You're right, there are winners and losers. Because God knows I'm sure the remainers would've given a **** about the leavers concerns about the EU. If they had at any point In the last forty years this referendum may have been averted. Food for thought.
Yes. Yes they would. Nobody is happy with the EU. Nobody. You do realise there were negotiations prior to the vote? And that there will be ones after. Any legitimate concerns of 'leave' were being addressed. But their campaign was built on a bedrock of lies and mistruths. It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
(...) It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
(...)
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...) It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
(...)
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
This is what I find alarming about modern political campaigns. It is so easy to fact check these extra ordinary claims via Google/Bing etc. It's also quite funny that in the hours and subsequent days since we voted for #brexit people have been heavily Googling the EU and what it means that we should leave.
Surely this is something that people should have done, I dunno, BEFORE going out and voting?
There was a letter in the Times this morning from a person who voted leave, not because he actually wanted to leave, but because he thought it would strengthen Britain's position in the EU, the Pound and so on.
The thing is as we are seeing with Trump and various other leaders throughout history, invoke a little bit of nationalism wave a few flags and people will vote for you no matter what else you say.
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
I guess my thing is that there's a progressive satellite radio station I listen to, and everyone on there I'm nodding in agreement with everything they say ... until they start talking about how much they hate guns, at which point I have to turn the radio off. Media wise at least it just seems like everyone who considers themself a progressive is expected to hate guns.
Our problem here in the States is the mostly Two Party System that has developed over the last 200+ years.
It is in no way 'all-inclusive' of the actual population and has delved into the insane idea that Cooperation & Compromise are to be avoided at all costs.
<shrug>
Post edited by daveyny on
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
If I understand it correctly, the NRA (gun lobby) practically owns the republican party. Of course everything they want is to make money, but their affiliated party turns it into a matter of patriotism to own guns, always citing the 2nd amendment which says that in order to keep Britain from taking back their colonies, militias need to be kept and every citizen has the right to bear arms. From my arrogant Euro perspective it is sheer madness to cling to an outdated law like that, especially seeing what's at risk. I have no problem with recreational shooting in controlled environments, but guns aren't recreational tools or other hobby items. They're guns and those don't belong in any home (personal opinion). There's overwhelming evidence from any perspective it's possible to look at it (and some odd 90% of citizens are in favor of at least some form of governmental oversight), but the lobby pays their party and the party seems to make it a matter of principal. The only solution I think would be for a president to muster the courage to abolish the 2nd amendment. But that would be an unprecedented act and people are worried about such fundamental modifications to the constitution, officially. Inofficially it's, of course, lobby work.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
They don't want ANY gun control laws, because it might lead to even more stricter rules down the pike.
(even if it means going against the majority of what the American People think)
It's the "Slippery Slope" Theory and it's worked for that particular lobby for many a decade now.
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I don't agree with either side. Yes people should be able to own weapons, which types of guns should be legal and what types of requirements for owning them should depend upon the type. Simple small calliber guns for bird shooting or non-lethal home defense for example should be relatively easy to acquire while ones designed for hunting or as pure military weapons should require special licensing and training as well as background checks. I'm extremely conservative to the point of being libertarian but this makes perfect sense to me.
The law wasn't put in place to prevent England taking us back it was to prevent our government from becoming the same tyrannical TRIBBLE-holes because at any given time if they try to overstep their power we can go "nope" and forcibly take our country back. It's just another check and balance on the government's power and it's worked well so far. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety."
As I pointed out earlier, anyone who trusts politicians is a moron of such epic proportions that I wonder if eugenics is actually such a bad idea.
Putting aside the point wether or not the amendment in this form and for this purpose makes any sense, the consensus that some form of regulation in the way @samt1996 stated it would make sense seems to be across all political camps. But even that is not possible due to the lobby's influence.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The thing is dangerous tools like hammers, knifes and axes, which can be used as weapons are promearily useful tools for doing allsorts of stuff, guns can only be used to arm and kill, and don't give me any TRIBBLE about hunting, unless you are really at the poverty line I'm sure meat produced on farms are in plentiful supply. with regards to hunting as a sport I'd have much more respect if you took out "game" with just a knife, but you don't so what a buncj of pansies.
