posted
That and the other R politicians who quite brazenly had said "This law isn't to stop black people from voting, its to stop Democrats from voting."
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit I'm curious as to who opposed background checks for firearms purchases, here on Hatrack.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure if I saw the moniker I'd remember but it was one of the more brazen non-Lisa libertarians.
quote: Its capaxinfiniti.
According to you, I'm a brazen, non-Lisa libertarian? More likely you have your definitions/people muddled.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muddled definitions and identities seem to be fairly common problem here, unfortunately. We should consult the Samprany of Orincolo, he might be able to help us make sense of this.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's amazing the sort of things you can find out with 15 seconds and a Google search.
"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
quote:"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
The system works.
So what you're saying is you made a definitive statement based on a hunch, fabricated some details in order to make your lie sound plausible, then used capaxinfiniti to support your "memory" after the fact. Classy.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should have mail in ballots for anyone who wants one. Skip the entire need to go to the poll and dramatically increase turnout.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think we should have mail in ballots for anyone who wants one. Skip the entire need to go to the poll and dramatically increase turnout.
Heck, given a reliable and comprehensive PKI infrastructure, we could conceivably move to voting online. In the military, we've already moved towards digital signatures for the bulk of our paperwork. (this has actually been something my Battalion has been transitioning towards in the past 6 months, with the goal of going paper free by the end of 2015) They're actually more secure than regular signatures, as they hold a lot more information about the person signing, and encrypt the document in a way that it can only be unsigned or edited by the person signing. It may be theoretically breakable, but it's a heck of a lot more secure than, say, whiteout, or the old trick of putting a blank cut out piece of paper over the parts of the document you want to edit, making a copy and filling it in.
Of course, this is only feasible because everyone in the military has a Controlled Access Card (CAC) with their PKI certificates stored on them. (a signature certificate, a DoD systems certificate, and an e-mail certificate) These CACs are password secured, and we've moved to using biometrics as well to a limited extent. (Read: we got a bunch of laptops for a certain networked system with fingerprint scanners and I was bored, soooooo)
Which leads me to point: I could see, in maybe 20 years once the internet "grows up" and digital identity becomes a fixed and regulated concept, online voting becoming the primary means of voting for the majority of the population. It would probably increase direct participation in the legislative process to a certain extent, and in the long term might change how we conceptualize democracy.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greetings! And let me say what any honor it is to be in your presence, and also to compliment you on your terrific hat. It really is splendid.
Before I trouble you with main inquiry, I was wondering if I could beseech you to solve a small riddle that has baffled me and my colleagues: how much can't could a white girl can't if a white girl literally couldn't even?
posted
The scourge of white girls being figuratively or sometimes even literally unable to even is certainly one that requires a significant amount of attention worldwide. In some parts of America, it is bad enough to force girls to congregate only in groups of 3, 5, or 7. Some have said that it is impossible to expect recovery for girls who can't even, and the condition can only be managed. For those unlucky souls who literally can't even, it is the best we can do to ensure that they can be made comfortable for what semblance of a life they may have. However, we have come to adopt a more hopeful belief that inspires them to break their curse. To answer the question, though, one (1) white girl can't 72 uggs, 42 yoga pants, 122 han solo jackets, 72 iphones, and a whopping 3,714 pumpkin spice lattes. This record was set by Heather Carly of Portland, Oregon over the course of a Gilmore Girls seasons 1 through 5 binge-watching.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
The system works.
So what you're saying is you made a definitive statement based on a hunch, fabricated some details in order to make your lie sound plausible, then used capaxinfiniti to support your "memory" after the fact. Classy.
What. Are you serious or is this some sort of satire?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I know it happened" means "I remember that this happened because I was there and I read those statements." I didn't remember who said it exactly at the time, thus since I know it happened the chance was 100% for a libertarian to have said it.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took your entire first paragraph there as a justification for how you "knew" it happened, which, upon a second read through, still looks exactly like that.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: And to Samprimary in particular: I grew up in Kansas and most of my family lives there. Your comment "Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas" is offensive.... You act as if you are smarter or more enlightened than all of those dumb hick Kansans.
