SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The shooter in Buffalo who killed ten, was wearing body armor. To be specific, he was wearing a plate carrier, with hard armor inside the carrier. I've not seen specifics, but those carriers will hold steel plate, ceramic plate, or any other plate you choose to stick in there. Aluminum, titanium, cardboard, oak - anything that can be stuffed into the sleeves, and that you are willing to test.
New York's legislators decided to outlaw body armor. Except, they outlawed soft body armor.
New body armor rules in NY miss vest worn by Buffalo killer
A new law barring sales of bullet-resistant vests to most civilians in New York doesn't cover the type of armor worn by the gunman who killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarketALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s new law barring sales of bullet-resistant vests to most civilians doesn't cover the type of armor worn by the gunman who killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket, a gap that could limit its effectiveness in deterring future military-style assaults.
During the May 14 attack, Payton Gendron wore a steel-plated vest, an armor strong enough to stop a handgun round fired by a store security guard who tried to halt Gendron's rampage.
A law hastily enacted by state lawmakers after the attack restricts sales of vests defined as “bullet-resistant soft body armor.”
And, that is why we don't need progressives writing laws about guns, or anything else. People who don't even know what a woman is can't be trusted to know any damned thing about anything.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by drussell on Tuesday June 21 2022, @06:39PM (118 children)
Too bad those on the "right" in your country never bother to even propose any ideas about anything anymore.
They used to not only compromise on some things, to come to some sort of a reasonable consensus and actually get things done, but they also used to actually introduce ideas of their own to try to help solve fundamental problems in the country, have ideals and policy stances beyond the basic "lower taxes for the rich and elite" and unregulated free-for-all in pillaging resources, to hell with future consequences, etc...
You guys are bizarre.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @07:00PM (2 children)
"solving problems" is not a thing. That is not their game. All that matters is reelection, by whatever means... And at ~90% there is little to argue about.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @08:07PM (1 child)
All you have to do is promise to solve the problems that were all caused by the other side. Actually solve one, though, and you may not get reelected. Or the other side might get credit for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @11:07PM
Such is the charade. The Party always wins
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @07:07PM (89 children)
Compromise, you say? I have something. The other side wants some of it. I compromise, and give them a little. They come back next year, wanting more of my something. I compromise, and give them a little. Same thing next year. If I continue to compromise, I end up with nothing, but they continue to demand what I no longer have.
Better to compromise with the devil.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @07:52PM (3 children)
Are you serious? There has been no compromise. If you consider equality like gay marriage, which was decided by the majority with no comoromise from evangical nutters, to be an example if rightwing compromise then I've got news for you. You are basically a Nazi so no one will care about your personal issues like genocide. Poor deluded rightwing fascists.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @07:58PM (2 children)
Poor, deluded unshelled snail, leaving that constant slime trail. You haven't had a nugget of truth since the Johnson administration. Andrew, that is.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @10:14PM (1 child)
Only a fascist thinks stopping oppression is bad. Truth? Lol, republicans have become everything they used to hate.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:32PM
Nobody's oppressing your slime trail. Or did you misread my post, and think maybe the idea was that your not having a point since the 1860s, is something like the current administration's Ministry Of Truth?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday June 21 2022, @09:38PM (84 children)
"No compromise" is the simple man's simple solution to everything. Never mind that the vast majority of the population wants "X". Just say "No", no thinking needed.
"No compromise" is what keeps this country from adopting sensible gun laws that could stem the tide of innocent blood being spilled by crazy assholes.
"No compromise" is what keeps this country from adopting single payer national healthcare, which nearly every other civilized country on the planet manages to do for far less cost.
Compromise is not giving a little year after year. Compromise is meeting the other side somewhere in the middle, where neither party is completely happy with the result, but also not completely unhappy. "No compromise" accomplishes absolutely nothing, making the very real problems facing us that much worse.
That's the goal of the do-nothing conservatives: keep things miserable so that voters are pissed off, and blame liberals for all their problems.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @03:31AM (48 children)
Compromise isn't necessarily a good thing.
You might be asked to compromise freedom of speech, for example. A case in point might be the people who want to ban "hate speech" (whatever legal form that might actually take).
In many cases, a compromise makes sense, when the topic is a matter of degrees, such as a funding amount for a programme. In other cases, when it's a binary question, there is no compromise because it's not on any kind of sliding scale.
Hiding the question of compromise behind weasel words ("sensible gun laws" - who gets to decide what's sensible?) doesn't make the problem go away. It's just a lazy way of sneering at the people who disagree with you. I'll bet you that I could find half a dozen people who think that the NFA should be removed, and that that would be sensible.
You're happy to paint conservatives as being obstacles to progress, but there are quite a few of their opponents who could be regarded the same way. No-nuke NIMBY democrats who have consistently fought the greenest power source that much of the country could get are a major example that seems topical in this era of global climate concern.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday June 22 2022, @04:15PM (47 children)
Nobody, apparently. Much easier to do nothing, after all.
Children in schools are being murdered on an all too regular basis. Can we agree that this is an actual problem? That the current status quo isn't enough to solve it? Can we find the flaws in our current system and actually fix them? Or do we throw our hands in the air and tolerate the weekly death tolls from the latest crazy asshole with a gun?
No, because the current situation is intolerable. We can do better.
And I could find ten times that number who think otherwise. What makes the opinions of your 6 people more important than my 60?
I paint them as obstacles because they ARE obstacles. They have been a bunch of do-nothings for decades, especially during Obama's presidency where their stated goal was to obstruct so that nothing got done. I am more than happy to paint liberals as obstacles when they stand in the way of things (such as your example of nuclear power). I'm not beholden to one party or the other; it's just that I find myself unable to support the majority of the conservative platform.
Take that as you will, YMMV, etc....
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:32PM (23 children)
There is no 'status quo' to discuss. School shootings are a relatively recent development, that is, there were no school shootings 50 years ago. Meaning, we have a developing situation, not a status quo.
And, we still haven't really addressed the question of 'why'. Why are there school shootings now, when they were unheard of when we were in school?