The thing is dangerous tools like hammers, knifes and axes, which can be used as weapons are promearily useful tools for doing allsorts of stuff, guns can only be used to arm and kill, and don't give me any **** about hunting, unless you are really at the poverty line I'm sure meat produced on farms are in plentiful supply. with regards to hunting as a sport I'd have much more respect if you took out "game" with just a knife, but you don't so what a buncj of pansies.
Though I broadly agree with that, we do live in England. There are greater difference between our culture and that of theirs and it goes far beyond their irrational hatred of the letter U.
There are cultural nuances to guns that exist there that don't here. It's probably something to do with the frontier.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
You're right, guns are primarily weapons for offense or more commonly defense. I fail to see your point however, in this country being able to protect yourself from bad people and any potentially oppressive government is seen as a right. And for good reason, I have every right to defend myself against those who would do me harm and I'm not turning that over to a politician. More often then not by the time the cops arrive to any such situation I'd already be dead and the perpetrator would be long gone. Weapons serve positive purposes even in the hands of civilians I will never change my view on that. The question is simply one of how to make it so the potentially bad or unstable people can't get them without preventing all the good people who want them for personal defense from getting them. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to put a good system in place all parties willing but we all know how that will end.
In the end no matter what you may do there can be a black market for anything. I mean they're called criminals for a reason.
Exactly, the Personal Gun is just as much of a part of the history of the USA, as the Covered Wagon, Dance Hall Girls and the Model T.
Unfortunately, at some point it became a political ploy to retain power, just like Tobacco use to be.
Until folks start truly separating the idea of owing a handgun for defense, from owing Semi-Automatic Weapons for FUN and Profit, things are not going to improve.
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The thing is dangerous tools like hammers, knifes and axes, which can be used as weapons are promearily useful tools for doing allsorts of stuff, guns can only be used to arm and kill, and don't give me any **** about hunting, unless you are really at the poverty line I'm sure meat produced on farms are in plentiful supply. with regards to hunting as a sport I'd have much more respect if you took out "game" with just a knife, but you don't so what a buncj of pansies.
I did study hunting techniques and regulations around the globe. And it is my academic opinion that US hunting regulations are a joke, but not one I can laugh about. And this is by no means meant condescening or anything, it's really something that needs serious consideration. But my point is that here or there, regulated or not, the vast majority of all hunters in Europe or the US do not hunt out of necessity (personal or ecological) or for a living but simply out of fun to shoot guns. But depending on the state (in the US) some do "regulate" it and some don't at all and people "hunt" with assault rifles and little to no skill actually handling them. And that's scary. Over here, hunting is in theory strictly regulated from who is allowed to to what kind of weapon and type of ammunition you're allowed to use. You need certified training to use the guns and if you TRIBBLE up badly (doesn't even need to be gun related, if you basically show you're unresponsible on a great scale like drunk driving) you lose the right to use firearms and go hunting permanently. What seems like draconic reglementation for US american eyes however chosels none of the so called "good people" out of their hobby. I think it's simply due to propaganda US citizens get fed basically as long as the country exists they're so unreasonably scared of government regulation in areas we in Europe would simply identify as the state's business to provide for the safety and well being of it's citizens.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
If I understand it correctly, the NRA (gun lobby) practically owns the republican party. Of course everything they want is to make money, but their affiliated party turns it into a matter of patriotism to own guns, always citing the 2nd amendment which says that in order to keep Britain from taking back their colonies, militias need to be kept and every citizen has the right to bear arms. From my arrogant Euro perspective it is sheer madness to cling to an outdated law like that, especially seeing what's at risk. I have no problem with recreational shooting in controlled environments, but guns aren't recreational tools or other hobby items. They're guns and those don't belong in any home (personal opinion). There's overwhelming evidence from any perspective it's possible to look at it (and some odd 90% of citizens are in favor of at least some form of governmental oversight), but the lobby pays their party and the party seems to make it a matter of principal. The only solution I think would be for a president to muster the courage to abolish the 2nd amendment. But that would be an unprecedented act and people are worried about such fundamental modifications to the constitution, officially. Inofficially it's, of course, lobby work.
It would be impossible for the President to abolish the 2nd amendment. That power is reserved to the states. There's a couple of methods to get the amendment process started, but passage requires 3/4 of the states, not congress, to vote in favor. This might be unusual but during the process to make the USA official there were concerns over keeping a balance of power between the states and the federal gov. (On an aside, some say that the balance between the two dramatically tipped in favor of the Fed as a result of the US civil war.)
