Isn't satire fun?

Anyway, contrary to popular belief, a human life does have a value. The government wouldn't spend $100 billion to save one life but they would probably spend $10; therefore the value is somewhere between those two numbers. Eventually the value of lives saved (this could be negative if lives are lost as a result) would be less than the amount of pissed off people you would have because of these restrictions. When this point is reached, it is no longer beneficial to have any more laws.

Well lets see their are about 110 million rifles in the us,so lets say half of that(its probably way more) are semi automatic.Thats 55 million.An avereage semi auto now is anywhere from 600 to 1200 in texas,so lets say they each cost 900.Now lets say the fed pay half of that buying them back.

That wouldbe 450 multiplied by 55 million.That would be 2,475,000,000 dollars spent on that program.Now consider that semi auto rifles are used in crimes such as murder,so we would have to divide the number of deaths per year by the cost of the buy back program.

Now in 2011 roughly 8,500 people were killed by semi automatic guns,not just rifles so that includes pistols as well so im being very generous with my estimation.This would mean each life would cost 2,911,764.00.

A bit costly huh?And thats including all semi autos mind you,not just the guns were talking about.

So you have that number, plus the amount the population would be willing to pay to prevent this, plus the economic value of lives lost as a result of disarming people
vs
The economic value of 8500 lives saved, plus the amount the population would pay to cause this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

I agree that human life has a value.
<This sexy jew showed me that.
I don't believe a human life is worth 3 million dollars at the minimum.

This comparison makes literally no sense; a car is not explicitly designed to cause harm to others, and sure as hell isn't a man portable device that you'll be able to make yourself with a 3D printer in a few years.

You can actually own and operate a tank on public roads like a typical automobile as long as the cannon is inactive.

Fuck this "designed to" bullshit. Anything can be used or abused in a responsible or irresponsible manner. Believe it or not, of the 300 million or so guns in the US, a very tiny fraction of those are used in crime; probably fewer than the number of cars involved in accidents.

tl;dr, design doesn't designate intent.

I'm not arguing for gun control, merely contending that his comparison was illogical.

And yes, design does matter, because it determines how well a given tool is capable of aiding a given task. You can't hide a car under your coat, and you can't drive a gun to work.

Iunno. Nobody expects you to intentionally run them over, and ramming someone fucks them up pretty good. I'd say a car is an excellent murder weapon, design disregarding.

Alcohol probably would've been a better analogy because that was designed to make people stupid and therefor reckless.

Who cares about what it was designed for if it can still has the capability to harm people needlessly. There's no reason to drive 105 to 110 mph,so why not ban it? Why do you NEED that car?

(oh btw the "guns are only for killing argument" has been proven wrong hundreds of times and is really tired)

You don't need it, but because high-performance vehicles are such expensive luxuries, there is no reason to assume that they would ever be used to commit crimes when vehicles require government registration and licensing; not to mention the fact that people that own luxury cars treat them like children.

Driving 120 mph isn't just a feature for "luxury cars" ,most cars can go 105mph.
Theres reason to assume that people will use the cars to commit crimes because they can easily kill someone at those speeds,in fact more people are killed in car accidents than with guns.By setting the mph to 65 you dramatically reduce the chance of killing someone in a car crash,and one could argue that the current registration system(as libs have argued for guns) is flawed because people are still dying from speeding.

And if you dont think people feel the same way about guns as others do with cars,than you obviously haven't been to a gun show.

My comparison makes sense.

You can kill somebody in a car wreck at a far less than 65 mph. Also, more people are killed by cars because most Americans need them to accomplish their daily lives; the risk of getting killed by a fender up your ass is much higher simply because the automobile is a much more integral part of modern society than the firearm.

Again, I'm not for more gun control, I just don't see the logic in your comparison. The fear of guns that the far left has is silly, but I do know where they're coming from.

Well of course you can still kill somebody at 65 mph,just like you can still kill somebody with a bolt action.Were talking about 110 mph,which would make it easier to kill somebody than 65 mph.

