Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination
PeekingDuck
__BANNED USERS
__BANNED USERS
Thank Christ.
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
PeekingDuck on
Posts
/sarcasm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
You won't be. See: Canada.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
As much as gun control laws are indeed of uncertain usefulness in actually reducing crime, this is the silliest argument that is frequently used in this discussion. Does any law have any theoretical effectiveness based on this criteria? After all, criminals won't care! Why bother having a law against breakng into someone's home? I was robbed last year and the criminals didn't even care about the law. Obviously, it's ineffective.
Now, you could argue that the reason strict regulation would be ineffective is because significant illegal channels exist and anyone with even a moderate criminal connection would find getting a gun easy unless you imposed absolutely draconian controls, that would make some sense.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
Goddamn I've become a hippie.
Alright, let's see Canada.
That said, gun control is of course not the only factor at play here, nor is it by itself a sufficient factor to reduce crime. But it certainly helps.
EDIT: Fixed table.
EDIT2: To hell with the table. Just look at the damn website.
The DC ban was ineffective for lots of reasons that it was pretty powerless to address. Having a fundamentally ineffective law on the books is kinda dumb.
Also, yay SCOTUS.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
It was pretty much impossible to enforce.
But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
I own a few, and I agree.
In that case, it should be expanded to allow the private ownership of RPGs, assault rifles, fighter jets, and ICBMs.
Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
Because Obama keeps bringing it up. ALL THE TIME. It truly is one of his major campaign points.
I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.
OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
The Swiss own more guns per capita than we do...
When did the President get restricted to only have influence on 1 single issue per term?
In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
Obviously we can't take away the military's guns... I meant it as more of a "let's all smoke pot and achieve world peace" statement. Though we should definitely spend a lot less money on that shit.
They are developing all sorts of non-lethal weapons, which is great but doesn't exactly seem to be high-priority.
Spot the irony.
I would, yes.
You might say we... dodged a bullet.
:winky:
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."