CatBus

TV’s Frink said:

People that should be allowed to have guns.

1. Military
2. Law Enforcement
3. Biathletes

What if they’re just curious?

Sir Ridley said:

CatBus said:

Sir Ridley said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

Aha ha ha ha. That sounds fun.

I don’t think anyone noticed, you won! 😉

D’oh! Nobody noticed until you did! Now the only way he can earn the point is if you’re also playing.

The trick is that this was initially conceived as a verbal, in-person game, and rules may need to be adjusted for text. So instead of making a reference and raising an eyebrow at the other player, maybe you’d use a winking smiley or something. The other problem is that many of the references might only be visible if you say the words out loud, as the reference may cross all sorts of lexical boundaries in text form but be pretty straightforward when spoken. This would be especially visible as your references drift further away from vanilla. I see we’re off to a pretty good start though 😉

I’m in on the rules, so technically maybe I’m playing even though I haven’t made a reference yet. So let him have the point! Somebody has to notice or nobody would get a point.

Well, the other variation on the print form is everyone could have read those rules and known about them. Points are mostly self-awarded, I can’t see how you could say “Hey, I made a reference! Did anyone catch it?” aside from the winky smiley example above, and that’s probably still too obvious, even if the reference itself is pretty well-hidden.

Sir Ridley said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

Aha ha ha ha. That sounds fun.

I don’t think anyone noticed, you won! 😉

D’oh! Nobody noticed until you did! Now the only way he can earn the point is if you’re also playing.

The trick is that this was initially conceived as a verbal, in-person game, and rules may need to be adjusted for text. So instead of making a reference and raising an eyebrow at the other player, maybe you’d use a winking smiley or something. The other problem is that many of the references might only be visible if you say the words out loud, as the reference may cross all sorts of lexical boundaries in text form but be pretty straightforward when spoken. This would be especially visible as your references drift further away from vanilla. I see we’re off to a pretty good start though 😉

Careful Arizona, you might (effectively) lose your independent voting commission:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2018-02-14/legislative-leaders-push-redistricting-commission-changes

As Arizona turns more and more purple, it seems fairly predictable there’d be pressure on the GOP to go the way of Virginia and North Carolina on this, to maintain certain control of the state for another few decades.

How’s it work? Keep the commission, but guarantee gridlock in the commission, then the legislature effectively draws the maps because the commission mysteriously stops performing its stated function, and right in 2020 when Arizona needs it most.

Please vote Hell No on this if you live in AZ. Why overhaul something that seems to be working reasonably well, right before you need to use it?

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

Sometimes you can get cheaper fares there than Heathrow, that’s all I know.

You made me google Yackwicks. Interesting top result.

Can’t make me 😉

But… back to the topic at hand, ineffective legislation is not necessarily bad. If your legislation addresses 0.000001% of cases, but A) it can pass and B) it doesn’t actually harm or even really inconvenience anyone, there’s no reason not to go ahead with it, assuming more effective legislation is simply unworkable. Which is why background checks, waiting periods, assault weapons bans are all okay in my book, even though they fall well short of a handgun ban. Well, except for “A” they’re okay 😦

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

Sometimes you can get cheaper fares there than Heathrow, that’s all I know.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Anyway, Hispanic doesn’t necessarily mean non-white.

true, but how white Hispanics are members of white nationalist groups?

Why are you even still on this track? Why do these questions even matter if it’s been confirmed he’s a white nationalist?

I was not trying to argue that the nut is not a white nationalist.

Great. End of this discussion then because there’s no point.

Hey, the good news is it means George Zimmerman’s 15 minutes of fame are officially over.

Seriously though, since Mueller made it through January without getting fired, I think his next firing window isn’t until Tuesday November 6th at 11:00pm Eastern Time (the point at which there are no electoral consequences for the firing). That’s a lot of time to get some work done. Enough time? That I don’t know.

NeverarGreat said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html

And there it is. What’s Trump gonna do about Muller now?

Something along the lines of this is not happening. It’s worked pretty well so far.

Make analog prints, that’s what Legacy did. For digital degradation issues, just use a crazy amount or RAR/PAR2 redundancy. Your average time capsule is only going for a 100-year increments anyway, so they won’t have a proper official version of Star Wars then anyway, so they’ll go through the extra effort.

chyron8472 said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”

Raise the draft age. Or, even better, eliminate the draft.

We did that. The United States military is a 100% all-volunteer force. No one is drafted ever anymore because of the response by the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

Carter (no, not Carter USM – President Carter) resurrected the draft in 1980, one of his nastiest legacies. Nobody’s been drafted since due to lack of need, not lack of ability.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

Mrebo said:

When the Court writes of weapons “in common use,” I think that obviously concerns something more than just the method of loading it.