How arrogant. How sad.
I grew up in Kansas, and most of my family lives there. I didn't find Sam's comment offensive. It's a slam on those Kansans who voted for Brownback. Those people voted for an ideologue who has done incalculable damage to the state. They have made a horrible choice, and one which the vast majority of them will be actively harmed by. I don't find Sam's response to that unreasonable.
I despair for the state at this point. I'm glad I'm not living there anymore, which is something I've never felt, and I wish that my friends and relatives weren't either.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I took your entire first paragraph there as a justification for how you "knew" it happened, which, upon a second read through, still looks exactly like that.
posted
So what if any solution do you have for the problem-if it is a problem to you-of people with a history of violent crime purchasing guns? People with restraining orders for domestic violence? History of violent mental illness? Or are you just trolling?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of those problems are solved by background checks.
You don't stop violent crime with background checks. You stop violent crime by abolishing poverty, ending the criminalization of minorities, ending the new slave economy in the private prison sector.
You stop domestic violence by creating a community focused alternatives to our militarized police force. (Have you ever called the police for a domesric dispute? I have, the first thing they did was point three guns at my brothers head and body) You give people the actual resources and the ability to deal with domestic violence.
You help those with violent mental illness by providing people with the resources needed to treat that mental illness. You provide a real healthcare system as well as opportunities for that person to live a productive and fulfilling life in society at large.
None of the problems you listed are solved by background checks, I hope I have also made it cleat I do not believe the problems lies in the access to firearms but the material conditions of life that cause the misuse of firearms.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
*solved*? Of course not. And in the meanwhile enroute to your utopian goals (you offered not one solution, by the way) which would be the works of many generations to begin to achieve...what's your solution, if any, to any of those situations?
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug answer that isn't really an answer at all to the question asked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
T:man, granted that background checks doesn't solve any of the problems, don't you think keeping firearms out of the hands of all of those people listed above is a good idea while we try to work on those goals? What do you think the cons of background checks when purchasing firearms are and do they outweight the benefit of potentially keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals in our current society where violent people do exist?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *solved*? Of course not. And in the meanwhile enroute to your utopian goals (you offered not one solution, by the way) which would be the works of many generations to begin to achieve...what's your solution, if any, to any of those situations?
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug answer that isn't really an answer at all to the question asked.
What utopian goals? My goals in that post were to offer solutions to the problems you presented.
I will bullet point the solutions I listed in my post if you are having trouble pinpointing them.
Solution to Violent Crime
Abolish Poverty
End the Criminalization of Minorities (I should have also mentioned ending the criminalization of the poor)
Abolish Privatized Prisons
Two out of three of these could end tomorrow. They are not the work of generations. Abolishing poverty worldwide might take more than a day.
Solution to Domestic Violence
Community Domestic Dispute Unit
State Funded Victims Shelter and Resource Center
Both of these things could be set up within the month.
Solution to those with Violent Mental Illness
State Provided Universal Mental Healthcare
State Provided Jobs Program
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug response that isn't really a response at all to the answer provided.
If you have a problem with my post could you describe it in terms greater than "bogus"?
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: T:man, granted that background checks doesn't solve any of the problems, don't you think keeping firearms out of the hands of all of those people listed above is a good idea while we try to work on those goals? What do you think the cons of background checks when purchasing firearms are and do they outweight the benefit of potentially keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals in our current society where violent people do exist?
I believe that background checks can in many cases be too broad. I don't think it is correct for the state to decide who and who not to arm. Especially a state as undemocratic as ours. If a prisoner has already payed the state mandated punishment for their crime, why should we then restrict their rights for the rest of their life?
Laws that restrict the eligibility to own a firearm by mental health status are both wrong and counter intuitive. This personally affects me, and that the fact that seeking treatment can in many states ban me from ever owning a gun, seriously made me reconsider getting treatment.