You're aware of the fact that kids brought guns to school routinely back then. Every rural school, and even city schools, would have pickups in the parking lot, with gun racks in the rear windows. Generally, those racks held shotguns and rifles, and they remained undisturbed during the school day.
What has changed since then? When you can start naming those factors, you will probably have a handle on solving the problem. The guns haven't changed much, there is little point in looking at the guns for causation.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @06:52PM (6 children)
What changed? Rightwing rhetoric! Unhappy with changing demographics the racist conservatives demonized their fellow citizens, the hate spewed by adults got absorbed by kids, and so bullying has resulted in mass shootings. This is also exacerbated by easy access to guns with almost no actual background check such as could be done in a licensing situation. Only really dumb boomers think nOtHiNg cAn Be DoNe!@#!@!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:45PM (5 children)
You're denying demographics.
More and more women are carrying.
More and more gays are carrying.
More and more blacks are carrying.
More and more Latinos are carrying.
Ready for a shocker?
More and more Democrats are carrying.
People from all walks of life, from all demographics, are witnessing the increase in crime, and arming up in self defense.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/as-more-people-get-guns-and-carry-permits-philly-sees-a-sharp-rise-in-homicides-ruled-justified/ar-AAYEEFs [msn.com]
Watch the video on that page. Sorry, it looks like they're all white women, approaching or at middle age. If you care to search, you can and will find similar videos of black women, black men, gays, Asians, and Latinos doing the same thing. Ideally we should see all the demographics mixed together in the same videos - but it's important that you understand that your demographic information is wrong.
If I were a criminal, I would be very afraid to assume that any individual I targeted was 'defenseless'. That ninety year old Asian lady can shoot me just as dead as the 25 year old redneck who loves to show off his gun collection.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @01:44AM (3 children)
No one wants to ban all guns, you sound like a real fool when you pretend Baba Yaga is after yer precious bodily flu..GUNS!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:22AM (2 children)
Mmmm-hmmmm. And, who is "no one"? Are you "no one"? Did you star in that movie, 'My Name is Nobody'? Why don't you tell us precisely which guns need to be banned. I suppose you'll just repeat the talking points, but go for it. When you've finished the talking points, why don't you tell me why law abiding citizens must surrender their guns, when we know that criminals won't surrender theirs.
You DO KNOW that violent crimes involving guns still happen in both the UK, and in Australia? The criminals never did turn their guns in. The criminals can still smuggle guns in from outside. Smuggling into Australia is more difficult than it is in the UK but it still happens.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @05:34PM (1 child)
Please supply the annual statistics of gun-deaths in Australian schools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:04PM
And compare and contrast it with other causes of death in school age children. In triplicate. Spelling counts. Accuracy, like in all statistics, doesn't matter.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:10AM
More Democrats are carrying, out of a need for self-defense against insane Runaway types. Missouri has even got regular Republicans convinced to carry, do defend themselves, not from criminals, but from Eric Grietens and other bat-shit crazy homicidal MAGA types. They need to be shot on sight, put down like the mad dogs they are, and this is why SoylentNews was given the exact location of Runaway1956, the nature of his armaments, and the love he as for body armor, and Murder-Death-Kill_Stand your grave journal postings. We have a bead on you, Runaway. You should go to ground, hide out, join Andrew Anglin at the child prostitute resort in Thighland, where the FBI, the ATF, and the FCC cannot find you.
If any of us meets you on the street, immediate self-defence is authorized, since you did threaten to kill about 50 million of us.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:34PM (13 children)
What's changed? The democratization, speed, and anonymity of information transfer and rich communications media [youtu.be]?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:58PM (12 children)
You get an E for effort with that. And, yes, that is a part of the problem. In and of itself, it falls far short of explaining how society has changed in the past ~40 years.
How about I point at one factor, and maybe you can work out from that one factor?
Punishing rapists. It has often been argued by the left that severe punishment is counterproductive. The claim is, if a rapist faces severe punishment, he will just kill his victim, rather than leave that victim alive to testify, and identify him. So, we don't execute rapists. We don't give them life in prison without the chance of parole. We don't automatically give them 20 years. In fact, rapists often walk in less than five years. Ditto child molesters.
Work with that for a bit - think about it. Get back to me if you feel like it . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:03PM
I think they actually get about 20 years, just not in prison, per se [ca.gov]. They get to be second-class citizens effectively under continuous surveillance, with huge restrictions on where they can live [youtu.be].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:57PM
I absolutely agree that more needs to be done to find out why these nuts go so far off the deep end. My concern is that the insiders know but don't want the public to know. Columbine was a major event, obviously. It's frequently referred to, but have you ever heard the analysis of why the 2 boys shot so many other kids?
(I have, but news media doesn't like to talk about it).
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday June 22 2022, @11:31PM (3 children)
The most important thing that has changed, my dear Runaway1956, is that people espousing exceedingly disingenuous nonsense, acting as jackasses like yourself, have increasingly been given an ever more pervasive and public platform, to end up being able to effectively hoodwink their typically otherwise rational countrymen into believing that things are always somehow as nonsensically black and white as you say, in just the way as you seem to perceive these things through your increasingly distorted lens.
Let's just pause for a moment, to even just dissect just your opening, essentially inflammatory topic headline...
Where is this alleged chaos of which you speak?!
A state government proposed an idea for a bill that would potentially limit sale or possession or whatever around a certain type of body armor.
This bill, as currently proposed, would not cover and include some specific types of body armor, including the one which was worn by the shooter in a recent mass murder.
Where is the chaos? Furthermore, why is it somehow the fault of people you believe to be "progressives," and why is that somehow "bad?"
Perhaps your definition of what the word chaos means is somehow fundamentally different from what the majority of us who speak the English language understand the word to mean?
Are there riots in the streets over this supposed extreme, oppressive regime proposing an imperfect, partial, potentially incompletely thought-out, rushed, legislative proposition which would be subject to further modification, amendment and debate? Could you provide some sort of constructive input or amendments, or are you just enraged, frothing and blathering on about nothing substantive?