Were not talking about the integral part a car holds in society,thats not where my comparison comes into play.Were talking about banning a feature of a car that serves no use other than for each individuals enjoyment or comfort,to possibly save lives.

Sound familiar?Libs want to ban semi automatic rifles(a feature of a gun),that dont really serve any purpose(from their point of view) except for each individuals enjoyment or comfort,to possibly save lives(even though its been tried before and didnt save lives).

Do you get the comparison now?Because I cant make it that much clearer.

The comparison falls through when you consider that there are more reasons beyond "baww it's scary". You need to understand where they're coming from if you want to best them in the legislature.

Why dont you tell me where they're coming from if it's more than preying upon peoples fears?

The AWB of 1994 did nothing to stop gun violence,that is fact.The features they talk about banning are all cosmetic,nothing to do with functionality,that is fact.Most gun deaths in the US are from illegally obtained handguns,that is a fact.Most mass shooting happened in gun free zones,that is a fact.

To say its anything more than a fear campaign is silly,and you still haven't shown how the comparison is flawed,as scariness had nothing to do with the original comparison,which was referencing flawed methods of solving problems.

Because I apparently need to explicitly point this out multiple times, I do not agree with the recent firearm legislation.

The whole charade hasn't really made anybody more paranoid of guns, it's merely preying on skepticism of modern gun culture. In recent video games, the role-playing elements are based heavily on real, actual firearm models manufactured by real, actual companies that pay for the product placement. It's not just to appeal to edgy teenagers, either, you'd be surprised by how many people get into guns through games. You can see this in advertisements by companies like Bushmaster--stereotypical gritty, testosterone-drenched horseshit that dresses wimpy rifles up as badass war machines and implies that anyone that doesn't buy one is a pussy little fag. It's strange (and honestly really funny) how this exacerbates the stereotype that gun fans are dick compensating.

To the less familiar, this seems as if America's fascination with weapons is part of some demented culture of violence and killing when it's just harmless fantasy. But nobody wants to admit this, because, sadly, the vocal minority of gun owners don't even realize that they do what they do for fun and see themselves as badasses that need to protect their families from roving bands of tyrannical government insurgents and scary brown people, despite leaving their front doors unlocked and writing off home security systems as overpriced gimmicks. It's like how stoners make ludicrous claims of economic and medical benefit when they don't want to admit that they just want to get high.

I understand you're not for the legislation,I was just trying to explain the comparison to you and when you said that there was more to the argument than fear,which is all that has been used by the left,i thought I would correct you.

As for the rest the vast majority of gun owners ive met have been older men of all races that have probably never played a video game besides pong,let alone call of duty,and as far as some gun owners pretending to be "badasses",ive heard that so many times from the left its tiring.(also i resent the racist anti government redneck stereotype that has been spread by the media)

The only reason gun owners are vocal is because they rightfully feel threatened when congressmen and women suggest taking away their guns.Here in the south we have a strong gun tradition,we were raised with guns,we understand how they work,and we respect them and the damage they can do.

When someone nonchalantly threatens to take that away,youre going to get some angry responses.

Well, yes, that is what I meant by "vocal minority". Every ordinary, non-retarded gun fanatic I've ever talked to is disgusted by how "tacticool" guns have become, and I can't blame them. I see similar fad childishness in my own interests all the time.

How do people not realize this is sarcastic?

I know, right? This has convinced me that this board isn't very smart.

Dude you would have been shot if you were an American by now

It's legal to take a shit on the American flag; what makes you think any one of those could possibly become law... Every single one of those is unconstitutional.

mmm... no... it's more like this

"We've devise a brilliant plan to fix the federal budget; it's sure to work."
"It says here that you plan to cut social security and other entitlements."
"Yeah, so?"
"Old people make up a majority of voters and we'd be cutting their benefits."
"But this plan will definitely work."
"We'll be voted out of office for sure if we pass this."
"So should we just stall and keep blaming the other political party?"
"Fine by me as long as I get my paycheck."
"But guys, the budget is a huge problem."
"Indeed it is. Remember that saying 'a democracy will fail when the people learn they can vote themselves money from the treasury'?"
"I recall, yes."
"Democracy failed."
".........."
"Let's all go campaign for public support on trivial things like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage."
"Sounds good to me; we'd get lots of public support and we'd all have a better chance of getting reelected."

