tytiger58 wrote:Ha sorry I just threw the Torah in at the spur of the moment...and to push your button a little and no IMHO your not too rational about religion. But really all of these books/documents hold some great truths and IMO should not just be scrapped because a bunch of (ignorant self serving politicians) or leaders of religion can't figure it out.

Oh, I know. Great truths are just that - and are independent of their sources. I don't care where the great truth comes from, but "abortion is categorically wrong/right" is not a great truth, for example.

klezman wrote:Oh, I know. Great truths are just that - and are independent of their sources. I don't care where the great truth comes from, but "abortion is categorically wrong/right" is not a great truth, for example.

If you really wanted to talk about abortion you should have said so in the first post

tytiger58 wrote:Well if your going down that road why not throw out the Bible, Koran, the Torah etc? At some point they are all telling you how to live etc and the writers new nothing of the complexities of the modern world. If your going to stir the pot go all the way

It's worth looking at. There are plenty of bible enthusiasts who ignore the shellfish rule, for example. They say it's not important anymore for this reason or that. I see no problem with updating your views as we go along. No need to throw it all out, since we'd just replace it with something else.

The shellfish people though...I think most of them have some reason for abandoning the rule. Food safety has changed over time, or whatever. So they're admitting that there was a reason for the rule in the first place. If you're a "just because" kind of person, it might be more difficult.

Can someone explain the fiscal cliff resolution to me? I was out of town/touch. Who won? I have a feeling that answer is "not us."

Sorry, can't explain the fiscall cliff deal. I think it's safe to say nobody won, but that was almost a given right from the start.

But on an entirely different topic, I do find this interesting. I've been of the opinion for some time that the mindlessly anti-GMO crowd (and many of the complaints truly are of the mindless "let's study this for another few centuries until we have 100% certainty" or "but it's Frankenfood!!!!" kinds) is just as bad as the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the "climate change is a giant conspiracy" crowd. Throwing in the anti-vaccine stupiddity is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

coynedj wrote:Sorry, can't explain the fiscall cliff deal. I think it's safe to say nobody won, but that was almost a given right from the start.

But on an entirely different topic, I do find this interesting. I've been of the opinion for some time that the mindlessly anti-GMO crowd (and many of the complaints truly are of the mindless "let's study this for another few centuries until we have 100% certainty" or "but it's Frankenfood!!!!" kinds) is just as bad as the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the "climate change is a giant conspiracy" crowd. Throwing in the anti-vaccine stupiddity is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

Science is scary!!!

kylemittskus wrote:Can someone explain the fiscal cliff resolution to me? I was out of town/touch. Who won? I have a feeling that answer is "not us."

The extent of my understanding is that the payroll tax holiday is gone, and taxes are going up for the $400k+ crowd (of which I am not a member, so I have no details). Oh, and something about milk.

chemvictim wrote:The extent of my understanding is that the payroll tax holiday is gone, and taxes are going up for the $400k+ crowd (of which I am not a member, so I have no details). Oh, and something about milk.

right. mostly they punted. in addition to the above, they allowed 24 billion (about 2 months worth) of mandatory cuts to get a stay. So come March, there will be the same (if not larger) fiscal cliff to tackle. and they extended "emergency" unemployment benefits, a bunch of tax deductions, and the AMT. Oh, and I saw one report said that it was actually scored as a 3.9 trillion tax CUT over 10 years, since it was passed after the taxes reverted.

joelsisk wrote:right. mostly they punted. in addition to the above, they allowed 24 billion (about 2 months worth) of mandatory cuts to get a stay. So come March, there will be the same (if not larger) fiscal cliff to tackle. and they extended "emergency" unemployment benefits, a bunch of tax deductions, and the AMT. Oh, and I saw one report said that it was actually scored as a 3.9 trillion tax CUT over 10 years, since it was passed after the taxes reverted.

I know it's not good liberal-speak to say so, but enough already with the extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment is great, it's really helped me out before, but dammit it should not last that long. People do not look for work very hard, or they work off the books. If even I know that, then everyone else must know it too.

chemvictim wrote:I know it's not good liberal-speak to say so, but enough already with the extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment is great, it's really helped me out before, but dammit it should not last that long. People do not look for work very hard, or they work off the books. If even I know that, then everyone else must know it too.

While I agree in principle, there are also just not enough jobs out there to employ all who are looking. What do we do in that case?

coynedj wrote:Sorry, can't explain the fiscall cliff deal. I think it's safe to say nobody won, but that was almost a given right from the start.

But on an entirely different topic, I do find this interesting. I've been of the opinion for some time that the mindlessly anti-GMO crowd (and many of the complaints truly are of the mindless "let's study this for another few centuries until we have 100% certainty" or "but it's Frankenfood!!!!" kinds) is just as bad as the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the "climate change is a giant conspiracy" crowd. Throwing in the anti-vaccine stupiddity is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. Ignorance. Isn't it blissful? More so if it's willful?

klezman wrote:While I agree in principle, there are also just not enough jobs out there to employ all who are looking. What do we do in that case?