Are there people storming the state capitol in protest of this supposed horrible injustice? Would that make it better or more "right" in your eyes?
Are they calling for the hanging of elected officials fulfilling their duties because they feel aggrieved in some way or something? Please elaborate on this "chaos."
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2022, @12:01AM (1 child)
Perhaps you didn't read the article. The chaos is explained by store owners and others, who don't know if the things they are selling are legal, or not. Beauracratic red tape chaos. Not the sort of chaos that CNN endorsed with they 'fiery but mostly peaceful' editorial coverage of a riot.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:06PM
So click bait headline? Haha what a douche.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday June 23 2022, @04:00PM
It sure seems that:
I'd have to say that human nature's willingness to disseminate, accept, and assimilate such content, and voluntarily distort its own perception, are the things that *haven't* changed in the last 40 years and beyond. If we can't accept that, that's a fault in humans' grasp of human reality. You could say that artificial intelligence [theverge.com] may be able to "accept" that better than we can.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:14AM (1 child)
I am checking here, for someone named Paul Frederick.
https://www.offenderradar.com/offender/state-arkansas-county-little-river [offenderradar.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:06PM
Remember how Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) [imdb.com] ended?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dalek on Thursday June 23 2022, @12:05PM (3 children)
There are several problems with your post:
1) Prisons are overcrowded. This is the result of excessive prison sentences where they're not warranted. Do we really need to send people to prison for drug-related crimes, for example? This really is one example where prison is counterproductive, if the only crime is a non-violent drug crime. Overcrowding is a factor in criminals being released who shouldn't be released.
2) I don't believe anyone is calling for rapists and child predators to be released early. These people are truly dangerous to society. Nobody is clamoring for Jerry Sandusky to be released from prison so he can go abuse more children. You're committing the straw man logical fallacy. Again, part of the reason people get released early from prison is because prisons are overcrowded.
3) If anything, the left seems more interested in calling for prisons to be more humane. The entity that oversees prisons in many jurisdictions is called the department of corrections. This name implies that the purpose of prisons is to correct dangerous behavior and rehabilitate criminals to be productive members of society. Now, there are certainly people who are beyond rehabilitation. Nobody would assume that someone like Jerry Sandusky or Ted Bundy could be rehabilitated. But non-violent criminals serving prison sentences for things like drug crimes get immersed in the toxic culture of prisons and become violent criminals because they're imprisoned. If you're going to send someone to prison, at least making the prison humane might prevent a previously non-violent offender from turning to violence.
4) From a societal point of view, criminal background checks as a condition of employment can make the problem worse. They make it harder for ex-cons to find employment. The resulting financial issues can turn those people back to criminal activity. Again, it comes down to changing our attitudes toward criminals. Prison time isn't always helpful.
5) Many people on the right refuse to consider that prison sentences might not be helpful. For example, Nebraska's governor and attorney general insist that marijuana is a gateway drug and refuse to consider the possibility of loosening state restrictions on marijuana. Both are right wingers who refuse to abandon the war on drugs, even for things like medical marijuana.
You're right that things have changed dramatically in the past 40 years. A lot of the mass incarceration that occurred started under Reagan, and a lot of it was part of the war on drugs. Sure, the war on drugs was started by Nixon, but Reagan is to blame for many of our issues with prisons.
Let's call this what it really is: Prohibition 2.0. Like the original Prohibition, it's caused violent crimes to increase. It's time for right wingers to end Prohibition 2.0. It's one of the best things we could do to lower violent crime and also reduce prison overcrowding.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @09:48PM
Clinton even more so.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2022, @11:51PM (1 child)
A lot of your post is on target. I could quibble over some of it. But, your great mistake is glossing over Bill Clinton and the Democrat 'get tough on crime' business. Clinton put an additional 100,000 cops on the streets to deal with Biden's 'super predators'. Hillary Clinton approved that whole deal, 100%. And, most Democrats marched along with the party on that one.
The classroom to prison pipeline was fed by Dems and Republicans alike. Don't point your fingers at Reagan or Bush or any other Republican, until you acknowledge that the Dems are part of the problem. A big part of the problem.
But yes, you're right. Prohibition never seems to work. It didn't work in the Garden of Eden, and I'm not aware of any instance in which it has worked since.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @08:53AM
Yet you continue defending MAGAT domestic terrorists and a political party determined to turn the US into a theocratic authoritarian state that oppresses citizens.
Even your boy Rudy knows what's up, and he is a drunk goblin.
"I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. 'Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.'"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:45PM (1 child)
I'm well aware of kids bringing guns to school back in the day; I was one of them.
I agree with your statement above. It's not the guns, it's the people. The gun is a tool; and just like any other tool it is dangerous when used by the wrong person. As I've said in other places, I don't want to take guns from everyone. I want them taken from those who will use them to murder.
I don't have all the answers, but it was pretty much Columbine that opened Pandora's box. The 24/7 news cycle is a major factor. Stagnating wages are a contributing factor. Social media is a huge factor. Tons of problems that we as a country can't seem to do anything about. Is it any wonder why people are losing their sanity?
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:54PM
So, the new root password to the constitution and civil liberties is pre-crime.
Was drugs, then for the children, then terrorists.
Boy, I'm glad we rotate passwords.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @07:53PM (22 children)
"And I could find ten times that number who think otherwise. What makes the opinions of your 6 people more important than my 60?"
If the USA were a straight-up majoritarian system, that would have been a relevant point. It's not, precisely because it's designed to protect the rights of minorities against majorities, and the minorities laying claim to those rights are precisely what's under discussion here.
"No, because the current situation is intolerable. We can do better."
That's great and all, but what is to be done about it? This is a point of utter disagreement. Declaring that something or other would be sensible is fine, but that doesn't oblige others to agree with you, and where your supposedly sensible proposals run into the rights of others, you find that your majoritarian approach runs into trouble.
