and loved ones.
I do believe in a right to self defense. I do believe in a narrow scope of Castle Doctrine. I don't believe that they have to be unfettered however.
The whole idea of what a gun should be used for has been defined by people who are in no sense able to make those distinctions. So now, our only buffer between what we consider normal life and a walking dead type hellscape, are that enough people aren't full internet brain delusional
Politics And Current Events
Litigators probably have a better term for this, but I believe office drones like us would call it the 'circular file'.So where does the appeal for a SCOTUS case that was completely misrepresented by the judge go?
There is no appealing the Supreme Court. (At least not to some external body)
Politics And Current Events
I'm somewhat reluctant to commit this 'to the record' (as it were), but.................. do you actually believe this is going to happen?The whole idea of what a gun should be used for has been defined by people who are in no sense able to make those distinctions. So now, our only buffer between what we consider normal life and a walking dead type hellscape, are that enough people aren't full internet brain delusional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LeopardLetang and 192 guests