One big issue with the 2nd is the way it's worded. Pro gun rights will say to look at the original intent and the differences in language between then and now. The anti gun crowd will point to the "militia" part and claim that gun rights are reserved specifically for them, which incidentally militias no longer exist on a nationally recognized level. Looking at the original proposals the drafters themselves disagreed on this issue. There's also the issue of whether "shall not be infringed" should effect the types of regulations which may be passed.
As far as the NRA "owning" the Republicans, I have no idea on that. Just that there's an increasing push to get money out of politics. Though the Democrats are the ones making the most noise on this, there is a segment on the right who are also upset with the amount of influence corporations and whatnot have. So there may be hope here.
Not trying to pick a fight nor being disrepectful about the opinions of others but I believe the UK will make a serious mistake by leaving the EU and I can't take seriously any form of isolationist view or those nostalgic cries of a past long gone (or that should be long gone) in which it's every country for itself. The EU is far from perfect. It's downright stupid in many regards, but I feel it's based on a good principle and it makes more sense trying to make it better rather than leave. I get that people feel the UK is giving money for people who just spend it unwisely, but that's mostly propaganda. Of course there are people to whom the shoe fits, but that is a very narrow view of the whole picture. No one ever makes a balance of how the money returns in the form of trade, direct and indirect. No one cares about how the free movement of people and goods within the EU helped every country develop itself, and so on. All people ever care is "how much am I giving someone else". And this happens in every country.
My country lived in the "proudly alone" mindset for many years. The general population knew little, if anything, about the world beyond our borders. Later, many died fighting a war in several fronts to keep the same proud "empire" together, and it crumbled anyway. We made enemies of our "brothers" and the result was a disaster for us and for them. That's what that sort of ideology brought.
Today we can look back and consider that entering the EU and the Euro (currency) was bad for our economy (obviously that it had a lot to do with the way the government used the money). Many call out for the exact same thing; they consider that the EU is to blame for the immigration problem, for destroying our fishing and agriculture and feel we should leave the Euro and the EU.
But we gained so much as individuals and citizens of the world. There's no price tag on that. I believe Europe is better than it was ten, twenty, thirty years ago and we are better together.
Not trying to pick a fight nor being disrepectful about the opinions of others but I believe the UK will make a serious mistake by leaving the EU and I can't take seriously any form of isolationist view or those nostalgic cries of a past long gone (or that should be long gone) in which it's every country for itself. The EU is far from perfect. It's downright stupid in many regards, but I feel it's based on a good principle and it makes more sense trying to make it better rather than leave. I get that people feel the UK is giving money for people who just spend it unwisely, but that's mostly propaganda. Of course there are people to whom the shoe fits, but that is a very narrow view of the whole picture. No one ever makes a balance of how the money returns in the form of trade, direct and indirect. No one cares about how the free movement of people and goods within the EU helped every country develop itself, and so on. All people ever care is "how much am I giving someone else". And this happens in every country.
My country lived in the "proudly alone" mindset for many years. The general population knew little, if anything, about the world beyond our borders. Later, many died fighting a war in several fronts to keep the same proud "empire" together, and it crumbled anyway. We made enemies of our "brothers" and the result was a disaster for us and for them. That's what that sort of ideology brought.
Today we can look back and consider that entering the EU and the Euro (currency) was bad for our economy (obviously that it had a lot to do with the way the government used the money). Many call out for the exact same thing; they consider that the EU is to blame for the immigration problem, for destroying our fishing and agriculture and feel we should leave the Euro and the EU.
But we gained so much as individuals and citizens of the world. There's no price tag on that. I believe Europe is better than it was ten, twenty, thirty years ago and we are better together.
This is true as far as I'm concerned. The EU has plenty of flaws which mostly originates from it's original foundation as a economic contract and the majority of work the EU parliament condones these days is still economic in nature and sadly for the most time means selling the right to bypass local business impeding laws in member states to large international corporations. It is only recently that the EU slowly began to develop a sense of deeper meaning which most younger European citizens start to embrace int he first or second generation now. It is sad that it took so long to develop this sense that is still a petite seatling which at this point needs a lot of care and goodwill to become something truly meaningful. The union makes quite a few mistakes and has to find itself anew. But the idea of mutual support, cooperation, safety and peace in Europe is worth it, in my opinion.
