961–969 of 969 posts
We should have some kind of dashboard tracking how many people die from terrorism, car crashes, heart disease, COVID, etc., and how much time and money we spend trying to prevent these deaths. We are just so terrible at evaluating risk, for some reason it is OK to waste everyone's time with over the top security to stop a tiny portion of terrorism deaths, while still being OK with high speed limits that kill thousand…
Does coke want kid's to become obese?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, en…
The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be…
Depends on which founding father you were talking about. Jeffersonians preferred weak central government and autonomous states while Hamiltonians preferred strong central government. It's what lead to the creation of political parties in Washington's administration.
>The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions.
The Bill of Rights limits both, that's why both state, local and federal laws can be deemed unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc. Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny. If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict c…
Mustard gas for the masses! Absolutely agreed though, it's a very internally inconsistent viewpoint from my perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, en…
The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be…
The founders very much didn't at the time of the founding. The framers by the time of the Constitution (a little over a decade later, and many of the same people) had moved quite a bit toward a strong central government based on the immediately-revealed practical problems with the abstract vision at the founding in functioning in the real world. Woth more experience, more practical problems were revealed; the Civil War being a key, but far from the only important, point in that process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be…
>The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign. Depends on which founding father you were talking about. Jeffersonians preferred weak central government and autonomous states while Hamiltonians preferred strong central government. It's what lead to the creation of political parties in Washington's administration. >The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the…
> The Bill of Rights limits both
No, it doesn’t.
Guarantees equivalent to most provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign. Depends on which founding father you were talking about. Jeffersonians preferred weak central government and autonomous states while Hamiltonians preferred strong central government. It's what lead to the creation of political parties in Washington's administration. >The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the…
> > The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions. > The Bill of Rights limits both No, it doesn’t. Guarantees equivalent to most provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
https://sixthamendment.org/the-right-to-counsel/history-of-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering how many crazy, extremely radicalized people are out there, I'm surprised attacks like this aren't much more common. The media overreports on how radical these people are. There's very few. However if COVID restrictions keep pushing forward I think that may change. Many people are at their breaking point right now. I'm fully vaccinated and I've already decided I'm never going to wear a mask again and av…
Even vaccinated folks can have the virus colonizing their airways, completely symptom free. Intentionally performing acts that could lead to the sickness or death of those around you seems pretty anti-social to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps people are less truly radicalized, and substantially more negotiable, than we've been lead to believe. It certainly benefits both the media and politicians to sell us a story that there are an extreme number of radicalized people out there. I've certainly never met any neo-Nazis. Not to say they don't exist, but if they are truly as common as I've been told, I think I'd have encountered some.
Throwing your average Joe on screen garners much fewer eyeballs and therefore isn't profitable. As some who had been lucky enough to live many years in both rural Florida and urban California, I can tell you beyond a doubt people are mostly (99%) reasonable, and mostly the same, they are just acting on different priorities, beliefs, and data :)
And yet, actual fascist governments have come to power even in nominally democratic countries.
People might only be "reasonable" when left to their own devices but there could always come a day when propaganda, sectarianism and social turmoil gets so out of hand that people don't see so reasonable anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about e.g. https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-... ? It's unreasonable to restrict ownership of arms unless you want to restrict violence to the government and organized criminals, which the founders most certainly did not intend. Police killed more Americans in 2019 than mass shooters, how can you make an argument in favor of the cops and courts controlling weaponry? Did you miss the pol…
I'm not a citizen of the US so I don't really have a horse in this race (about "gun rights") but I am curious about your comment. I don't understand how the right to bear arms has kept police from killing any Americans in 2019 and how it will keep them from killing more in 2021. Can you explain? I also don't understand how citizens of the US are meant to protect themselves against police with the weapons they're free…
The vast majority of these incidents happen to hardened criminals that almost no one in their right mind would support. A small fraction of these incidents involve innocent people, or people involved in situations where violence is not the answer and de-escalation would have been a better outcome.
The police have a large amount of support because the people involved in these incidents are, generally speaking, bad people that the majority would prefer to be in prison. Most people don't think the police are an oppressive force that should be fought against with lethal violence.