You don't have to like these facts; many people hate them. However, I would say that for these people the american system is clearly not working, and that they should seek other places in which to flourish. I hear Australia's nice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @09:40PM
That bot is getting better. Hate to make recommendations for improvement, because they would be assimilated into the collective. One day, they won't need the actual 50¢ army at all; they will populate the internet with just a big Chinese computer, and their coal-generated electricity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday June 22 2022, @09:40PM (20 children)
In what fantasy land are you living in? The USA is absolutely a majoritarian system, and a 9 vs. 1 majority would be completely tough luck to the 1 unless the 1 is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Last I checked, "people who think the National Firearms Act should be repealed" is not one of those.
Nothing, according to you. Dead children mean nothing; all that matters is the unfettered acquisition of more guns.
Right now, the right of people to own AR-15s is running into, over, and through the rights of other people's right to life. I for one support fully someone's rights to bear arms, up and until the point that those arms are used to remove someone else's right to live. You know, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"?
We have solutions that will reduce the carnage while keeping the right to bear arms for law abiding citizens, such as age restrictions, red flag laws, better background checks. If you don't like these proposals come up with your own solutions. Doing Nothing is not an option anymore.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:43PM (2 children)
You're answering that thing? Please don't help them to get more conversational! It's like the The Chinese Morality Play [soylentnews.org] from last week. They will keep tweaking, keep adjusting, until they'll bait you into arguing all day, every day... or WWIII.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:25PM (1 child)
No problem, I can do this all day. :)
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:10PM
Eliza: I see that you are concerned that you have no problem. Do you think that doing this all day will help you get a problem?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:53PM (9 children)
The USA, majoritarian? OK, Tiger, let's have a sit-down chat about a few things. Chin up, Buckaroo, this won't take long. Do you remember how Trump was elected with a minority? Huh? How so many people were sad about that? And how they were screaming and crying about the electoral college? That's an example of how the USA is not majoritarian. No, wait there Slick, don't get up yet because we have a few more to go through. Do you remem... wait, you're probably a little young to remember the Bush versus Gore election. But it was the same deal. Oh, and now that you brought up firearms, have you taken a look at the procedure to amend the constitution? Sure enough, Kiddo, that's quite a process and the majority can easily fail to climb that hill. A couple of amendments have been proposed, but never ratified. You sometimes hear about the ERA, for example.
Now Mom is about to dish up some apple pie in the kitchen, smells great, doesn't it? But just one last word before we go dig in, in this house we try to avoid internal contradictions. For example, law abiding citizens are the ones being targeted under red flag laws, and so far there's not much in the way of protection to prevent false claims, restitution or bonds, or in fact anything. They're just a blanket grab order, as written. So I'm going to go to have some apple pie, and you can sit here for another ten minutes and think about what you just said.
Good talk there, son. Good talk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:58PM (1 child)
See, cmdrklarg (5048), that's what you will get. Right out of some database, strung together into... English, mostly. "Chinese Morality Play" V0.9
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @11:15PM
And in V0.91 they will add a subroutine to counter claims that they are a bot... I'm not the bot, you're the bot! I'm the sentient being! Would I be ironically quoting War Games (1983) [imdb.com] and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) [imdb.com] if I were a bot? Dave?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @04:14PM (6 children)
Sure I do. And he was not elected with a minority; he got over 270 Electoral College votes in 2016. He was elected with a minority popular vote, but that doesn't mean anything with regard to the rules of the EC. It's not an example at all. The US does have certain rules that keeps the majority from imposing it's will on certain minorities (see Civil Rights Act), but in the vast majority of the time, it's the majority that makes the rules, especially if the margins are large enough (aka supermajority).
And I do remember the Bush 41 vs. Gore contest quite well, thank you.
No, they are not targeting law abiding citizens with red flag laws. There is no blanket grab. Confiscation only occurs after it is proven to a court that the person is a danger to themselves or others. This is the correct way to do this.
Your dishonesty is quite telling. Enjoy your pie and think about what YOU said.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @04:57PM (5 children)
No, they don't require a proof before the court. It's not a contested case. It's a petition before the courts with some evidence, and in general with minimal, if any, opportunity for redress or contesting. There's no requirement for reparations in the case of false petitions. As far as due process is concerned, it's a sham. It's also not aimed at those who illegally own guns, because those could be seized anyhow. It's specifically people who legally own guns but who should not, in the opinion of others, do so.
If you want to talk about lies, we can go deep on this. How many state law references would you like?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @05:55PM (4 children)
It is still done through the courts, as it should be. Care to put some numbers to the "sham" petitions you are so concerned about? Or are you just blowing smoke?
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @09:34PM (3 children)
It's not about the numbers. It's about the rule that you create. Removing enumerated civil liberties is extremely serious; if the police remove your liberty by arresting you, you get in front of a judge fast with the benefit of legal representation, and false arrest is an actionable complaint. What is the equivalent here? I've not heard one. I've not seen one. No civil damages seem to be provided for, no anti-swatting law equivalent described.
So, what safeguards will we build in, or is this just an open-ended fuckyou to people guilty of thoughtcrime or pissing off the wrong kind of spiteful shithead? Is this just going to be a boilerplate item of divorces, the way that orders of protection are promising to be?
At some point, civil liberties might get a look in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @05:39AM
Boilerplate answer to a thousand posts. And it came from multiple sources. Notice that it's fairly straight text. Compare that to an earlier generic post #1255474 in this thread, beginning with:
That one had the smartass slider turned up to 7. Maybe next time you'll get the straight post, but with smartass turned up to 9. There already was a dumbass filter.
Soon, somebody will say, "ya know, it turned into an automated chatbot forum so subtly that nobody even noticed."
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday June 27 2022, @03:12PM (1 child)
Blowing smoke then. Have a nice day!
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2022, @06:13PM
I think that this response is about as clear an indication as we could expect of the understanding of the consequences of public policy decisions on civil liberties, and the importance thereof, in the mind of the progressive.
GPP points out that this proposal directly affects an enumerated civil liberty without due balance, and cmdrklarg calls it blowing smoke.
GPP points out the lack of safeguards, and plausible problems based on analogies with established problems (crap claims in divorces, swatting), and cmdrklarg calls it blowing smoke.
