ptatc

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) Which is why we've almost entirely lost the moderate wing of both parties, certainly where the majority of the country has been for the past 20-30 years, essentially moderate or fiscal conservatively but with more compassion for the poor and downtrodden than Mitt Romney was believed to possess (something like a mixture of Colin Powell and what "W" was perceived by many to be in 2000 when he was elected, with a dash of Clintonian post-1994 centrism thrown in). It's pretty ironic that the poster here who tried to bridge both sides of the discussion was applauded and also derided for naivete and posturing/placating/being a politician. I agree. That is one thing I've noticed in politics in general since the early 2000's. Everything needs to be one side or the other only and if you don't agree it's attacking the person not the policy. Personally, I'm more conservative economically and more liberal with education. I do however, think less government is better overall. Moderate is probably a good word. Mostly, I want to get my post number up to 3,000 and am bored on break from courses with only research to keep me occupied).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 08:55 PM) I'm operating under the assumption, and bmags may be too, that duke is at least somewhat trolling here. This "the federal government would have crushed democracy by now but for our guns"rhetoric is markedly different from how duke has posted here in the past. I could be wrong and his views have changed or I've miss-remembered, though. This could be true. However, if someone really wants to have a discussion on how to improve the situation, it really doesn't help to do the same thing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 07:17 PM) He threw out more runners. He caught a bunch of rookies which made life hard. To me the Flowers love is based on an extremely small sample size of success and a lot of red flags. It kind of reminds me of the Josh Fields love in 2007 and the outrage when Joe Crede was the starter at the beginning of the season in 2008, and a little like the Lillibridge love last year. We will all see how Flowers fares,I just am real Leary about guys who have as much trouble making contact as Tyler does if he isn't going to hit 35 homers, and I don't think he can do that. At least Flowers has good defense on his resume'. Fields had nothing.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) lol Do you prefer the "cliff?" It would be very effective deficit reduction. It may be better than having to make deals with the creditors of our (their) country.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) No, because they have no money. To get those benefits, of course, most of them paid taxes their entire working lives. Sorry, that's what I meant. If they paid they should get their money. However, if they pass one of the versions of the state pension reform, I will not get a COLA at all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) We'll get the 'sacrifice' from millionaires of some change they found in the couch cushions in their 3rd home though! btw here's what other people will be sacrificing if they make some sort of chained CPI deal: But, hey, shared sacrifice! Do they pay the same percentage in taxes?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) Sounds like a pretty reasonable list. You can also look at higher taxes for the bullets/ammo or guns, controlling the number of rounds one can buy every year, improving the nationalized database, some kind of test of proficiency/marksmanship (let's call it the equivalent of a written driver's license exam for those wanting a gun)... Beyond that, you really have to touch on the mental health side of it. A lot of these "mass killings" are planned out well in advance, with malice and forethought, but the pizza place shooting or the paintball shooting, it's about limiting access to guns, the ability to take one into a public place, keeping guns away from those people who are most likely to snap and solve disputes with a "shoot first, think later" perspective on conflict resolution. This is one I've never understood. Why would anyone want to take one into a public place? Growing up after a day of hunting we used to go a place to eat and people would have their shotguns in the place because they didn't go back to their vehicle. But just about every did it. But it's not like I would want to take one to a mall or anything.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) And what a solution it has been! Clearly, there are no examples in the world of gun laws in other countries that has led to lower gun violence. We can only compare things to alcohol and drunk driving, which liberals wouldn't want to curb because they drink and are lazy. Meanwhile conservatives don't want to regulate law abiding citizens, except gays and women. This why these discussions become meaningless. You don't have to make large sweeping generalizations to distract from meaningful discussion. No one implied there was any laziness or lack of effort in anything just a different opinion on what should be restricted and how to accomplish it.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 06:25 PM) Uh, yeah, "downgrade". Not even the biggest Tyler Flowers backers would argue otherwise. I would it may a small downgrade. For me it's defense first and Flowers will be much better in this regard.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:23 AM) You often turn it to be about the messenger as if you're above the fray. Anyway, the Sox don't have the talent level to contend and rebuild at the same time. Missing the playoffs again because of Viciedo not being able to produce against right-handers isn't worth the time spent to develop him. You can't take a guy that young and platoon him. It has a better than average chance of ruining his career.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) Its going to be a complete waste of money. By all means they should completely tank this season if they were smart, however they are signing middling players which will pull them up out of the basement to the mediocre level of teams which will almost guarantee missing out on a real impact prospect. I think they saw decreasing attendance want to put on a good show of trying. I don't know the FO personally but from what people say about them, they think they are smarter than all the other teams and will find the best prospects regardless of drafting position.