I don't know man, both sound pretty dead on to me.

The federal government needs to get its shit in order.

First thing they need to do is end the Fed.

There are a lot of things the government does or has done that aren't constitutional

IDK why it wouldn't be. Their state constitution was changed democratically by the people. It's one of those things states get to do on their own.

Personally I'm against it but it's not my state so I don't care.

I've changed my mind; I do care. The precedent will be important.

the interesting thing is that i dont think there is a precedence for a debate of equality of this sort because it is based on the genders of two people at the same time and not just one. a couple of the same sex doesn't have the same opportunities as a couple of different sexes.

Couples don't exist according to the government. Legally speaking you can either be single or married, there is no intermediate.

and gay couples only have one option, which is not fair

the supreme court is bringing it to the federal level.

Yes, but they'll probably rule it constitutional because... *points to comment*
Marriage is not in the US constitution so any argument would have to come from equal rights. However, marriage laws don't discriminate against gays because if a gay guy wants to marry a woman, he can; this is why defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman can ban it. Therefore the issue falls on whether or not to re-define marriage to allow gays to marry with an amendment. California has this.

The federal and state constitutions are the laws of the land; whatever they say is final. They can be changed with amendments but these amendments have to come from the top authority, which in the case of a democracy is the people. It is the people who give the government the authority to govern, not politicians. This is why the preamble to the federal constitution starts with "We the people..."

The people have spoken; California does not want gays to marry within their jurisdiction.

thats not equal rights. that means that under the current laws, there is a scenario where two consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults cannot exercise their right to marry.

Marriage is not a natural right, it's a contract between two people that the government recognizes and gives benefits for. The supreme authority (the people) has told the government to recognize this type of contract only if it is between a man and a woman.

If marriage was define as being between two people, then you'd be right. However California's constitution does not use that definition.

i understand what the definition is. im saying it should be changed. under the current system, two people that live together and love each other can't get the same benefit as two other people who live together and love each other based on sex

I agree but the courts do not have the authority to change it.

the supreme court does

By definition, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
On the state level, it can only be unconstitutional if it conflicts with the federal constitution.
In this case, marriage laws are reserved to the state by the 10th amendment so the states can do what they want.

i would argue that banning gay marriage goes against the 14th amendment

If you're referring to the due process clause, can a liberty be taken way if that liberty never existed in the first place?
Even if it could, the clause also says these liberties could be taken away by the due process of law. Prop 8 was passed democratically, by a majority of citizens voting, and as far as I know the procedures for passing a state amendment were followed; there's the due process of law.

my answer to your first question would be yes. since it is a liberty that people should have, but it is being denied.

due process will be complete once its out of the supreme court.

If the supreme court is the last step of due process, can it rule the law unconstitutional because it wasn't given the due process? If it can, then this decision would be immediately voided because the due process would be complete.

As for the first part, the idea of natural rights is a whole philosophical debate in itself. Do you think people are born with certain rights (natural rights, aka fundamental rights, aka god-given rights) regardless of what country or jurisdiction they are in?

im not saying they wouldn't rule it unconstitutional because it wasn't given due process, im saying they can't rule it constitutional because it was given due process.

i dont think this has to do with natural rights, i think its a civil rights issue. like i said, under the current system, two people that live together and love each other can't get the same benefits as two other people who live together and love each other based on sex

According to the 14th amendment, rights can be taken away if they are given the due process of law. So if the right to marry whoever you like regardless of sex is taken away and you can only marry someone of opposite sex, all with the due process of law, how has the 14th amendment been violated?

if the supreme court rules that it is constitutional, then that's that. but thats not what im arguing about.

the part of te 14th amendment that is in question for me is "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

its up to the supreme court to decide whether prop 8 abridges the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and i think that it does.