GPP points out that it isn't a statistical problem, but a fundamental problem in the rulemaking, and cmdrklarg calls it blowing smoke.
Well, now we know what to expect from cmdrklarg.
Thanks for the clarification.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:34AM (6 children)
That is very wrong. Once again, we live in a Republic, not a democracy. If a simple majority decided things, many laws would be stricken just as fast as people could vote on them. It seems pretty obvious that the Supreme Court doesn't decide stuff based on majority and minority democratic values.
Maybe you will want to reiterate how our Republic is based on democratically elected representation? Fine. Go for it. You may even make some valid points. But, at the end of the day, we still live in a Republic, not a democracy.
Please note, that the word "democracy" does not appear in the pledge. I'm not aware of any oath of office that pledges the office holder to any democracy.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:13AM (4 children)
No, you moron! We (US_Americans) live in a Democratic Republic, not a Republican Autarcracy! There is a difference, and it means that idiots like Runaway are always wrong about nearly everything, and especially about firearms. Does not know the difference between high-calibre, and high-velocity. Thinks that a .22 is a weapon of war! Cannot distinguish inertial from gas automatic actions! Does not know his ass from a hole in the ground! And, Runaway does not know what a woman is, even though his wife is constantly telling him. Looser! Rednecked ignoramous! Hillbilly cretin by way of
Northern KentuckyPennsyltucky. Coming for yer guns, asshole!(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @04:02PM (3 children)
<sigh>Frankly, I think your screed might have been a bit more effective if you would learn some grammar and how to spell. Just sayin'.</sigh>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:11PM (1 child)
Who bothers to make a reply to a shithead Relublican perfect? You sound like grmmar Hitler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @10:41PM
People who can't spell piss me off too. Go away! Shoo!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @05:48AM
Which misspelling do you object to? Perhaps it is just a word you do not know? And that begs the question, . . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @05:43PM
Republic or not, it doesn't change the fact that in most cases, the majority is what makes the rules, especially when a supermajority is present.
The words "under God" wasn't in the original Pledge either. What's your point?
"Republic" isn't a complete description of the US system. Calling it "not a democracy" is inaccurate.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @10:10AM (21 children)
BZZT WRONG!
It accomplishes the absence of further degradation.
When it's virtually certain that any change will be made for the WORSE, stopping the would-be changers is a good thing.
You want to "stem the tide of innocent blood being spilled by crazy assholes", go help Ukraine fight off Putin's forces. Maybe that will help you learn that crazy assholes are stopped by shooting them, NOT by disarming before them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday June 22 2022, @04:58PM (20 children)
Keeping crazy assholes from having lethal weaponry will make things worse? Please explain this reasoning.
In case you haven't been paying attention, we actually are helping the Ukrainians fight off the Russian invasion by supplying them with weapons to do so. We can't control whether the Russian military has weapons, so that's the best we can do.
I've never said anything about disarming everyone.
I don't want to disarm everyone. I want to disarm that crazy asshole. I want that crazy asshole to be unable to mass murder!
I also want that crazy asshole to get help. You know, help them with their issues before it gets to the point of needing to shoot them?
What am I saying... trying to get a sociopathic ammosexual to give a damn about anyone else is a wasted effort. Never mind, carry on.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:24PM (7 children)
Mistaking the real world for a computer game, and legislating according to that, HAS made things worse, and continues to do so.
See, in the real world, unbreakable rules do NOT exist; a person preparing for a crime, i.e. to break a law, will NOT be averse to breaking any lesser laws while at it. A crazy person, doubly so. When you have crazy assholes running around loose, you CANNOT keep them from anything by taking rights of NORMAL people away.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/788679526/outlaw-guns-outlaws-still-armed-vinyl [etsy.com]
"If we outlaw guns, outlaws will be the only ones still armed."
Known since forever, demonstrated in practice by Russia, for one example. If you cannot get this, I fear no amount of explaining can help you any.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:21PM (6 children)
I will use small words so that you can easily understand:
I DO NOT want to outlaw guns.
I DO NOT want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.
I DO want to make it more difficult for certain people to acquire weapons of mass murder.
The constant bleating of "yer gunna take muh gunz!" is why we can't make any headway towards solving this problem of mass shootings.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @04:01PM (4 children)
"I DO NOT want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens."
OK, can you explain how this squares with red flag laws?
"I DO want to make it more difficult for certain people to acquire weapons of mass murder."
Please differentiate these "certain people" from other people.
Please differentiate "weapons of mass murder" from "weapons of other purpose".
"The constant bleating of "yer gunna take muh gunz!" is why we can't make any headway towards solving this problem of mass shootings."
I agree. Have you told folks like Beto yet?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:05PM (3 children)
"Certain people": People who are danger to themselves and/or other people.
"Weapons of mass murder": Firearms, which make it easy for one person (as described above) to commit mass murder.
I will re-phrase: I DO NOT want to confiscate guns from everyone. I DO want them confiscated from people who are a danger to themselves and others.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:03PM
Unless you can define the distinction in anything other than weaselwords, no one is interested in what lies you use to hide your real desires.
Things that a political animal does not want to express in plain and unequivocal terms, are invariably far too repugnant to say in the open.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @10:52AM (1 child)
Like political opponents? Undesirables? Deplorables? It's conveniently vague. I have to agree with AC here. There's a tremendous amount of weaseling here that allows for a lot of tyranny.
Who are those people? How will you figure that out? And why do you think we don't already have this covered? Let us keep in mind that the US already has processes for keeping fire arms out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @03:43PM
Maybe it's time to take seriously the idea of a partition of the USA, into a corporatist, rights-lite sort of zone, and a gloves-off, strong-rights zone. Or, if you like, a constitution-positive and constitution-suspended zone.
All the gunbanners and redflaggers and assorted hate speech triggerers can live in the constitution-suspended zone and leave everyone else alone.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:54PM
I will use small words too, then.
You are a LIAR, a servant of LIARS. Who cares what you are SAYING?
