The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
10-05-2017, 12:07 PM
#9642
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
If I'm personally responsible because I'm a gun owner, then so are Democrats for doing nothing at all when they had control of the presidency and the house and Senate.
Reply
0
0
10-05-2017, 12:07 PM
#9643
In regards to the "original intent" there are two things that people forget. Firstly, as Joe alluded to: a militia, by definition, can only exist in a state of emergency. A militia is not a standing force, but raised from the population during a time of crisis. It is also not about national defense, but to ensure a Free State. Guns literally are the physical embodiment of our rights.
Second point, during the time of the American Revolution the standing armies of the world had inferior weapons to the private merchants and citizens of the American Colonies. In the initial stages of the revolution the rebels commandeered the privately owned canons from merchant ships and rifles from private owners. Remember that the smooth bore musket was the primary armament of every modern army in the world at the time, including the British Empire. An American privately owned rifle was a huge upgrade in technology and was much more deadly and accurate in every way. It could kill someone 3 or 4 times the distance that a smooth bore musket could and with much more reliability. At the time the amendment was written, the Continental Army's standard issues weapons were still smooth bore muskets; the army had inferior weapons to the people.
During this time the first repeating rifles were being developed. It's fair to say that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew that technology would only progress, and these weapons would only get deadlier.
Second point, during the time of the American Revolution the standing armies of the world had inferior weapons to the private merchants and citizens of the American Colonies. In the initial stages of the revolution the rebels commandeered the privately owned canons from merchant ships and rifles from private owners. Remember that the smooth bore musket was the primary armament of every modern army in the world at the time, including the British Empire. An American privately owned rifle was a huge upgrade in technology and was much more deadly and accurate in every way. It could kill someone 3 or 4 times the distance that a smooth bore musket could and with much more reliability. At the time the amendment was written, the Continental Army's standard issues weapons were still smooth bore muskets; the army had inferior weapons to the people.
During this time the first repeating rifles were being developed. It's fair to say that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew that technology would only progress, and these weapons would only get deadlier.
Reply
0
0
10-05-2017, 02:15 PM
#9647
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
remember when kimmel used to be a man?
Street Artist Targets Jimmy Kimmel | Hollywood Reporter
I went to see Dave Chappelle the other day, and spent hundreds of dollars listen to a dude whine about trump -- there was like a joke or two in there.
Street Artist Targets Jimmy Kimmel | Hollywood Reporter
Stephen Colbert used a harsh profanity to describe President Trump on Wednesday during an appearance on stage at Michael Moore’s one-man Broadway play, “The Terms of My Surrender.”
Mr. Colbert, the host of “The Late Show” on CBS, was one of the special guests whom Mr. Moore regularly invites to take part in the production. As the two men sat in armchairs with a large American flag illuminated in the background, Mr. Moore asked Mr. Colbert at one point, “How do you carry on now?” — a reference to the liberal late-night host’s approach to the Trump presidency.
Mr. Moore added, “Your ability to use satire and humor to say the emperor has no clothes is profound every single night.”
Laugh through the fear, Mr. Colbert replied.
“Trump keeps summoning monsters of abstraction — things that aren’t real — they’re extensions of the ordinary, fears that you have that he plays on,” Mr. Colbert said.“He wants to brush people into a corner where he can shine his feeble, ******* anemic firefly of a soul,” Mr. Colbert continued, inching his two pointer fingers close together.
Mr. Colbert, the host of “The Late Show” on CBS, was one of the special guests whom Mr. Moore regularly invites to take part in the production. As the two men sat in armchairs with a large American flag illuminated in the background, Mr. Moore asked Mr. Colbert at one point, “How do you carry on now?” — a reference to the liberal late-night host’s approach to the Trump presidency.
Mr. Moore added, “Your ability to use satire and humor to say the emperor has no clothes is profound every single night.”
Laugh through the fear, Mr. Colbert replied.
“Trump keeps summoning monsters of abstraction — things that aren’t real — they’re extensions of the ordinary, fears that you have that he plays on,” Mr. Colbert said.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main storyI went to see Dave Chappelle the other day, and spent hundreds of dollars listen to a dude whine about trump -- there was like a joke or two in there.
Reply
0
0
10-05-2017, 03:55 PM
#9649
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Although out bar hopping later that evening many said his 2nd show of the evening was terrible as he was so drunk/stoned (was smoking a huge blunt on stage during the 1st show) that he kept rambling, going off-topic, etc.