BTW, it may sound like I'm against gay marriage, which I'm not. I just think the decision of the state should be respected.

A privilege is by definition something that is given to you, or a right under certain conditions. For example, it is a privilege to drive a car on public streets because you can only do it if you have a license. If marriage is a privilege, then it is not a right and therefore subject to the whims of the law.

There is another point where you could argue the 14th amendment: "[...] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But for this you must argue that some people (gays) are not treated equally under the law. Segregation was declared unconstitutional this way because the "separate but equal" has inherently not equal and it never could be equal. Prop 8 is different because all people, even heterosexuals, must follow the same rules. A man cannot marry his best bro, likewise gays cannot marry each other. Conversely, both are still able to marry someone of the opposite gender, a homosexual just may not want to. However, even if you do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender, the law still applies equally.

im saying that the condition of the privilege to marry shouldn't gender, but being two consenting adults who are prepared to spend their lives together.

they are not being treated equally under the law since two people in a committed relationship do not have the same opportunities and benefits as two other people who are in a committed relationship but are different genders.

and im not assuming that you're against gay marriage, im just saying that the decision of the state is not final as of right now because the supreme court is determining if it is constitutional or not.

can't reply to the last comment

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Reed
here's the court precedent, I guess, but it's a stretch (still arguable) because the other gender is also given the same restriction... there's not really any inequality based on sex

so it's not equal because of this?

male: "I want to marry someone"
gov: "all right; who do you want to marry?"
male: "this man right here"
gov: "nope, you can't do that; it must be a woman"
male: "why? that woman over there gets to marry a man"
gov: "that's because she is a woman"
male: "so just because I'm a man I don't have the same rights?"
gov: "......."

Like that?

yeah pretty much

Arizona's recent illegal immigration policies treats them worse than criminals, though, which I detest. It's always better to be unreasonably nice than to be unreasonably cruel.

Agreed, it'd also be better to allow states to come up with their own unique laws rather than dump an issue into Congress and/or the Supreme Court. Give the people their voice instead of trusting social issues in the hands of aging representatives and federal appointees

North Dakota is sort of the front in the abortion debate right now because we have the money to deal with all the inevitable lawsuits. A lot of the debate is coming from outside.

that's a really good point actually

Theocracy? Didn't know Obama was the Pope.

If we banned those 30 sec political commercials on tv, it would probably help a lot, but then you run into the 1st amendment..... 30 sec is nowhere near enough time to learn about an issue and it causes people to vote based solely on emotion. Tv has influenced politics way too much.

The parties are Republican or Democrat anymore. Rich reason, or Religious reason into office isn't how the U.S. was founded.

gay marriage is really the only issue where religion is a problem (that I can think of), everywhere else the effect is minimal. The way the rich influence politics is by pumping out millions worth of ads to change public opinion. So... ya...

And why do the rich do that? There's probably some form of incentive. Some form of influence they get to exert in turn. Hmmm...

The glories of capitalism. Government regulation is bad for business; that's why people are reluctant to make laws to clean up the environment for example. Also look at Bloomberg. He recently used $12 million to try to sway swing states on gun control but he kind of blew it.
It's greed motivated, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because it's greed that drives the economy, but it also screws us over if left completely unchecked.

Germany already tried to fight on 1 front during WW1 by attacking france first but russia joined in too quickly because of alliances.

He took too many drugs to control his brain properly, would you really want a drug addict in office?

Is that really your problem with Hitler?

No, but it is a big factor with him making decision. Sober he'd lead an army into power, but on drugs he didn't do good.

So your issue is that he didn't succeed?

Yea, but I still didn't agree with him politically, or even how he used his power. I'm saying he might have gotten away with it if he didn't act so quickly because of drugs.

Well, I ... guess so. My issue would be the whole genocide-fascism-and-invading-countries-for-nationalism thing. I wouldn't want him in office if he were sober.