You haven't been paying attention, we absolve the wealthy from taxes entirely so that they can create jobs! Duh!

There's no real good answer to this is there?

klezman wrote:Yes. Ignorance. Isn't it blissful? More so if it's willful?

I haven't read it, I have this feeling I would become enraged. Am I right?

joelsisk wrote:

that's so awesome.

Look, I'm ashamed that I even clicked link, but this cements Cali as probably the stupidest place in the world.

Though I suppose if I can get out of it by supplying my DNA it's not the end of the world, but really?

bhodilee wrote:I haven't read it, I have this feeling I would become enraged. Am I right?

Your threshold is low, so that's highly likely.

klezman wrote:Your threshold is low, so that's highly likely.

I do not suffer fools

Edit: I was actually pleased. Anti-GMO guy says, holy crap I was wrong. Gotta love that. Now I didn't read hte comments. I don't have the stomach for that.

bhodilee wrote:Look, I'm ashamed that I even clicked link, but this cements Cali as probably the stupidest place in the world.

Though I suppose if I can get out of it by supplying my DNA it's not the end of the world, but really?

Cali has its issues, clearly. But do you have a personal stake in this? If you're really Mr. Humphries, out yourself right now.

Obama and Biden are on tv to talk about gun control laws. They're framing it as a "think of the children" issue. Like I told Sparky on facebook, that's BS. I am annoyed.

chemvictim wrote:Obama and Biden are on tv to talk about gun control laws. They're framing it as a "think of the children" issue. Like I told Sparky on facebook, that's BS. I am annoyed.

That's ok, the NRA is doing think of the children as well. I moderately agree with protection of the right to bear arms (although I would have stringent reporting requirements, fwiw), I cannot see any benefit to having armed security.

#1: Huge expense for what remains a statistically negligible occurence

#2: As w police shootouts, innocent bystanders likely stand to suffer the most.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2bKw7ZsQgtc

People continue to lose their Brony about guns. I'm actually on their side - I'm on the side of "don't take away ANY more of our freedoms!" But oh em gee, the drama! Reading comments on any random page about gun control scares the hell out of me and entertains me at the same time.

I think it would be pretty cool if these people would take their passion for their own preferred freedom issue and have a little empathy, extend their concern to others' freedoms as well.

This thread has sure gotten quiet. Not like the old days. Let’s see if we can get the discussion started again.

I hope that I’m not the only person around here who is troubled by the drone program, and the recent revelations about it. I haven’t read all of the pro and con arguments about our drone policies, so maybe what I (poorly) go on about here has already been addressed – if there’s someone here who had followed this closely, maybe he or she can set me straight. Yes, al Qaida (or however you spell it) is filled with Bad People, and the same goes for any number of other groups in this world. Many of these people would be more than happy to kill Americans, given a good opportunity. But does that really justify a program under which an amorphously-defined “high-level official” of the U.S. government can decide that someone in a foreign country can be blown up, based on a conclusion that he is an “imminent threat” because he is a member of al Qaida or an “associated force” whatever that means (and what is considered an associated force is also decided by high-level U.S. government officials)?


This terrorist war is not like other wars, and we can’t use the old rules of war when fighting it. I get that. This is obvious, and has been brought up many times by supporters of the drone policy as a way of saying “we can do whatever we think will work”. German or Japanese soldiers in World War II were clear and unambiguous targets even if they weren’t actively engaged in shooting at us, while terrorist don't so easily self-identify. But does that mean that we can go after anyone we deem to be a member of a group that has in the past or might in the future target Americans? And that we can go after them at any time, anywhere in the world? Would we accept it if the U.K., for instance, declared that they could kill people in America on the same justification? On a battlefield you can’t put together a kill list and debate whether such and such a person should be on that list, but in this newfangled “war” you can, and we do. Vesting the power to decide who should be on that list in a “high-level official” seems mighty dangerous to me.

I just wonder if we aren’t becoming a “shoot first and ask questions later” nation, and whether this is a betrayal of what we claim to be.

Anyone for discussion about gun control?

ERMD wrote:Anyone for discussion about gun control?

I think that's what got Sparky and rpm to leave :-/

klezman wrote:I think that's what got Sparky and rpm to leave :-/

rpm left after Obama won. A comment Sparky misinterpreted of mine was the catalyst for his departure. Since this is the honest and no hurt feelings thread, I think "took their toys and went home" is a more accurate description vis a vis "leave."