Reply
0
0
10-06-2017, 03:41 PM
#9658
Further news
Wow, $5M 
Investigators Probing Whether Others Were in Las Vegas Gunman’s Suite
Investigators Probing Whether Others Were in Las Vegas Gunman’s Suite
Investigators are trying to determine whether someone else was in the Las Vegas gunman's hotel room when he was registered there, senior law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation told NBC News.
The investigators are puzzled by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cellphones that belonged to the gunman, Stephen Paddock.
And second: Garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room.
There are several possible explanations for these anomalies, the investigators say, but they want to get to the bottom of it.
They are also examining his finances. IRS records show that Paddock was a successful gambler, earning at least $5 million in 2015. Some of that could be from other investments, but most of it was from gambling, officials say.
Investigators are trying to determine whether someone else was in the Las Vegas gunman's hotel room when he was registered there, senior law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation told NBC News.
The investigators are puzzled by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cellphones that belonged to the gunman, Stephen Paddock.
And second: Garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room.
There are several possible explanations for these anomalies, the investigators say, but they want to get to the bottom of it.
They are also examining his finances. IRS records show that Paddock was a successful gambler, earning at least $5 million in 2015. Some of that could be from other investments, but most of it was from gambling, officials say.
Investigators Probing Whether Others Were in Las Vegas Gunman’s Suite
Reply
0
0
10-06-2017, 04:24 PM
#9660
I've seen a lot of charts and graphs depicting gun ownership rates relative to gun violence which show that as guns increase, so does gun violence, and I want to reiterate: This is a straw argument.
A valid argument would be to depict how gun ownership rates compare to *all violent crimes*. Basically, if guns are illegal - of course there are going to be fewer gun crimes.
Some time ago, marijuana was made legal in Colorado. Now to be fair, for my particular line of work (and in line with my own personal preferences), I am strongly against the legalization of marijuana. Twice a year since the legalization of Marijuana, a group of mostly government related bodies produces a report on the affects of marijuana, and some of the facts that they provided were....shocking? Since the legalization of Marijuana, the number of people who have died with Marijuana in their systems has increased significantly - additionally there are far more traffic fatalities with marijuana in their system, there are far more DUIs where drivers also test positive for marijuana, far more violent crimes, there are far more...basically in any metric where you could show that a person had consumed marijuana before something bad happened to them, they had numbers to show as such - marijuana, by the numbers being reported, was causing more damage than good.
What they failed to report on were total deaths, total violent crimes, total DUIs, etc. For all we know, based on reading the report, total deaths, violent crimes, DUIs, etc., could have decreased - hell, they could have decreased by half, but that wasn't what we were being led to believe. If the total number of violent criminals who tested positive for THC in their system quintupled, but total overall violent crime decreased by half, wouldn't that still be a good thing? We don't get that data from their reports - and maybe total violent crime even increased with the legalization of marijuana - what those reports try to tell us is that as a higher percentage of the population consumed marijuana, total crimes committed* increased.
*Very fine print: "by that larger population"
A valid argument would be to depict how gun ownership rates compare to *all violent crimes*. Basically, if guns are illegal - of course there are going to be fewer gun crimes.
Some time ago, marijuana was made legal in Colorado. Now to be fair, for my particular line of work (and in line with my own personal preferences), I am strongly against the legalization of marijuana. Twice a year since the legalization of Marijuana, a group of mostly government related bodies produces a report on the affects of marijuana, and some of the facts that they provided were....shocking? Since the legalization of Marijuana, the number of people who have died with Marijuana in their systems has increased significantly - additionally there are far more traffic fatalities with marijuana in their system, there are far more DUIs where drivers also test positive for marijuana, far more violent crimes, there are far more...basically in any metric where you could show that a person had consumed marijuana before something bad happened to them, they had numbers to show as such - marijuana, by the numbers being reported, was causing more damage than good.
What they failed to report on were total deaths, total violent crimes, total DUIs, etc. For all we know, based on reading the report, total deaths, violent crimes, DUIs, etc., could have decreased - hell, they could have decreased by half, but that wasn't what we were being led to believe. If the total number of violent criminals who tested positive for THC in their system quintupled, but total overall violent crime decreased by half, wouldn't that still be a good thing? We don't get that data from their reports - and maybe total violent crime even increased with the legalization of marijuana - what those reports try to tell us is that as a higher percentage of the population consumed marijuana, total crimes committed* increased.
*Very fine print: "by that larger population"
Reply
0
0