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) What does everyone think the chances are that AJ was cheating? He prides himself on hard work so I don't think he did. However, you never know.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) I think this is one topic we don't really need analogies for to understand, it's just convoluting the argument. I have no doubt that is the aim of a few posters right now. From a couple of pages to go, Jenks was arguing against that Heller was making it easier to restrict guns because there was no slippery slope. I tend to agree with him, however, I do believe it still left quite a bit of area for regulations on guns, especially concerning sales. I'd prefer we really dive into the new assault rifle ban so it doesn't repeat the same mistakes. I'd like a hard magazine size restriction. I'd like Colorado's law to be encouraged federally by providing matching grants. I'd like gun shows to be shut down, or force any gun show seller to get a license and be forced to follow new regulations. These are reasonable restrictions. No one needs a magazine of more than say 5 shots for semi-auto weapons. I'm not sure how you can keep guns out of people's hands and please most people. Most violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons so it may not do too much. However, I'm all for things like this that could reduce the opportunity for mass killings.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 12:10 AM) Like what? I'm sure guns are just as necessary as your car... Protecting the chickens from the coyotes. Keeping the ground squirrels, rats and other rodents from the crops. And I never compared it to a car (reading is a skill) I merely said guns have practical uses and aren't "utterly useless."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:23 PM) Many? If guns went away, what would the true impact be to society? Compare that to taking cars away. Huge difference and you know it. Compared to cars and other motor vehicles, yes. But I wasn't comparing the two. My point was that just because you don't value guns or use them doesn't mean that others don't. I just stated that guns have productive uses and aren't "utterly useless" to everyone. Not having guns would impact the society that I live in. I use them for many practical purposes.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:14 PM) If you make a list of the pros and cons of allowing cars in society and allowing guns, the pros for cars would be exponentially higher. As strangesox pointed out the other day, you remove cars from society and the world we know right now would be drastically altered for the worse. Guns, IMO, are a nice to have and utterly unnecessary. That's why we put up with the deaths caused by accidents. Also, cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. This is the difference. You are forcing your opinion on others and want the government to enforce it. There are many productive uses for guns. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the government should restrict it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:51 PM) My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread: "*Regulations governing how guns are attained* Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns. Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?" Tell me what's unreasonable about this. All of those currently exist except for the psych evaluation. The only guns not on a registry would be inherited ones. The pych eval is an interesting idea. None of those restrictions would prevent most gun violence. Take the case in Conn. None of that would have prevented it. The guns weren't his and his mother by all accounts would have/did meet all of those restrictions. It was the careless handling/storage of the weapons by the mother that allowed this to happen and I don't know what you can do about that, short of what others have said on this about getting rid of most weapons. This is an unreasonable one.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:43 PM) ughhhh now you're comparing manufacturing and safe work environments to gun contol? is there anything you WON'T try to equate with this topic? just ridiculous strawman arguments all around. That is a portion of the point. How much control should the government have in regulating things. There is a limit as to how much the government can control every situation while taking reasonable restrictions. In the case of firearms, making automatic weapons illegal is a reasonable restriction. However, when you just say we need less guns there needs to be a reasonable why to do it without being too restrictive. I haven't heard a reasonable one.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:34 PM) sure, absolutely, which is why there are laws AGAINST drinking and driving. is there a law against drinking and owning a gun? Yes. There are laws against shooting people. There are laws against using the guns in unsafe situations. There are plenty of laws against unsafe usage of guns. There are no laws against safe drinking and there are no laws against safe use of a firearm. There is no law against drinking and owning a car and there is no law against drinking and owning a gun. There are laws against drinking and using either.