ERMD: is the 2nd amendment absurd considering the govt has drones, nuclear weapons, Navy, Air Force, army, Marine, and special ops troops and toys, satellites, etc. etc.? Not much a militia could do to stand up against the govt no matter how many weekend warriors they have in their troop. And since that was the spirit of the 2nd amendment...

kylemittskus wrote:rpm left after Obama won. A comment Sparky misinterpreted of mine was the catalyst for his departure. Since this is the honest and no hurt feelings thread, I think "took their toys and went home" is a more accurate description vis a vis "leave."

ERMD: is the 2nd amendment absurd considering the govt has drones, nuclear weapons, Navy, Air Force, army, Marine, and special ops troops and toys, satellites, etc. etc.? Not much a militia could do to stand up against the govt no matter how many weekend warriors they have in their troop. And since that was the spirit of the 2nd amendment...

I understand your point, but when we give up and say ok you win, we all have lost.
And just because the govt has the "toys" doesn't mean they have the people for those toys.I am amazed at how some in the military are standing up, even in uniform.
Do I need a 300 magazine for my ar-15? No I suppose not but I also don't need a 5.8l engine in my truck either and there are more vehicle deaths.

I don't know enough about this drone stuff to have an intelligent opinion. I think it's something to be very concerned about, and the idea that some guy can just target an American and pewpew is disturbing as hell. On the other hand, we're at war and pewpew'ing our enemies is the point. How do we determine when Americans are the enemy? Tough one, but somebody has to do it and I guess that's why we have a commander in chief.

As for gun control, there are a lot of angles there. I think the days when we can militia up and fight off the feds are looong gone. However, we still have local gov't to think about. Imagine rural areas where we have a county sheriff and a few minions. Not saying they're more likely to go bad in rural areas, but it's easier for things to escalate if you only have a couple of guys covering an entire county. I'm not that paranoid, although it is within the realm of possibility.

More importantly though, making more gun laws is just going to piss people off and increase paranoia, and it's not going to do any good. It's not worth it.

My opinion on the gun control situation fluctuates. I think that the 2nd ammendment is largely meaningless now (although I didn't think about rural areas chem). Out of the other side of my mouth, though, I want to carry a gun. I dislike the idea of the gov't telling me I can't have a hobby, collection, and/or protection.

Do I think that guns prevent crime? I think they could. I also think that the gov't (and largely the democrats in this case) have done a fanstic job of making the issue one that people emotionally react to while simultaneously addressing a very tiny part of an issue. People are reacting to the mass gun-involved killings. Indeed, they are horribly tragic. However, instances where more than one person is killed when a gun is involved represent somewhere between 3-6% (depending on the source and definition of perameters) of all gun killings. If we, for argument's sake, say we have a gun violence issue, then we are reacting to and attempting to solve at best 6% of an issue. And that's just addressing the in-issue issue. As you say, ERMD, vehilcle deaths are a larger issue. Smoking, an even larger one. But those aren't "get angry and feel good about taking a stand issue." And in some cases, the smoking issue becomes, "don't tell me what to do." Ironic.

The Colorado House passed 4 gun control measures yesterday.

It will be interested to see if they pass the Colorado Senate. and then which get signed by the Governor.

chemvictim wrote:I don't know enough about this drone stuff to have an intelligent opinion. I think it's something to be very concerned about, and the idea that some guy can just target an American and pewpew is disturbing as hell. On the other hand, we're at war and pewpew'ing our enemies is the point. How do we determine when Americans are the enemy? Tough one, but somebody has to do it and I guess that's why we have a commander in chief.

As for gun control, there are a lot of angles there. I think the days when we can militia up and fight off the feds are looong gone. However, we still have local gov't to think about. Imagine rural areas where we have a county sheriff and a few minions. Not saying they're more likely to go bad in rural areas, but it's easier for things to escalate if you only have a couple of guys covering an entire county. I'm not that paranoid, although it is within the realm of possibility.

More importantly though, making more gun laws is just going to piss people off and increase paranoia, and it's not going to do any good. It's not worth it.

For me it's pretty simple.

You're an American, plotting against America and you're currently on foreign soil? No due process.

You're the above, but actually on American soil, you should probably get due process

Location, location, location

joelsisk wrote:The Colorado House passed 4 gun control measures yesterday.

It will be interested to see if they pass the Colorado Senate. and then which get signed by the Governor.

I only really object to the first one, but only because it's an arbitrary number and stupid. Otherwise, I have never understood why there is a background check for a pistol, but not a shotgun. Just seems stupid. I'm also all for the person who wants the gun having to pay for his/her background check. College campuses and conceal and carry, meh, but I'm not really against it either.

bhodilee wrote:I only really object to the first one, but only because it's an arbitrary number and stupid. Otherwise, I have never understood why there is a background check for a pistol, but not a shotgun. Just seems stupid. I'm also all for the person who wants the gun having to pay for his/her background check. College campuses and conceal and carry, meh, but I'm not really against it either.