ETA: I assume most of us, aside from blayne/elison, are Americans. I apologize if I made a mistake.
posted
Ok, just checking: 'abolish poverty' is in your mind a solution?
(I can't be sure if I'm remembering this correctly, so if this question makes no sense to you, please disregard it. What is your stance on bicycle helmets?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, just checking: 'abolish poverty' is in your mind a solution?
(I can't be sure if I'm remembering this correctly, so if this question makes no sense to you, please disregard it. What is your stance on bicycle helmets?)
It was a solution for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. fifty years ago. It is still a solution.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you're a smart guy and you can probably easily explain all the issues you see with his solutions and why background checks on firearms are important; instead, you're choosing to be condescending. His answer wasn't intentionally evasive, he was explaining his thoughts in a way that he believed he was answering your questions. His answer wasn't smug, yours was.
posted
It was a *goal* for Dr King, and if you're going to reference him we can talk about all of the things that are generally glossed over in the mainstream MLK narrative these days. Steps to the goals of abolishing poverty and racism, for example.
-----
Gaal, it's possible someone might reply 'abolish poverty' with 'what's your solution to the problem, if it is one in your eyes, of guns and domestic violence?' and mean the answer seriously.
Now, are you actually suggesting that 'end criminalization of minorities' just as an example is a solution? I may as well tell a doctor, "Listen, this trouble you're having with cancer, why don't you just cure it? Wait, is that too open ended? My solution is to design a drug or treatment that kills everything but all types of cancer, that is easily and cheaply produced."
Gimme a break.
But alright, I'll take this nonsense a bit more seriously. Without some form of background check, how will a citizen out of prison for three months on parole for aggravated assault be barred from purchasing a gun? Wait, never mind, the answer is simpe: abolish poverty and reform the prison system. It'll take a day or two, tops.
posted
I didn't say I agreed that those were solutions. I said that you could explain why you think they aren't solutions with a similar amount of effort as you took (and are still taking) to disparage him.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that background checks can in many cases be too broad. I don't think it is correct for the state to decide who and who not to arm. Especially a state as undemocratic as ours. If a prisoner has already payed the state mandated punishment for their crime, why should we then restrict their rights for the rest of their life?
Laws that restrict the eligibility to own a firearm by mental health status are both wrong and counter intuitive. This personally affects me, and that the fact that seeking treatment can in many states ban me from ever owning a gun, seriously made me reconsider getting treatment.
If you believe that background checks are too broad, then clarify what instances you think they are not allowing people to purchase firearms unjustly. But that's a far cry off from opposing all background checks and allowing anyone to buy a gun. If the state shouldn't be allowed to decide who can purchase a firearm, then who should do it?
The idea that restricting eligibility to own a firearm based on mental health status is wrong is absurd. Yes, we should make sure mental healthcare is available, and in certain cases mandated, to those who need it. We should also restrict people who are determined by mental health professionals to have a violent mental illness from buying weapons for obvious public (and personal) safety reasons. If the treatment you sought for a mental health issue could potentially cause you to lose control and become violent, perhaps you should consider it's best for you not to own a firearm. If this issue isn't one that puts you or anyone with this issue at risk for a violent act, then perhaps it's not one that should be a restricted diagnosis. But that's still a long way off from allowing any mental health patient to purchase a firearm.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: T:man - if we can manage all that, why on earth would anyone need a gun in the first place?
How else you gonna make someone put their head in a guillotine?
@Rakeesh
quote:Now, are you actually suggesting that 'end criminalization of minorities' just as an example is a solution?
Yes. You want to stop gun violence? You want to stop violent crime? End the massive incarceration of our ethnic minorities. End the process of trying kids as adults if their melanin count is too high. When systems of law and order only protect some the rest have to look elsewhere. They look to violence as a defense against a world that has made them a criminal from the moment they stepped into the world.
How?
Decriminalize non-violent offenses that only seem to find black men. (bye bye drug war)
End zero-tolerance policies in schools.
