[strawhat89]

I'm just surprised he used 'moron' instead of 'moran'.

[CTphpnwb]

Craig328, on 09 January 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

CTphpnwb, on 09 January 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

What part of "well regulated" do NRA types not understand?

I can't stand not correcting this kind of stuff. Here, once and for all time, actually read the amendment before saying stupid crap:

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guess what, the framers used two different words there (militia/people). Can you guess why? If you said "because they're two different things" then step forward to claim your prize. The MILITIA (the arm of the government that had arms) is what is to be "well regulated". The right of "the people" is what is not only not well regulated but whose rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The reality is that the very wording recognizes the need of the government to possess a force "necessary to the security of a free state". Consider for a moment, why that qualifying phrase? It's because the only entities for whom a free state needs to ensure their security from is another state. In short, it's the framers' way of saying "the government can have guns because nations need to be able to defend themselves" but that such entities need to be "well regulated". This means, the military reports to a civilian head of state and take their orders from him. The people, on the other hand, can keep and bear arms and their right to do so is sacrosanct. Understand that nowhere else in the original Bill of Rights does it explicitly spell out to the government that a particular right of the people "shall not be infringed".

Incorrect. If the intent were that the "people" were not to be regulated then it would say so explicitly. The point of the amendment is that the reason the people have a right to bear arms is so that they can take part in a well regulated militia. There is nothing about exceptions such hunting, sport shooting, or any other purpose in the amendment. Well regulated applies to everyone and in fact can be seen to prohibit the kind of "militias" that tend to grow more popular in midwest states when we have a Democratic President because they're not well regulated — they're anarchists!

[lordofduct]

Oh god this is still going on...

I'm going back to bed.

[farrell2k]

I think gun enthusiasts are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their second amendment rights are not above restriction and regulation, and the same goes for all of our rights.

[supersloth]

oh, so jon is kipper.

[WolfCoder]

I'm just surprised people aren't bringing up how an improvised explosive stockpile is a more efficient way to go on insane killing sprees anyway. And I'm pretty sure it was always a felony for an average citizen to posses improvised explosives or refine them from household chemicals. And they forget Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine shooters (granted lots of their explosives didn't work for some reason even though their practice ones did), etc. And the authorities really do try and look for suspicious purchases and signs people are making explosives.

My point is that these horrible events will happen. They are noticed because they are rare enough and tragic enough. They will happen no matter how tough or lax the laws are (especially since the perpetrator might not expect to live through their crime).

[h4nnib4l]

What I've gathered from this thread (and the others) is that I'm a "wingnut" for owning guns and wanting to keep them, that I'm mentally ill because I want my family to be safe, and the only safe thread anymore is the fitness thread. And most of the people in the gun conversations here will resort to insults and distorting each other's positions to attack them, just like everywhere else. Which to me is indicative of the fact that there will never be a consensus, ever, ever, ever, so why doesn't everyone shut the fuck up about it already?

In other news, I make ~$1000 a year less now. All things considered, that's not much of a pay cut. I can handle that. The question is, what is the government going to do with that money? I would like to see some serious spending cuts, if nothing else as an act of good faith on the part of the government that they're trying to learn to be responsible with money.

EDIT: grammar

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 10 January 2013 - 10:52 AM

[modi123_1]

Quote

In other news, I make ~$1000 a year less now. All things considered, that's not much of a pay cut. I can handle that. The question is, what is the government going to do with that money?

Probably go back to spending it on what ever they were spending it on two years ago before the temporary tax cut went into effect.

Quote

Congress was able to pass legislation to keep broader middle class income taxes from rising. But workers will still have to pay at least 2% more in payroll taxes.

That's because the government had temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate in 2011 to 4.2% from 6.2%, in an effort to keep more cash in the pockets of Americans and provide a boost to the economy. The tax cut, which applies on the first $113,700 in annual earnings, expired on Monday.

cite

Quote

Which to me is indicative of the fact that there will never be a consensus, ever, ever, ever, so why doesn't everyone shut the fuck up about it already?

Are you talking about here, locally, on dic, or in general the larger national picture?

[jon.kiparsky]

modi123_1, on 10 January 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Quote

In other news, I make ~$1000 a year less now. All things considered, that's not much of a pay cut. I can handle that. The question is, what is the government going to do with that money?

Probably go back to spending it on what ever they were spending it on two years ago before the temporary tax cut went into effect.

Federal payroll taxes go to Social Security. You know, the hidden fund that republican politicians raid when they want to spend money and still pretend they're against taxes.

[supersloth]

h4nnib4l, on 10 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

What I've gathered from this thread (and the others) is that I'm a "wingnut" for owning guns and wanting to keep them, that I'm mentally ill because I want my family to be safe

it's funny that a lot of that came from a dude defending gun owners even though he didn't realize it though, right?

[modi123_1]

Naw.. I heard it goes to rainbows, and closing the quadra-corn gap with other super powers..

[jon.kiparsky]

That too.

[DarenR]

The tax rate is just going back to what it was before the temp drop down that was only supposed to last 4 years anyways.

[farrell2k]

DarenR, on 10 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

The tax rate is just going back to what it was before the temp drop down that was only supposed to last 4 years anyways.

Which demonstrates that complaining about it is all political nonsense.

h4nnib4l, on 10 January 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Which to me is indicative of the fact that there will never be a consensus, ever, ever, ever, so why doesn't everyone shut the fuck up about it already?

But there is a consensus about it. A majority of Americans favor common-sense gun regulation (NOT BANNING). The only people who claim there is no consensus are the people who disagree with the majority. A prime example is the literal genesis believers and evolution deniers. These things are controversies only in their eyes.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 10 January 2013 - 10:54 AM

[h4nnib4l]

@modi - I meant locally.

@sloth - yeah. I guess maybe part of the reason I want to quit is cuz my team has the retarded kid that always scores against his own team.