Magazine size limits are completely arbitrary... and why are they different for different weapons? I'm pretty sure that in the average American world outside of Hollywood, "one shot, two kills" isn't feasible, so wouldn't you think every gun should have the same limit? Then again, my rifle is bolt action (single shot), so what do I know from magazines anyway.

I agree, the paying for your own background check is fine. But the reasoning against requiring them for any individuals (as opposed to dealers/stores) is 1- who is going to enforce it and how? It's not like you have "title" for a gun that needs to be registered... 2- it only applies to "sales", which again, aren't necessarily registered anywhere. I'm sure if this passes, you'll see people "gifting" guns (and being gifted something else in return) instead of selling them to avoid the statute. And of course, it's kind of a complicated process for an individual who just wants to sell his only gun.

I'm most against concealed carry restrictions on campi (and others). Just seems like a bizarre artificial zone... that is primarily populated by FULLY LEGAL ADULTS.

joelsisk wrote:Magazine size limits are completely arbitrary... and why are they different for different weapons? I'm pretty sure that in the average American world outside of Hollywood, "one shot, two kills" isn't feasible, so wouldn't you think every gun should have the same limit? Then again, my rifle is bolt action (single shot), so what do I know from magazines anyway.

I agree, the paying for your own background check is fine. But the reasoning against requiring them for any individuals (as opposed to dealers/stores) is 1- who is going to enforce it and how? It's not like you have "title" for a gun that needs to be registered... 2- it only applies to "sales", which again, aren't necessarily registered anywhere. I'm sure if this passes, you'll see people "gifting" guns (and being gifted something else in return) instead of selling them to avoid the statute. And of course, it's kind of a complicated process for an individual who just wants to sell his only gun.

I'm most against concealed carry restrictions on campi (and others). Just seems like a bizarre artificial zone... that is primarily populated by FULLY LEGAL ADULTS.

So, then, would you be in favour of registering all guns? That would "solve" the universal background check issue you raise.

klezman wrote:So, then, would you be in favour of registering all guns? That would "solve" the universal background check issue you raise.

think about this, would it REALLY help. No
And do you want to tell my rancher friend in Texas who have illegals running through like water through a strainer he can't have a 30 round mag.?

ERMD wrote:think about this, would it REALLY help. No
And do you want to tell my rancher friend in Texas who have illegals running through like water through a strainer he can't have a 30 round mag.?

That's a whole lot of illegals
I honestly don't know which policies make the most sense. I see no issues with universal registration and extremely strict licensing requirements. It ought to be harder to get a gun than a drivers' license imo.

ERMD wrote:think about this, would it REALLY help. No
And do you want to tell my rancher friend in Texas who have illegals running through like water through a strainer he can't have a 30 round mag.?

how many illegals does your friend shoot? I find after I shoot six, they've either fired back and I'm dead or they run away. Basically, they're either not causing the kind of harm that warrants getting shot or if they are, they're a whole other level of illegal and he should not be PC LOAD LETTERing with them.

klezman wrote:That's a whole lot of illegals
I honestly don't know which policies make the most sense. I see no issues with universal registration and extremely strict licensing requirements. It ought to be harder to get a gun than a drivers' license imo.

I see a lot of issues, do you really want the govt telling you if you can or can not have something?
As for driver license, more death and harm by cars then guns. I see people everyday that should not be licensed to drive and they are; why?; because the govt regulates it. Now really, is the govt the answer?
Ok I am for some regulation really, but what is the limit?Once we give govt control, we lose some individuality.

bhodilee wrote:how many illegals does your friend shoot? I find after I shoot six, they've either fired back and I'm dead or they run away. Basically, they're either not causing the kind of harm that warrants getting shot or if they are, they're a whole other level of illegal and he should not be PC LOAD LETTERing with them.

None yet, but his house and ranch equipment has been burglarized. He lives about 20 miles from neuvo laredo (sic). So, if say, 15 were crossing in front of your farm /ranch/home without regard, how would YOU feel about the protection of your wife and children?
So we shouldnt "PC LOAD LETTER with them"? I wouldnt, like I told you before on my t shirt..."I see death everyday, yours wont bother me either."(not you brother Bhod)

ERMD wrote:None yet, but his house and ranch equipment has been burglarized. He lives about 20 miles from neuvo laredo (sic). So, if say, 15 were crossing in front of your farm /ranch/home without regard, how would YOU feel about the protection of your wife and children?
So we shouldnt "PC LOAD LETTER with them"? I wouldnt, like I told you before on my t shirt..."I see death everyday, yours wont bother me either."(not you brother Bhod)

I'm just saying, 30 round, 200 round, whatever size clip isn't going to matter. If a large group of illegals decides to kill his family, they're dead. Now, clip size arguments are stupid in the first place, we both agree on that.