The current populist claims mean to cash in the distorted memories of people. Everyone always claims that it has been "better" once which is of course not true. Objectively not true. But people love to get nostalgic when they're unhappy with something and the lies spread by demagouges all over Europe and the world these days empower those false feelings of past superiority. We mustn't fall into this trap. Not only will none of these claims hold true when the people fueling those feelings rise to power but the price for allowing them to get there will be much higher than simple disappointment. The time of isolation need to be over. Cooperation and inclusion is the way to go for the betterment of every single one of us. There's no "us" and "them", every human being shares the same planet with us and "their" problems are "our" problems. Building a wall and hiding behind it is not the way to go, you're not "safe" within the walls in your head and around your borders when things really go sideways on a global scale. In addition, you are not doing anything to improve the situation. If things really go better on a global scale they did so without you, leaving you behind.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
The thing to understand is that the 2nd Amandment means gunn overship a Constitutional right, and the terrorism watch list is not subject to usual due process rules. People can get on there for flimsy reasons, and denying a constitutional right based on that is in-acceptable. That's like saying these people shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example.
It is possible to lose constitutional rights - but only if you were convicted of a crime. People on the watch list aren't convicted of anything.
Of course, if there wasn't a strong lobby for gun law, people might not care about it, but the US is what it is.
To change anything about this, two possibilities exist:
- People can only get on that watch list if they are actually convicted of a crime. => That kinda defeats the purpose of a watch list.
- The 2nd Amendment is repealed. => Sounds impossible to achieve.
It's by the way also probably an example for where a simple 52 % majority vote could not achieve a change.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
The thing to understand is that the 2nd Amandment means gunn overship a Constitutional right, and the terrorism watch list is not subject to usual due process rules. People can get on there for flimsy reasons, and denying a constitutional right based on that is in-acceptable. That's like saying these people shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example.
It is possible to lose constitutional rights - but only if you were convicted of a crime. People on the watch list aren't convicted of anything.
Of course, if there wasn't a strong lobby for gun law, people might not care about it, but the US is what it is.
To change anything about this, two possibilities exist:
- People can only get on that watch list if they are actually convicted of a crime. => That kinda defeats the purpose of a watch list.
- The 2nd Amendment is repealed. => Sounds impossible to achieve.
It's by the way also probably an example for where a simple 52 % majority vote could not achieve a change.
Yeah, I agree with not letting people on the watch list buy weapons, but at the same time they need to come up with a clear path to getting one's self off the list in the event that you're added by mistake. Btw that's not just a gun issue, I've heard stories of families being turned away at the airport because their baby's name is on the list.
Yeah, I agree with not letting people on the watch list buy weapons, but at the same time they need to come up with a clear path to getting one's self off the list in the event that you're added by mistake. Btw that's not just a gun issue, I've heard stories of families being turned away at the airport because their baby's name is on the list.
From what I could read, people can get on that list simply for the way they look or as you said their names. That's a textbook definition of discrimination and racism and all because the western, free world is so TRIBBLE scared of everything at this point.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
The thing to understand is that the 2nd Amandment means gunn overship a Constitutional right, and the terrorism watch list is not subject to usual due process rules. People can get on there for flimsy reasons, and denying a constitutional right based on that is in-acceptable. That's like saying these people shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example.
It is possible to lose constitutional rights - but only if you were convicted of a crime. People on the watch list aren't convicted of anything.
Of course, if there wasn't a strong lobby for gun law, people might not care about it, but the US is what it is.
To change anything about this, two possibilities exist:
- People can only get on that watch list if they are actually convicted of a crime. => That kinda defeats the purpose of a watch list.
- The 2nd Amendment is repealed. => Sounds impossible to achieve.
It's by the way also probably an example for where a simple 52 % majority vote could not achieve a change.
Yeah, I agree with not letting people on the watch list buy weapons, but at the same time they need to come up with a clear path to getting one's self off the list in the event that you're added by mistake. Btw that's not just a gun issue, I've heard stories of families being turned away at the airport because their baby's name is on the list.
And that currently is "allowed" because air plane flights are not a constitutional right.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
And yet not enough of a majority to form a government, but apparently enough to trigger the largest political shift in living memory.