Well, this has been interesting IMO, but I wanted to add one more thing on this point. I wouldn’t ever actually ever suggest banning breech loaders (yeah, not even CatBus would want that), but breech loading is more that just a method of loading, in its design implications. First off, the projectile is different. In a muzzle loader, it’s just a dumb ball, and you add the powder and wad separately. Boom, it’s just a dumb handheld carronade. In a (modern) breech loader, the bullet is the ball, powder, and wad all at once. Add to that your faster reload time and you’ve got a great increase in speed of fire. Then there’s advancements like rifling, which aren’t really practical in muzzle loaders. So muzzle loaders are slow and inaccurate compared to breech loaders. It’s much more than just a method of loading it. And while technically British soldiers had a handful of Fergusons during the US Revolution, they were very exotic and were quickly retired in favor of what was then the standard musket. AFAIK there were rarer to nonexistent among colonial militias and not a consideration of the drafters of the Second Amendment.

But I’ve got no problem at all with people keeping Winchesters and the like around for varmint control and whatnot, and they are way post-militia. They’re just not as fun and easy as firing an AR-15, which is IMO completely irrelevant in a matter of public safety.

In the meantime, Russian bots are saying he was a registered Democrat and member of Antifa (no, I didn’t make that up). Who can you believe? The truth must be somewhere in between.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

The ruling creates it own contemporary “common use”. Machine guns (Tommy guns) were once pretty common. Now they’re illegal, and they’re not anymore. Ban breech loaders and eventually they won’t be common anymore either.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place? That’s not strict constructionism, it’s just wishful thinking with the force of law. The militia clause disappears only when inconvenient, and reappears when needed.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

Agreed, people go on knife rampages from time to time in China. The fact that all of the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. It’s worth stopping such things in advance whenever possible. Still, after the fact, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.

EDIT: I should add that my personal opinion is that I like guns. Guns are a lot of fun. Mechanically, entertainingly neat ingenious creations of mankind. And most of them should be banned as soon as possible.

I think we collectively answered our own question.

Warbler said:

By all means, do legitimate honest non-biased research and see in schools what the percentages are in your scenarios A and B, before we spend 40 billion dollars.

Okay, using data to guide policy is good.

the pro gun people would probably argue that the stats are off.

Whoops, you’re right. The same argument/stalemate would happen with or without data supporting one side. But if the data supported armed guards, I guess the anti-data side wouldn’t mind, so it would still do something.

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

Possessed said:

Some how I’m having a hard time equating it being easy to buy pot with being easy to buy a machine gun. I can buy pot any time. Can I buy a gun as easily? Obviously not I’m still posting

Yeah, but you’re not posting from Florida 😉

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?

look all I know is

A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers

B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.

Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.

C: Nut comes into the school unarmed, gets weapons from guards. Goes on killing spree he wouldn’t have even considered before he grabbed the gun.

D: Guard goes postal, kills students. Or guards.

Did you follow those links? Trained can be a generous term. Here’s how you do the risk assessment. Scenario A: a gun is in place to prevent crime. Scenario B: No gun is in place to prevent crime. Bad things can happen due to both the gun AND the lack of a gun. With homes, we’ve done the research, and the verdict is in. The bad things due to a gun in scenario A are over 40 times more likely than the bad things due to lack of a gun from scenario B. Therefore, don’t bring a gun into your home if you like your family. Easy so far.

Now I’m not saying schools are the same as homes, or security guards are the same as private citizens, or even that all security guards have lapses like the ones in those articles (but some percentage inevitably will). But presumably the data is already available to research. It would be a shame to spend 40 billion dollars to make our kids more likely to get shot, don’t you think?

EDIT: Why research when my guts says it’s right and it’s an emergency? Well, millions of Americans used their gut feeling to make the wrong call about their home safety because they either don’t know the statistics, or don’t believe the statistics apply to them. Knowing what you’re doing is a good thing when it comes to matters of life and death. If armed guards at a school are 10x less risky than armed homeowners, that still means they’re over 4x riskier than no guards or unarmed guards.

Possessed said:

At least it’s somewhat difficult in Illinois. I can’t get a gun for 5 years because I admitted to a doctor that I had suicidal thoughts. I’ve never been convicted of any crime much less a violent one.

And they are right for that too because I would absolutely be dead right now if I could have gotten my hands on a gun.

I know we are talking about homicide and not suicide though and that’s different.

The thing is, when it comes to gun deaths in America, it really is primarily about suicide. Suicide is just so commonplace it rarely makes the news, and given our country’s rates, that’s a shame. I’m glad Illinois managed to do something to help you.