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
Posts
There's an appeals court for the SCOTUS?
My civics education has failed me.
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."
TSW: Trillions
PSN: Saint__Justice
Because there is no amendment saying that the right to drive a car shall not be infringed.
In other news there is a difference between having a gun in your home and concealed (or not) carry in public places.
You also don't need a drivers license to drive a car on your own property.
We shouldn't have laws. Criminals would just break them anyway!
I don't need a license to drive a car on my private property, just like I don't need a license to fire a gun on my private property.
I need a license to operate a car on public property, just like I need a license to carry a gun on public property.
I know, it's an amazing concept.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
I believe that is controlled at the state level. Some state's require you to have licenses while others don't. Mine doesn't, and Kansas isn't exactly the hotspot of gun violence. Kansas City Missouri is, though, and I can give you a couple of reasons why that is. Point is, there are a ton of reasons that influence gun violence, and having control on a state level makes more sense than the Federal level because what's good for some isn't necessarily good for all.
Right, because its so hard to get a handgun there already.
Silly hippie.
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
I would have just limed your post but I think that this is proper etiquette. This is essentially everything I would want to say on the subject. Thank you.
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
I didn't get shot at once this morning on my way to work, obviously the hordes of newly-armed civilians are keeping me safe.
Also, the mayor and police chief of DC are interpreting this to say that people can now have handguns in their homes - and that's pretty much it. So how much does this really change things?
EDIT: In response to the below: Yeah, I knew you couldn't have handguns in your home. Basically I was trying to say what you did - that this isn't the huge deal everything is making it out to be.
Previously, you weren't allowed to have a handgun in your home (unless you had a special permit andit was unloaded and locked/disassembled at all times).
This is neither the end of the world nor the huge victory that either side keeps spinning it into.
While I don't advocate a complete ban on ownership, I'm going to go ahead and disagree completely on CCW permits.
I live in a major metropolitan area and can with a modicum of awareness avoid any potential issues by being aware of my surroundings and not venturing into areas that I would deem unsafe. This is a fairly reasonable guarantee of my not being around people armed with weapons outside of police officers. However if every law abiding citizen has CCW permits that changes.
Remember that every criminal starts out at least at one time or another as a law abiding citizen. What does it take to send a normal law abiding person over the edge? Not much nowadays. Whether you're in the mall and some clerk refuses to take a return and the redneck flips out and starts throwing shit (I've seen it); Road Rage incidents; drunks in a bar threatening to kill someone if they had the chance. Now what happens when you give them weapons with which to enact their rage upon others? Since previously they were completely law abiding citizens they would be eligible for CCW's if you had your way right? I personally would feel unsafe wherever I went knowing that for whatever reason the standing next to me could flip out and unload a clip.
As to my knowledge all the recent school/mall/church shootings have been with legally owned and obtained firearms right? You said that the insane shouldn't get weapons, but how do we know that they are insane? It seems like you would oppose state mandated psych evaluations, but then how do we know they are insane or could be without it?
Now I'm not advocating psych evaluations, in fact the opposite. Gun control works by reducing the amount of weapons out there. Even if in completely legal and safe hands (for the moment) the more that are out there, the higher the chance that someone close to the tipping point gets their hands on one too.
And I've already thought of your counter-argument, ya ya ya but if we had CCW's people could just whip out their glocks and deal with someone who went psycho. But do we really want bloody shootouts all the damn time? Would kinda go back to the wild west days.
I didn't say it wasn't a good thing, I just said that it wasn't the huge victory that it was being touted as. It said nothing about non-Federal laws, for instance.
This is the important thing right here. SCOTUS did not rule gun control unconstitutional, which is what some of the shrieking, hysterical, liberal goons on my other forum have been crying and tearing their clothes about.
This is dumb.
First off: That makes everyone a criminal.
And then you spend way too many lines ranting about how gun control is a non-issue because people can be killed with rubber bands and garbage bags. :roll:
Is anyone even buying that bit of sophism these days?
"Hay guys, u cun kill som1 with a firecrackers so C4 shuld b suld @ 711 m i rite lolz"
There's a reason why people get murdered more often with firearms than with purple dildos; One of these things is much more deadly than the other, and shit, it was actually designed for the purpose of killing people! Imagine that.
Why is it an issue if gun control is unconstitutional or not? There are constitutional reform protocols, aren't there? It's a matter of taking that decidedly XVIII century anachronistic piece of legislation, dumping it and joining the rest of the western world here in modern times. Why keep going around the fact that it's a barbaric outdated law AND in the Constitution at the same time? It's not a religious text, but a legal one. It's bound to need upgrades every now and then.
1 Euro = 1.5672 U.S. dollars.
Just for example.
"Failed on a massive level" isn't really borne out by evidence.
Not that I support what he's suggesting.
Anyway, Noel, it's just one of those things that we Americans get worked up about. Kinda like how Germans get pissed off when you talk about putting speed limits on the Autobahn.
This complacent bullshit, this belief that the US is the best motherfucking country in the world and always will be, is what's going to make China the dominant superpower once they get their shit together.
"Stupid social programs"? Why do you think we've got a better median standard of living than China or India? It ain't because of the right to bear arms.
But this is rapidly going to be the kind of discussion that warrants its own thread.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100024842/index.htm
The majority of serious economic fuckups in this country have been a result of lack of government regulation in business (Enron, Worldcom, Predatory lending, etc) and/or the stupidity of members of the private sector (the .com boom and bust, etc).
The people in which we began owning economically (Post WWII) came on the heels of a President who ESTABLISHED most of our social programs (FDR), and during the Clinton era our government spent responsibly AND established meaningful social programs.
Your "1 issue I've voting for the GOP based on gun rights" approach is going to fuck up our country's economic standing, just FYI.
As far as economy, I think GDP is a pretty common measuring stick.
Is there any statistic that brings a single nation close to America in terms of economic power?
Pretty funny you post an article that is in contention from the Chinese as bowing to the American dollar.
Ahh, I now see that you wrote you would "abstain" if not vote for the candidate that had a stronger gun rights platform.
Y'see, the problem with having a military budget equal to every other nation in the world combined is that it's not necessarily sustainable and could cause all sorts of economic problems. I mean, shit, the only country that ever spent close to the same amount of money on their military was the USSR, and look what happened to them. We beat them by playing chicken on the railroad tracks of total economic failure, and hey, we won, great. Why are we still spending as much as we did during the Cold War?
Thank you, that explains the "brick wall" vibe I was getting.
But there aren't two different types of power: military power stems directly from economic power.