Yes. Yes they would. Nobody is happy with the EU. Nobody. You do realise there were negotiations prior to the vote? And that there will be ones after. Any legitimate concerns of 'leave' were being addressed. But their campaign was built on a bedrock of lies and mistruths. It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is what I find alarming about modern political campaigns. It is so easy to fact check these extra ordinary claims via Google/Bing etc. It's also quite funny that in the hours and subsequent days since we voted for #brexit people have been heavily Googling the EU and what it means that we should leave.
Surely this is something that people should have done, I dunno, BEFORE going out and voting?
There was a letter in the Times this morning from a person who voted leave, not because he actually wanted to leave, but because he thought it would strengthen Britain's position in the EU, the Pound and so on.
The thing is as we are seeing with Trump and various other leaders throughout history, invoke a little bit of nationalism wave a few flags and people will vote for you no matter what else you say.
I guess my thing is that there's a progressive satellite radio station I listen to, and everyone on there I'm nodding in agreement with everything they say ... until they start talking about how much they hate guns, at which point I have to turn the radio off. Media wise at least it just seems like everyone who considers themself a progressive is expected to hate guns.
It is in no way 'all-inclusive' of the actual population and has delved into the insane idea that Cooperation & Compromise are to be avoided at all costs.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
If I understand it correctly, the NRA (gun lobby) practically owns the republican party. Of course everything they want is to make money, but their affiliated party turns it into a matter of patriotism to own guns, always citing the 2nd amendment which says that in order to keep Britain from taking back their colonies, militias need to be kept and every citizen has the right to bear arms. From my arrogant Euro perspective it is sheer madness to cling to an outdated law like that, especially seeing what's at risk. I have no problem with recreational shooting in controlled environments, but guns aren't recreational tools or other hobby items. They're guns and those don't belong in any home (personal opinion). There's overwhelming evidence from any perspective it's possible to look at it (and some odd 90% of citizens are in favor of at least some form of governmental oversight), but the lobby pays their party and the party seems to make it a matter of principal. The only solution I think would be for a president to muster the courage to abolish the 2nd amendment. But that would be an unprecedented act and people are worried about such fundamental modifications to the constitution, officially. Inofficially it's, of course, lobby work.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
They don't want ANY gun control laws, because it might lead to even more stricter rules down the pike.
(even if it means going against the majority of what the American People think)
It's the "Slippery Slope" Theory and it's worked for that particular lobby for many a decade now.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The law wasn't put in place to prevent England taking us back it was to prevent our government from becoming the same tyrannical TRIBBLE-holes because at any given time if they try to overstep their power we can go "nope" and forcibly take our country back. It's just another check and balance on the government's power and it's worked well so far. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety."
As I pointed out earlier, anyone who trusts politicians is a moron of such epic proportions that I wonder if eugenics is actually such a bad idea.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Though I broadly agree with that, we do live in England. There are greater difference between our culture and that of theirs and it goes far beyond their irrational hatred of the letter U.
There are cultural nuances to guns that exist there that don't here. It's probably something to do with the frontier.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
In the end no matter what you may do there can be a black market for anything. I mean they're called criminals for a reason.
Unfortunately, at some point it became a political ploy to retain power, just like Tobacco use to be.
Until folks start truly separating the idea of owing a handgun for defense, from owing Semi-Automatic Weapons for FUN and Profit, things are not going to improve.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I did study hunting techniques and regulations around the globe. And it is my academic opinion that US hunting regulations are a joke, but not one I can laugh about. And this is by no means meant condescening or anything, it's really something that needs serious consideration. But my point is that here or there, regulated or not, the vast majority of all hunters in Europe or the US do not hunt out of necessity (personal or ecological) or for a living but simply out of fun to shoot guns. But depending on the state (in the US) some do "regulate" it and some don't at all and people "hunt" with assault rifles and little to no skill actually handling them. And that's scary. Over here, hunting is in theory strictly regulated from who is allowed to to what kind of weapon and type of ammunition you're allowed to use. You need certified training to use the guns and if you TRIBBLE up badly (doesn't even need to be gun related, if you basically show you're unresponsible on a great scale like drunk driving) you lose the right to use firearms and go hunting permanently. What seems like draconic reglementation for US american eyes however chosels none of the so called "good people" out of their hobby. I think it's simply due to propaganda US citizens get fed basically as long as the country exists they're so unreasonably scared of government regulation in areas we in Europe would simply identify as the state's business to provide for the safety and well being of it's citizens.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It would be impossible for the President to abolish the 2nd amendment. That power is reserved to the states. There's a couple of methods to get the amendment process started, but passage requires 3/4 of the states, not congress, to vote in favor. This might be unusual but during the process to make the USA official there were concerns over keeping a balance of power between the states and the federal gov. (On an aside, some say that the balance between the two dramatically tipped in favor of the Fed as a result of the US civil war.)