Yea, I wouldn't either, I'm just saying he might have done a better job sober.

If Hitler had listened to his Generals, and not rushed into the fighting he could have easily won. Or at least made the war last much longer. If he had waited until Great Britain fell, and let Rommel destroy the allies in Africa, then attacked Russia with many more men and supplies at the ready. Europe would have fallen in a few years. The rest of the world is hard to tell.

yes, agreed

American Enforcement: Police brutality.
RCMP: Police brutality, eh?

I'd say "beatdown" sums it up as far as Seattle PD goes

As in "there are many nonwhite citizens being beatdown by the SPD"

No self-respecting anarchist would ever associate themselves with Mao what the fuck

I don't like Mao either, but for some reason, some anarchists call themselves maoists. I highly doubt they like him or anything, It must have something to do with the economic policy. It seems weird for me aswell that some anarchists call themselves maoists.

Maybe maoist anarchists are to Mao what council stalinists are to Stalin.

Possible but also really stupid.

I disregard that entire part of the left because they are stupid (authoritarian socialists who think Marx would have approved of their ideas) so it's not even worth my time to think about it. A lot of anarchists are really dumb, too. But there are less stupid anarchists than stupid communists.

It's a shame that many 'communists' just want a political dictatorship, as opposed to an actual communist society.

Most 'communists' aren't actually communists. They're reactionaries or careerists who appear to be 'progressive.'

very sad indeed.

wouldn't it be... the exact opposite of anarchism?

Apparently Mao used to be an anarchist when he was younger, maybe they support his economic policies, but oppose his totalitarian measures, but it's a little confusing for me aswell, since I still don't know much about this.

It kind of set the limit on what you can and cannot do in war

It did help reduce the population, that is about it.

It was probably one of the worst ideas ever

Why is that?

because it accomplished precisely nothing, besides death

Some people say it's because America helped fight Communism.

They did fight against communism, but they were naive to think they could win that war, and foolish to commit more troops after years of no success.

If we had continued we would have won the war. For every American killed there were 10 Vietcong deaths. The war was handled poorly at the home front however and ended up if the funding cut. With no money our guys were sent home.

So, you're telling me we went into a jungle, gave poor soldiers PTSD, went in thinking that they'd win the war in a few months or years, and then we got our asses kicked and went out of the ring as losers?

Shit, I would never enter a war like that.

But what about Afghanistan? Isn't like the same situation in Vietnam?

The difference is in Afghanistan NATO actually removed the Taliban from power

So we DID make some progress.

yes, we made a lot of progress, but the thing is that the future is unclear. We can't leave before the country is rebuilt and stable, or else the terrorists will seize control of the government again. The problem I think with Afghanistan, is that we bit off more than we can chew, military operations are expensive, and Afghanistan is in no shape to fend for itself. It's a very tricky situation.

Back in World War II didn't they make tin cans into ammo?

I don't know

Well, that's all I need to know.

Because they don't see the glory of the fuhrer god saint king Bush and the rest of the holy republican party. They'll certainly learn to if you keep whining about it on the internet long enough, though.

not all liberals are hippie douchebags

because they just want to argue against mommy and daddy and don't care if they are right. They just want to prove their parents wrong because they blame their parents because they are soft

Because they don't care enough to learn. The entire political party is one giant bandwagon.

What if he didn't and its just a government conspiracy?

I think not. Its all a lie

theres no scientific proof he did

Nah,if we quit now then another country would just fill our place,and the contenders don't exactly look so good. I know other first world countries get mad at us sometimes,but I think(or at least I hope) they understand that we're a pretty passive superpower when it comes to them(maybe not the middle east but that place has been a powder keg since its creation). The runner ups have terrible human rights records and its fair to say without the U.S.,western society would be pretty much doomed.

Now assuming that not just one country takes our place and were left with multiple superpowers,well,historically that hasn't ended well.Someone needs to be in charge to keep everybody from killing each other. It's not a job with a lot of thanks,but it's the hand we as a nation have been dealt.