LastPommerFan

I'm not sure I would support your contention. The problem here is that your "freedom" limits his actions, while his "freedom" does not directly prevent you from taking any action on it's own. Sure, if we add some modifiers in, like him being in your proximity and pointing the gun at you, your freedom would be limited, but he's not asking for the freedom to point the weapon at you, or anyone, he's asking for the freedom to point the weapon at animals and targets. I've been wondering if a case could be made that since the justice system is systematically racist, prescribing felony convictions at a much higher rate to black males, even when controlled for the actual crimes committed, if the restriction of felons owning handguns is actually an unconstitutional abridgment of civil rights.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fd9Qc0neMjYC&pg=PA11&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false Gun Digest Annual from 1984 (first time assault firearm showed up in legislation at the state or federal level was 1985): http://www.gundigest.com/gun-books/gun-digest-annuals/gun-digest-annual-toc-1984 It was a sales pitch until it wasn't.

Josie....D4rk... Do you guys need a place to lay low for a while?

Not that it has anything to do with this tragedy, but that diversity is also what makes us so much more violent. We always have an oppressed minority.

So dropping bombs to force regime change would be terrorism?

The UN also acknowledges the existence of Israel.

I feel like I need to clarify my position. I am not saying that religious people cannot exist along side or even within, a secular democracy. I was referring to Iran as a Theocracy, because that is what they are. The religion is the government, and that is completely incompatible with secular democracy. Law and Order based on the tenants of a particular religion is a direct existential threat to Law and Order based on the tenants of self determination, and vice-versa. Now, the Iranian People are certainly a different, less monolithic animal than the Government. That's also true, to a more moderate extent, of the US. The people of both nations are perfectly capable of coexisting right now. The problem is that international agreements involving military issues and trade are made between governments, not people. As such, I don't expect this deal to be successful in the long run. This is simply a prediction of success, not a judgement on whether we ought to do it or not. I don't think the sanctions will prevent the Iranian Government from getting a nuke, so I'm perfectly fine with proceeding with the deal, to at least give it a shot. It will have no impact on the ultimate safety and security of the American People or our allies.

Interesting analog. Do you believe this provides support for my contention that we can't be friends, or that it shows that my fears may be out of place?

NK already has the Nuke, and they were in deeper sanctions than Iran. This agreement in no way changes the likelihood of Iran obtaining the weapons. This regime of sanctions was more about placating the Saudis and Israel than stopping Iran from developing the Bomb.

Everyone can move past Theocracy, eventually, and this deal may help usher that along if there is legitimate cultural exchange. I believe, however, that at this point, it will be that exact cultural exchange that will ultimately cause the theocratic leaders in Iran (who's power is ultimately threatened by our ideals) to cause actions that will push us apart again.

Honestly, I don't think this is going to be cheery, at all. Theocracies and Secular Democracies cannot coexist peacefully. They are both by definition an existential threat to each other. I don't see good things coming from this deal. It's only a matter of time until someone decides to part ways again. Iran is a true theocracy, they can't be our friends.

Isn't this another name for the GOP's coalition?

Except the history books in Texas. :w00t: It's the gift I want. I'll probably end up with the gift I deserve.

This is the gift I want from him. A Primary Victory. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/14/usa-today-suffolk-poll-republicans-donald-trump/30102255/

Because the same people who claim the government is the destroyer of freedom, also demand that we worship the military, without which, we would have no freedom.

This was in response to my desire to create an American Version of the Imperial Senate with thousands of seats.

There is no national "assault" weapons ban. totes on the Obamaguns though. :)

I have a theory that we minimize these instances because we are unwilling to grant that women have the power to do damage to men. Same theory applies to teacher-student sex crimes. (we = patriarchal society in general)

Selective Service for Poll Workers (Not a Stripper Draft)

Really interesting point. At some point we have to agree on some things as a nation, but I do wish there was more connection between the members of congress and their constituencies. But with nearly a million people per representative, that's almost impossible without expanding the congress (which TBPhD ensures me will destroy the functioning of government).

Where is the Federal Government infringing on States' Rights relating to Guns?

What are the important states rights issues in the last 150 years other than Slavery, Segregation, and Marriage Discrimination (both racial and sexual orientation)? Aren't the statehouses full of Conservatives and Liberals too?

If I put on my Democrat hat, the only candidate I'm worried about is Jeb, as he seems to be the only one with a reasonably working perception of reality. Donald F'n Trump is polling in second place for christ's sake. And even then, Bush v. Clinton probably works in the Democrat's favor. I really think we're going to see a coronation rather than an election.

So he's immediately eligible for the Amerks, right?

I thought we were re-signing him. he is under contract with us right now.