One big issue with the 2nd is the way it's worded. Pro gun rights will say to look at the original intent and the differences in language between then and now. The anti gun crowd will point to the "militia" part and claim that gun rights are reserved specifically for them, which incidentally militias no longer exist on a nationally recognized level. Looking at the original proposals the drafters themselves disagreed on this issue. There's also the issue of whether "shall not be infringed" should effect the types of regulations which may be passed.
As far as the NRA "owning" the Republicans, I have no idea on that. Just that there's an increasing push to get money out of politics. Though the Democrats are the ones making the most noise on this, there is a segment on the right who are also upset with the amount of influence corporations and whatnot have. So there may be hope here.
My country lived in the "proudly alone" mindset for many years. The general population knew little, if anything, about the world beyond our borders. Later, many died fighting a war in several fronts to keep the same proud "empire" together, and it crumbled anyway. We made enemies of our "brothers" and the result was a disaster for us and for them. That's what that sort of ideology brought.
Today we can look back and consider that entering the EU and the Euro (currency) was bad for our economy (obviously that it had a lot to do with the way the government used the money). Many call out for the exact same thing; they consider that the EU is to blame for the immigration problem, for destroying our fishing and agriculture and feel we should leave the Euro and the EU.
But we gained so much as individuals and citizens of the world. There's no price tag on that. I believe Europe is better than it was ten, twenty, thirty years ago and we are better together.
This is true as far as I'm concerned. The EU has plenty of flaws which mostly originates from it's original foundation as a economic contract and the majority of work the EU parliament condones these days is still economic in nature and sadly for the most time means selling the right to bypass local business impeding laws in member states to large international corporations. It is only recently that the EU slowly began to develop a sense of deeper meaning which most younger European citizens start to embrace int he first or second generation now. It is sad that it took so long to develop this sense that is still a petite seatling which at this point needs a lot of care and goodwill to become something truly meaningful. The union makes quite a few mistakes and has to find itself anew. But the idea of mutual support, cooperation, safety and peace in Europe is worth it, in my opinion.
The current populist claims mean to cash in the distorted memories of people. Everyone always claims that it has been "better" once which is of course not true. Objectively not true. But people love to get nostalgic when they're unhappy with something and the lies spread by demagouges all over Europe and the world these days empower those false feelings of past superiority. We mustn't fall into this trap. Not only will none of these claims hold true when the people fueling those feelings rise to power but the price for allowing them to get there will be much higher than simple disappointment. The time of isolation need to be over. Cooperation and inclusion is the way to go for the betterment of every single one of us. There's no "us" and "them", every human being shares the same planet with us and "their" problems are "our" problems. Building a wall and hiding behind it is not the way to go, you're not "safe" within the walls in your head and around your borders when things really go sideways on a global scale. In addition, you are not doing anything to improve the situation. If things really go better on a global scale they did so without you, leaving you behind.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The thing to understand is that the 2nd Amandment means gunn overship a Constitutional right, and the terrorism watch list is not subject to usual due process rules. People can get on there for flimsy reasons, and denying a constitutional right based on that is in-acceptable. That's like saying these people shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example.
It is possible to lose constitutional rights - but only if you were convicted of a crime. People on the watch list aren't convicted of anything.
Of course, if there wasn't a strong lobby for gun law, people might not care about it, but the US is what it is.
To change anything about this, two possibilities exist:
- People can only get on that watch list if they are actually convicted of a crime. => That kinda defeats the purpose of a watch list.
- The 2nd Amendment is repealed. => Sounds impossible to achieve.
It's by the way also probably an example for where a simple 52 % majority vote could not achieve a change.
Yeah, I agree with not letting people on the watch list buy weapons, but at the same time they need to come up with a clear path to getting one's self off the list in the event that you're added by mistake. Btw that's not just a gun issue, I've heard stories of families being turned away at the airport because their baby's name is on the list.
From what I could read, people can get on that list simply for the way they look or as you said their names. That's a textbook definition of discrimination and racism and all because the western, free world is so TRIBBLE scared of everything at this point.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!