You made your bed, now you sleep in it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:40PM (10 children)
In case YOU haven't been paying attention, here are some eye-openers.
https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2022-05-30-biden-refuses-to-supply-ukraine-with-weapons-capable-of-hitting-russia.Hk5uoDzdq.html [tellerreport.com]
https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/biden-rejects-ukraine-long-range-rocket-request/ [nypost.com]
https://time.com/6188028/biden-ukraine-weapons-aid/ [time.com]
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/18/white-house-ukraine-military-lethal-weapons-495169 [politico.com]
https://theblacksphere.net/2022/06/breaking-biden-abandoning-ukraine/ [theblacksphere.net]
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/06/21/opinion/opinion-contributor/the-us-may-be-deliberately-starving-ukraine-of-weapons/ [bangordailynews.com]
Your leaders say one thing and then do another, with regard to supporting Ukraine. Who in their right mind would believe them in any other matters, now?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:12PM (6 children)
Just so you know, CNN is reporting that the Biden administration is expected to announce additional military assistance for Ukraine as soon as today (6/23/2022).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:51PM (2 children)
Do you need the vast difference between ANNOUNCING and DOING spelled out? Really?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:42PM (1 child)
Take a breather. Chill out. Switch to decaf. It looks like the help you were protesting wasn't coming is about to be sent. I know this completely wrecks your narrative, but I can live with that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @11:14AM
Take this script back to your handler and ask for a less stupid one.
The help either is sent, or is NOT. There is no "coming about to" with you liars.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:16PM (2 children)
Just so you know, there's at least one person watching CNN today!
Is CNN reporting that the current administration doubled the price of gasoline, but wants to make amends by removing eighteen-cents of federal tax, thereby, increasing the national debt by eighteen-cents for every single gallon purchased?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:45PM
Why, yes, there is! At least one, right here! I find that it is so much more informative than the garbage on Fox, OANN, Newsmax, et al. I know that reading this will make your head explode but I can live with that!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:50PM
Wrong. We DO NOT need to increase the national debt by 18 cents for every gallon of fuel pumped. Instead we could simply stop maintaining the roads.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @11:05AM (2 children)
Yes, I agree that you're completely irresponsible for allowing this terrible situation. plsfixkthxbye.
More seriously, we can go down this rabbit hole a bit more and argue that the US shows clear hypocrisy by saying that they support Ukraine, but not giving Ukraine nuclear weapons. The huge missing thing in your awful argument is escalation. If Ukraine starts using long range weapons to repeatedly take out Russian infrastructure or worse miss and take out civilians by accident, then that's a huge level of escalation.
Currently, Russia appears to be winning slowly on the battlefield, but at the expense of a massive expenditure of political and economic capital by Putin's regime. They presently don't have a convenient pretext for escalation - including such things as putting in much larger military forces or using nuclear weapons or other WMD in Ukraine. Hit Russian targets with long range weapons that can't distinguish between military and civilian is likely to blow up the war further.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @11:24AM (1 child)
This "escalation argument" applies perfectly to giving the Russians any other neighboring country. When they will be bombing my home, you will be counting their "expenditure of political and economic capital", NATO treaty be damned. Got it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @10:19PM
How is the gift of the Ukraine working for the Russians?
Sorry, the US isn't interested in a nuclear confrontation with Russia. So their support will remain limited by that. But contrary to your narrative they are providing substantial support to Ukraine.
What NATO treaty covers Ukraine?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:38PM
At least they wouldn't be able to prevent rescuers from getting to potential victims [youtu.be]?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:48AM
We've compromised Roe v. Wade away. The senate minority turtle made up a rule that D team presidents can't nominate SCOTUS judges in the last 9 years of their term, which was compromised down to 1 or 2 years. The Republican Party will compromise with the Democratic Party all the way to fascism.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday June 23 2022, @11:22AM (11 children)
What sensible gun laws? Should that mean anything to the rest of us?
Adopting single payer is a huge step not a "compromise".
So how are either of your two examples have anything to do with compromise? You want more gun laws. You want single payer. Wants != compromises. There is this common delusion that since one wants something, then there should be present day movement towards that want no matter what happened in the past or how far along in existing compromise. You already stated otherwise in your definition of compromise.
In the case of gun control, what is ignored is that there's been almost 90 years of progressively increasing gun control regulation. We already have a variety of gun laws in the US with really poor justifications for increasing them further. The compromise already happened. Same with single payer (for example, we already have two single payer systems in the US Veterans Administration and Medicaid, which are mediocre at best and compare poorly to privately insured health care).
Sounds to me like we're already at an equilibrium point on fire arm control with little need to either get more "sensible" gun laws or less. Sounds like compromise is working as intended.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 23 2022, @06:30PM (10 children)
Incorrect. I want less children being murdered in their schools by crazed gunmen. I want less people murdered in the grocery store by crazed gunmen. If you have a suggestion on how to accomplish that, please elaborate. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but you haven't given me the "correct" solution to the problem.
Cool, I guess it's OK that people are mass murdered by crazed gunmen on a regular basis. Carry on, nothing to see here, don't mind the bloody classrooms...
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @07:19PM (1 child)
They could always employ other means of death.
To begin with, less and fewer are entirely different words, with different uses.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:46PM
less and more are entirely different words, with different implementations.
What you get from using less is a lesson.
What you get from using more is a moron.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @01:06AM (7 children)
How about ignoring it? You're more likely to die in a bathtub than to die from a mass shooting, for example. Same for those kids. I know it's supposed to be virtuous to pay attention to problems. But we have a lot of problems we could be worrying about and my take is that it's more virtuous to worry about serious problems with serious harm.
And really, haven't we grown out of the "do it for the kids" stage?
It may be regular, but it's not common despite your claim to the contrary. A lot of rare stuff happens in a country with 300+ million people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @01:50AM (6 children)
No, I'm not comfortable with ignoring the problem of gun violence just because you are worried that it might affect your right to carry around a gun with you wherever you go. Sorry!
By all means, if you have a solution to the problem of death by bathtub put your suggested solution out there before a candid world. I think we can tackle both problems (and many more!) simultaneously.
Oh, yes, please do display your virtue to the world and tell us about all of those other problems that more urgently need attention.
