The Goat Pen

I would kiss Beyonce where she poops if she asked me to.

"Video is what galvanized the public and led the Attorney General to act. Public opinion led to dropping the charges against Rodney King"

When South Central LA riots against government it is called "public opinion". When a group of religious zealots rise up against government it is called terrorism.

So, by what Owlman is saying, the difference is in the authority that oppresses you. If it is state, your civil rights ahve been violated. if it is federal, not so.

And you wonder why so many people are buying guns?

Owlman wrote:

eCat wrote:

Owlman wrote:

so are you saying they have a legitimate fear? Are there a lot of shootouts over people running stops signs?

It's not the many, it's the fear. They talk about it all the time.

Its probably not many police that shoot innocent citizens, but its the fear. They talk about it all the time.

So the response is to shoot the policeman because of the fear. They come to you house, open fire? Keep your automatic weapon to shoot the police because of the fear? You sure that's what you want to advocate eCat? I need any and all weapons to open fire against my govt because of the fear that they may shoot an innocent in the performance of their duties that we the people have assigned them?[/quote]


nope, I need any and all weapons at my disposal because I may choose to open fire if I am the innocent being attacked. We've already established that society norms means that a well armed citizenry will not choose to open fire on police for routine actions. So what I'm advocating is exactly what I believe the founding fathers were advocating - the armed citizens to keep the balance of power between government and its citizens in check. And so far I think its safe to say the government has killed more innocent civilians than vice versa.

What you are advocating is complete trust that the system will prevail, which I think pretty much goes against the entire concept of how this country was founded. And perhaps more importantly, a complete lack of trust in the American citizen to live within society boundaries - not laws - but society norms. Such as you don't shoot a policeman for stopping you over a traffic fine.

All of this discussion we're having really highlights why we can't have an honest discussion about gun control in this country.

Because as much as the gun control people talk about "when can we have a real discussion about gun control", if they press for gun registration, yet cannot answer as to how it would have stopped Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Tuscon and Virginia Tech, , and they press for assault rifle ban when they can't point to it actually decreasing the potential for mass shootings, then its not a genuine discussion about preventing gun violence. Its about a bigger agenda on their vision of what gun ownership should really be in this country.

As as I think you've demonstrated Spacer, there is a much broader intent you have , for example, your justification that you cannot support anyone who believes in taking up arms against the government should the government oppress them so the government should know who they are and what guns they have so they cannot in fact fight the government.

Which is exactly why anti-gun control people fight to enter into discussions about this - because the people that have died at the hands of mentally ill people possessing guns are now an after thought. The bigger agenda is now in play.

Not a single life at Newtown would have been saved due to gun registration.

sardis wrote:"Video is what galvanized the public and led the Attorney General to act. Public opinion led to dropping the charges against Rodney King"

When South Central LA riots against government it is called "public opinion". When a group of religious zealots rise up against government it is called terrorism.

So, by what Owlman is saying, the difference is in the authority that oppresses you. If it is state, your civil rights ahve been violated. if it is federal, not so.

And you wonder why so many people are buying guns?

Probably the same reason people make a run on milk before a predicted snowstorm. Media embellishment

Bill Clinton talks to democrats pushing gun legislation from a pragmatic standpoint


“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.
“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world."
“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,” Clinton said.
“A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence. Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.”
Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms. In fact, then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley, D-Wash., lost his job and his seat in Congress.
“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you are for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

So, by what Owlman is saying, the difference is in the authority that oppresses you. If it is state, your civil rights ahve been violated. if it is federal, not so

Hardly. I'm saying that you can't use the same law with ease going after the feds. 1983 actions aren't available against the feds as the law was passed under the 14th Amendment which doesn't apply to the feds. As for the LA Riots, by themselves, I doubt there would have been charges. For what it's worth, I now and forever was against the riots. Protests would have been enough. I'm now, in the past and in the future against the idea of taking up arms against the govt of the United States. So I was against the riots then and now. And while there may be an exception at some point (as I really don't believe in absolutes), neither Randy Weaver nor Rodney King were it.

Like I told Wiz when Obama won the first time. If you don't like it, move to Cuba. He's still crying.

Bill Maher hit the nail on the head on his show Friday regarding this.

We're losing our freedom of privacy all around us, but we'll only make a fuss about the 2nd Amendment. Patriot Act, FISA Warrants, diminishing search and seizure protections and a long list of others...and only a small amount make a peep.

If you try to limit the size of magazine clips or types of weapons, then all hell breaks loose and people want to use the Constitution as their foundation. I wish people focused in on the real threats to us as a people that would have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

LOL, I was just talking to IB about people falling off of ladders, he said that was rare. Just got a call from one of our drivers, said he was working on his roof this weekend and fell off the ladder, he'll be out this week...

Bklyn wrote:Bill Maher hit the nail on the head on his show Friday regarding this.