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:03 PM) Alcohol requires a second step to be dangerous. A bottle of beer is not dangerous. Being drunk is not dangerous (there is a limit here, sure). Being drunk AND driving is dangerous. Being drunk AND wielding a gun is dangerous. People have been drinking beer for about as long as human civilization has existed. Guns are a relatively new invention and particularly, the modern semi-automatic weapon is new -- significantly, it post-dates our constitution. It is rather difficult, comparatively, to use a gun for mere private use. Every time you fire a weapon, there is significant risk. Nobody sits at home on the weekend and fires off their gun, there's almost no place you can live in which it makes sense for you to fire your gun in your home or on your property. This is why you have to go to a club (or Little Caesar's apparently) to shoot your gun. This is why if you go to a gun range and someone unconsciously waves their gun around, everyone in the place ducks for cover. Becoming drunk and dangerous requires a series of calculated decisions and, often, neglect on part of your peers. A gun becomes dangerous the second you're near it. This is why you have to take a class in the state of IL to legally own a firearm or hunt. One unconscious pull of a trigger can be the death of somebody. If I'm simply demented or perhaps even just angry to an unprecedented extent, I can use the gun out of malice and kill people, perhaps many people. There aren't many good uses for alcohol in that situation, save self-medication. They're both dangerous, but they're totally different. One's function is death -- it can be avoided and in most cases is, thanks to so many conscientious gun owners like myself. However, when it functions properly it kills or performs an action that would be lethal if pointed in the right place. Beer's function, primarily, is a beverage and its original use was a matter of nutrition. It was a way to eat barley. You can have too much, which is bad like most things. You can then drive, which is yet another calculated decision that is separate from your drinking too many beers. We should also add that the maximum lethality of a drunk driver is not all that impressive compared to the well-armed gunman. This is not inherently true. Guns can be used for sports, protection, food etc. Just like alcohol, guns are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Nearly all people who own guns have never shot someone nor had their guns used to shoot someone. Same with drinking. Why punish all of the people who use them correctly. So what your saying is that it is the intent that is being punished. It is better to die from a drunk driver than it is by someone with a gun. The original function of each really doesn't matter. It's all in how each is used. In the hands of the wrong person each are lethal. In the hands of the proper person each is safe.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:30 PM) *sigh* good point. bad example. they do kill other people. the main crux of my argument remains. guns kill other people who DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen. not so with drugs etc This is the drunk driver example. More people die at the hands of a drunk driver than with guns. All of the victims were innocent and DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:23 PM) ALCOHOL KILLS YOURSELF, CIGARETTES KILL YOURSELF, DRUGS KILL YOURSELF GUNS KILL OTHER PEOPLE will you stop with the ridiculous fallacious arguments??? It is not ridiculous. Alcohol kills when it impairs the driver and he hits someone. Alcohol is not a danger except in this person. Guns only kill people in the hands of the wrong person.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) Yes, let's focus on the people who end up harming or killing others because of their easy access to guns.that is the point. Less guns= less gun violence, meaning you have less things to defend yourself against in first place. I'm not sure this is true. It's less guns in the hands of the wrong people=less gun violence. How we accomplish this is the real question.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:06 PM) That is waaaaay different and you know it. But I'm glad we agree. I don't think it is all that different. Alcohol related deaths outnumber gun related deaths so why is one OK and not the other?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) Oh what the f*** man. Also, my friend put on facebook "No thanks Obama, I'll keep my AK-47." WHY THE f*** DOES A 19 YEAR OLD GIRL IN COLLEGE NEED A GODDAMN AK-47. It's the same argument about needing a beer. You don't need one but want one. How many drunk drivers kill people each year? So let's go back to prohibition to save all of the people which could possibly die in a drunk driving accident. However, I do agree that automatic weapons should be illegal, they do not serve a legal purpose.