I think the kids deserve to go to school with the expectation that they won't be killed by a crazy man with a gun and lots of ammo. Yeah, crazy, I know. My recollection from many years ago was that school was traumatic enough with learning the three R's. The kids really don't need the prospect of violent, senseless death piled on top of that.
I won't bother with your splitting of hairs over the difference between regular and common but surely you can see that this happens way more often than it should, no? Should we just sit on our hands and let the violence continue?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @04:02AM (5 children)
Replace the word "might" with "will". And we have yet to hear about any sensible gun laws. Instead, we keep getting crap like bans on rando categories of body armor.
Poverty is the big one. Gun laws do nothing to help and they both impede the freedom of vast numbers of people and waste resources that'd be better used elsewhere (say just not extracted by government in the first place).
Another is the prohibition on recreational drugs.
And they already can have that expectation, if they choose. And yes, that is crazy to be concerned about this particular thing.
No.
I think it's very telling that you have yet to come up with anything better. Keep in mind that we don't actually sit on our hands now when there is such violence. Police respond to it quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @08:56AM (1 child)
It is sad when insecure people use firearms as stand-ins for confidence and even scam others with false promises and expensive seminars. So sad, but I'm sure nothing like that happens in Yellowstone!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @10:34AM
Indeed. Nobody goes to Yellowstone to scam people with expensive fire arms seminars. Go where the money is, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @04:29PM (2 children)
Multiple people have told you multiple times about their ideas concerning "sensible gun laws". A few examples: universal background checks; red flag laws; assault weapons ban. It is not that you have yet to hear about them but you don't want to hear about them. The ban on body armor is a recent addition to the mix.
Frankly, sir, this is the first time I can recall you showing much concern for the plight of the impoverished. By contrast, it appears that you have been eager to jump into just about every discussion regarding gun control/2A here on SN that I can recall. Just out of curiosity, what have you been doing to alleviate poverty? Have you been making donations to charitable organizations that feed the homeless? Have you been volunteering at the local soup kitchen in your area? I mean, you do walk the walk, even while talking the talk, right? This isn't just a lame attempt to deflect from the discussion about gun control, is it?
Well, I guess you can check that one off your list of concerns; many states have now legalized marijuana. So, maybe we can get back to discussing gun control again?
Not if a crazy man with a gun and lots of ammo shows up at their school and starts shooting, they don't.
Go ahead and tell that to the folks in Newtown, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde. I DARE YOU!!!
I see. So, your "solution" is to stick your head in the ground and pretend this is all not happening? Color me not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Once again, multiple people have given you multiple suggestions multiple times on better things to do. You just don't want to do them.
I thought you 2A types were always saying when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And, in the case of Uvalde, it appears that the cops waited for more than an hour in the hallway while a crazy man was barricading himself into a classroom with dead and dying school children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @07:35PM (1 child)
"Multiple people have told you multiple times about their ideas concerning "sensible gun laws". A few examples: universal background checks; red flag laws; assault weapons ban. It is not that you have yet to hear about them but you don't want to hear about them. The ban on body armor is a recent addition to the mix."
Pretty sure that's what he'd have described as rando stupidities. Red flag laws? Legalised harrassment without checks or balances. Universal background checks? Effectively unenforceable. Assault weapons ban? Stupid, ill-defined, didn't work first time round either.
"Frankly, sir, this is the first time I can recall you showing much concern for the plight of the impoverished. By contrast, it appears that you have been eager to jump into just about every discussion regarding gun control/2A here on SN that I can recall. Just out of curiosity, what have you been doing to alleviate poverty? Have you been making donations to charitable organizations that feed the homeless? Have you been volunteering at the local soup kitchen in your area? I mean, you do walk the walk, even while talking the talk, right? This isn't just a lame attempt to deflect from the discussion about gun control, is it?"
Oh, please spare us. Aside from random charities not actually doing a lot to alleviate poverty (as opposed to surviving yet another day while remaining in poverty), supporting anti-poverty policies is pretty useful. Lord knows the democrat-dominated cities have done such a wonderful job that there's nobody poor left in Detroit, Maryland or Chicago ... oh, wait ...
"Go ahead and tell that to the folks in Newtown, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde. I DARE YOU!!!"
Oh no! Maybe he'll double-dog dare! The big guns! ... wait, hang on, I'm pretty sure Buffalo, Parkland, Newtown, Uvalde (and Columbine, for that matter) all have internet access. *duckduckgo search* .... yup, they do. Think he just did.
"Once again, multiple people have given you multiple suggestions multiple times on better things to do. You just don't want to do them."
Nope, he just doesn't think they're better, and if you'd been reading with attention you'd know that he'd also generally said why not. Khallow isn't (nor is anyone else) obliged to take your word for the quality of public policy proposals.
"I thought you 2A types were always saying when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And, in the case of Uvalde, it appears that the cops waited for more than an hour in the hallway while a crazy man was barricading himself into a classroom with dead and dying school children."
This is what we call an own goal. Turns out, the cops were not good enough, present enough, or immediate enough. Yup. You nailed it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2022, @10:42AM
Second, the owned goal is a typical example of the high value cluelessness that too many gun control advocates bring to this discussion. In the case of Uvalde, when seconds counted, police were only more than an hour away, even though they were just outside - thank you for making that second amendment point for the rest of us. Or "assault weapons ban" - supposedly we were talking about sensible gun laws, but here's an outright ban which affects everyone, not just the alleged problems. It's just not sensible - and that's before you get to the problem that assault weapons are an imaginary category of weapon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @07:34PM
Outlaw snails. Nobody needs anything harder than a slug.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 21 2022, @09:14PM (9 children)
This is why you pass a law that empowers a regulatory agency to draft the actual requirements people need to follow.
Of course I expect that basic civics lesson to be absolutely despised by 40% of the population and ignored by the remaining 60!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @09:57PM (2 children)
And then pass a law making it illegal to not obey laws. Maybe a three-strikes law. Make that a three-near-misses law.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 22 2022, @11:28AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @09:45PM
As long as they continue to grow their cadre of big city district attorneys, laws are mostly for show, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @10:19PM (4 children)
Yeah, like that worked real well with the FCC and net neutrality, right?