End life without parole for anyone under the age of twenty one.
End the ability of the police to arrest you for "resisting arrest".
The federal government could do it in a week if there was enough political will. I never said that it could be accomplished immediately in the current completely ****ed political climate.
quote:Without some form of background check, how will a citizen out of prison for three months on parole for aggravated assault be barred from purchasing a gun?
Maybe make his parole officer actually do his job? This is already the ****ing law, we pay people plenty of tax dollars to stop this from happening.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so the parole officer is supposed to...what, create dozens of clones of their self, and put the clones of trio eight hour shifts to follow their violent parolees to make sure they never purchase a gun?
Or something?
Anyway, I guess we're not talking about Dr King anymore? Was that just a name-drop for ethical credibility?
Non-violent drug offenses don't just find black men, not by a long shot, though to an alarming disproportionate rate they do. Though in fact they tend to find the poorest Americans across the board, not just racial minoeities.
Ending just about all zero tolerance policies in schools sounds like a great idea to me. (It took awhile to actually get to an idea, Gaal, which was my point). Criminal sentencing needs a major overhaul, but the best bet is on the front end of things, particularly with juveniles and non-violent offenders. Ending the ability of cops on the ground to quell resistance to arrest is problematic. A much better solution would be to require community oversight panels for police departments across the nation and require film and audio coverage for officers as well-for their safety and ours.
If you acknowledge that your 'solution' of 'end poverty' was totally unworkable in the actual world, then perhaps you can see the source of my exasperation when you offered it as a solution.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to wade too far into a three day dead conversation, but, I think you might have been a bit rough there Rakeesh.
Personally, I think T:Man was more right than wrong, and his solutions less opaque than you might think.
Ending poverty IS actually pretty easy. Give everyone enough money to lift them out of poverty. Done.
Now, if you want to end poverty via the rising tide, you're talking about the work of generations, because you have to find much more complex levers to pull on to try to raise the economy in such a fashion to carry the millions of people with it in a way that effectively ends poverty. This will never happen. Never. Because our style of economics basically guarantees that a low paid underclass MUST exist.
Now, if you told all those people they could still work their relatively crappy jobs but also get an extra $10-$15K a year to put them into the lower middle class? Poverty is over. You just need to engineer a pretty big wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
Or not.
50 million people in America currently live below the poverty line (which is roughly $12,000 for an individual and $16,000 for a family of two, which is ridiculously low, by the way). We currently spend, between federal, state and local money, around $1 trillion a year on poverty.
To give every poor person in America $15,000 would cost $750 billion.
Boom. Now no one is in poverty, and I just saved the US $250 billion. Plus you've just injected a massive amount of money into the demographic of the economy most likely to spend it. It would pay for itself and thensome. It wouldn't actually solve structural problems overnight, but it would eventually.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
A lot of people would look at $15,000 and say "wow! I'm not working at all!" So you'd see a drop out from the labor force of lots of people who think living just above the poverty line is just fine and dandy.
Plenty others would choose to be much more discerning in where they worked. As a result, wages would go up. But not to the crazy degree right-wing economists will tell you, in part because, while free money is nice, and keeps us off the streets, $15,000 is still not enough to buy a house, a nice car, and in general do nice things, especially if you have a family. Most people really would like to do more than just get by. So it would be combined with income from jobs. In many ways it'd also serve as a crutch to minimum wage jobs. Now a person can work 40 hours at McDonalds and still enjoy a middle class living when combined with their base income from the government.
You'd see a lot more stay at home parents as parents are no longer forced to rely on two incomes. As a result, lots of child care workers probably lose their jobs, but in general I think we see happier families.
A lot of that money would get dumped into what seems like mudnane stuff for the middle class. Eating out. Going to the movies. Consumer goods. Upgrading housing or vehicles. Taking vacations.
It'd empower workers in general and take a lot of the stranglehold owners have away from them. No longer forced to simply work for a roof over their heads and bread in their mouths, workers really could decide what their labor was worth, to some degree.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