We're losing our freedom of privacy all around us, but we'll only make a fuss about the 2nd Amendment. Patriot Act, FISA Warrants, diminishing search and seizure protections and a long list of others...and only a small amount make a peep.

If you try to limit the size of magazine clips or types of weapons, then all hell breaks loose and people want to use the Constitution as their foundation. I wish people focused in on the real threats to us as a people that would have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

that's not entirely true- there is a group on the political landscape that has been talking about Americans losing their freedoms for quite some time. They were dismissed by the GOP and the American public garnering only 2% of the vote. They are just as fervent about the Patriot Act as they are gun control. There is a consistency among Libertarians in regards to freedoms that you don't see with Republicans or Democrats.

Well, my petty defense will be that I did say "only a small amount make a peep." About 2% of the population is where I was thinking (actually, about double that...but the others held their nose and went with their party of choice).

To me, that's one of my biggest disappointments regarding Obama. He fooled me big time. I thought, being a ConLaw Professor, he would address these overreaches by the Executive and Legislative branches. He's only continued them or chosen to refrain from employing them, not dismantling them, outright.

For most of the public, willfull ignorance or the Jack Bauer Principle is where things seem to stay. That loss of freedom and our rights are more important to me than gun regulations on extended clips and semi-autos that (personally) don't even feel like you're firing a weapon when you squeeze off the rounds. I've experienced more fatigue playing the basketball shooting game at ESPN Zone...but I digress.

Bklyn wrote:Well, my petty defense will be that I did say "only a small amount make a peep." About 2% of the population is where I was thinking (actually, about double that...but the others held their nose and went with their party of choice).

To me, that's one of my biggest disappointments regarding Obama. He fooled me big time. I thought, being a ConLaw Professor, he would address these overreaches by the Executive and Legislative branches. He's only continued them or chosen to refrain from employing them, not dismantling them, outright.

For most of the public, willfull ignorance or the Jack Bauer Principle is where things seem to stay. That loss of freedom and our rights are more important to me than gun regulations on extended clips and semi-autos that (personally) don't even feel like you're firing a weapon when you squeeze off the rounds. I've experienced more fatigue playing the basketball shooting game at ESPN Zone...but I digress.

I believed him about Guantanamo. I think he and I both got schooled about who actually runs the country.

I can't believe someone here hasn't brought this up yet

"They're usually thought of as a brutish, primitive species.

So what woman would want to give birth to a Neanderthal baby?

Yet this incredible scenario is the plan of one of the world’s leading geneticists, who is seeking a volunteer to help bring man’s long-extinct close relative back to life.

Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species which became extinct 33,000 years ago.

His scheme is reminiscent of Jurassic Park but, while in the film dinosaurs were created in a laboratory, Professor Church’s ambitious plan requires a human volunteer.

He said his analysis of Neanderthal genetic code using samples from bones is complete enough to reconstruct their DNA.

He said: ‘Now I need an adventurous female human.

‘It depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think it can be done.’

Professor Church’s plan would begin by artificially creating Neanderthal DNA based on genetic code found in fossil remains. He would put this DNA into stem cells.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2IjAlrd3s
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"

Why the fuck would anyone want to do that? That's crazy. I'm sure there will be a woman who would volunteer for it...shit, a few crack head/meth heads would do it on the cheap. They already have close-to Neanderthal children for free now.

Guantanamo

I do give him a pass for that...for reasons you alluded to. He tried to shut it down, but Congress blocked him at every turn. So, I can't fault him for exhausting his options there. I think he still thinks it's criminal, at worst, but is willing to have it live in the gray legality area for lack of a better solution. That issue doesn't rate on my list of gripes.

The structuring of the AIG bail out, however, I keep hammering him for. Idiotic. He got played by my comrades up here in lower Manhattan and that's why he talked so much shit about them by year two of his Presidency (even after he had received so much money from them in 2008).

He may think its criminal but he's overlooked a bunch of shit that he thought was criminal when he was campaigning.

as for the Neanderthal. its wreckless to say the least. You can't do that and think of it as a lab chimp.

A neanderthal is technically human, are you going to give it human rights when it pops out or just have it live a life running a bunch of tests on its intelligence and learning capacity and problem solving and all that (all the time acting as if you are getting any meaningful information from that, because you could do the same tests on any particular human and get anything from genius to spectacular dumbass)

aTm wrote:A neanderthal is technically human, are you going to give it human rights when it pops out or just have it live a life running a bunch of tests on its intelligence and learning capacity and problem solving and all that (all the time acting as if you are getting any meaningful information from that, because you could do the same tests on any particular human and get anything from genius to spectacular dumbass)

What does Michael Crighton have to say about it?

The Neanderthal probably escapes and murders a bunch of people including this scientist guy.

Neanderthals were very strong. Dense bones and the way the muscles connected would make them ferocious in football.

Does anyone really doubt that Nick Saban has a feasibility team working out details?

Nick Cage already has rights to play him in his movie.

Hell, there won't be much novelty to it, we already have Honey Boo Boo