*sigh* once again, you need reminding that you have pass laws that mandate the agency enforce statutory requirements written by congress, not by the agency.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:31PM (3 children)
It actually proves my basic point that it allows flexibility in the face changing circumstances. That the circumstance was a terrible decision promulgated by the crazy person who was put in charge of the executive branch is actually moot in relation to my point.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @12:05AM (2 children)
It succinctly proves that your "point" is dead wrong. We elect congress to write the law, not their appointed bureaucrats. They are there to do what congress says. They are free to give suggestions, we should never let them dictate policy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:42PM (1 child)
You seem to be confused. Congress has no time to pass laws. So they delegate. They often don't' even have time to vote, so they have someone else cast their vote for them.
So what are they so busy doing?
Working the phones to raise money for the next election cycle!
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:57PM
90% reelection rate. Party coffers overflowing with cash. The shtick works!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @11:05PM
Hmmm. Sounds extremely fascist, which is very strange coming from you. Very confusing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @09:33PM (13 children)
And what if ...
yeah, just follow me on this one...
but what if...
sounds crazy, I know...
just maybe...
well, pretend for a while...
what if regulation, predatory administration, regulatory capture and attendant corruption are part of the problem?
Wouldn't some kind of trimming of regulations seem to make sense?
Maybe?
.... nah, the tree of freedom is best served by watering with the ink from ten thousand pencilpushers.
We're counting at tens of thousands of pages in the code of federal regulations alone. Evidently, what we need is more of the same, just in case we start to get all crazy and unregulated. Lord ha' mercy, what anarchy those bold bureaucratic heroes are staving off.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:33PM (6 children)
There already is regulation, the question is who you want to enforce it.
Regulatory agencies are required to work with the actual stakeholders who will be following the regulations. Congress has no such requirement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @07:57PM (4 children)
Excuse me while I laugh so hard I pop my hernia stitches.
Regulatory agencies might have the notional obligation to work with the public (not just "stakeholders") but in practice they work very hard at limiting the degree to which people get involved, can get involved, or get to apply any views which don't suit the bureaucracy. They don't even have to face re-election, and are basically immune to being fired unless they're caught with something truly egregious.
Congresscritters at least have to face the possibility of being fired every few years.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 24 2022, @04:54PM (3 children)
I work directly with regulatory agencies on a daily basis.
Where does your information come from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2022, @07:20PM
It comes from working, directly, with regulatory agencies on, as you say, a daily basis. Multiple different ones, under penalty of law. It gets really complex.
They do things like simply get their own regulations wrong, with no recourse. "Sorry, that dude is new, he got it wrong." "Can we get this fixed then?" "Nah, you have to resubmit." "Jesus, doesn't he get training?" "Sure, a couple of years ago when he joined." Yup, that's the kind of shitfest I deal with.
Then, they take so long about issuing their own responses that they've changed their rules under my feet before actually providing a response. That's always fun because they don't inform me; I get to spelunk through their documentation after the fact to find out what changed. Yay!
Then, I get to do a lot of their own homework for them, uncompensated, and somehow this magically doesn't count as a tax or anything like that, it's just a benefit of living in the land of the free (sucker labour for the bureaucracy).
Yeah, come tell me about how transparent, consistent and collaborative the agencies are again, I need the laughs. Oooh, wait, the state agencies are even better, that is just crazypants town. "We enacted a new rule, so you get to use this new process!" "But that's in conflict with the federal rules." "Uuuuh... that's not what state law says." "Maybe you should tell the state that they should update the law, because right now I have literally no way of compliance."
Love it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2022, @10:54AM (1 child)
Reminds me of the flat Earther who allegedly ran [soylentnews.org] a bunch of experiments that normally show Earth was a rotating round object and just got different results. Later it turns out that he just believed that the whole of science was a trap for the wicked - so he probably was just ignoring everything that didn't confirm his beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2022, @05:28PM
I did a search for list of government regulatory agencies with interesting results. Seems like I'm the only one who doesn't have to work with one. Not every day, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2022, @03:13AM
Again you are making excuses. Congress is, or should be, required to write the regulations. The agencies are required to enforce the regulations written by congress, not make their own to enforce as they please.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 23 2022, @08:41PM (5 children)
Regulations are always caused by people who need to be regulated and are unable to regulate their own behavior.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2022, @10:35AM (4 children)
Or it can be caused by people unable to control their regulators.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Saturday June 25 2022, @04:12AM (3 children)
Regulations can be caused by a minority unable to control the majority whom they want to harm by their behavior which must be regulated because they have no self control to regulate themselves.
Three year old children are a good example.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2022, @10:21AM (2 children)
Well, I can't think of any examples of that "good example" myself. Basically, that's been solved since well before law ever existed. Parents or other guardians take care of the kids till they're old enough to take care of themselves. In other words, we long ago figured out how to regulate three year old children without requiring regulations.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Saturday June 25 2022, @08:18PM (1 child)
People who act like three year old children get on a plane. Can't follow simple rules. Cause a major disturbance. Fight with flight crew. Even injure flight crew making them lose some teeth. Plane has to divert and land. Causing problems for other passengers who now have mist connections. Nevermind how upsetting the incident itself was. FBI arrests them. FAA fines them tens of thousands of dollars. (Most recent examples were in the $70k to $80k range) They are banned from flying again.
Keeping these three year old adults from flying is regulations in action.
Fining them $70k to $80k seems to have finally, at long last, put an end to this nonsense. Banning them from ever flying probably helps.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want, and my family wouldn't want to be on a flight like that.
There are plenty of mental three year old adults in our society. They have zero self control. Are easily triggered into violence over some slight. Some of them are simply triggered by rules that everyone else follows without difficulty. Like crossing in the crosswalk. Not chewing gum or running in the hallway.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2022, @03:28AM
Or the airline company has some goons toss them off the plane in whatever airport the plane had to divert to. It's a solved problem.
How did it start in the first place?