Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

Recommended Posts

On 3/18/2019 at 12:17 PM, PeaceFrogYum said:

 

FYI, only 22% of Americans own guns. That's right, 78% of all Americans do not own a single gun. What we have, once you filter out the hunters and collectors of classic firearms, is a very paranoid, very dangerous minority of gun nuts who will do just about anything to ensure zero legislation, zero laws are put into place to stop this crap.

Someone is on the terrorist no-fly list? No problem, we have a gun(s) for you amigo! Beat the crap outta your wife and threaten your neighbors? Now don't let that stop ya buddy from owning a sweet M4. Mentally unstable? Who says? Not on our watch. Just because you are nuttier than a bag of squirrels and are barred from entering all federal buildings does not mean you cannot conceal carry, heck no. This is AMERICA and EVERYBODY gets a gun(s). YEE HAWWWWW!!!!

The 2nd Amendment was not included to protect hunting, target shooting, and collecting. You seem very bright Peace Frog, consider the context of the Bill of Rights; why would protecting hunting have even been a concern--- it wouldn't. 75% of the colonies were rural at the time, hunting was as normal as owning a horse back then. No, the founding fathers had something else in mind.... and before you say militias consider that the Heller decision affirmed gun ownership as an individual right.

Why shouldn't everyone who is not a criminal own guns? It's a natural right to defend one's life is it not PeaceFrog?  Thing is everybody does not qualify to own guns namely criminals; however, when has any laws stopped a criminal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Walter said:

 

As far as the Electoral College - it’s been an outdated system for centuries. It’s abolishment would mean the exact opposite than large states having more power - every vote would finally matter and not just the majority from a particular state. And people from traditionally leaning states could actually feel like their vote matters and not just a blip on the losing side of a predetermined outcome. So the almost 90 electoral votes for California and New York wouldn’t be automatic as they have been in recent presidential elections and people in West Virginia, Alabama, etc who know their votes don’t matter might now come out to vote. And yes, Election Day should be a national holiday for working people to be able to easily wait in the long lines to vote. More people voting is a good thing and not a “power grab” as some would like people to believe. 

 

People don''t elect the President, the states elect the President.  A little technicality about us being a Constitutional Republic and not a straight democracy. The founding fathers had many more reasons NOT to form a Union, so having balance was key to them coming to an agreement.

But the small states do matter, they matter a lot. Although maybe not every election cycle. I think Hillary proved that a politician shouldn't ignore ANY state no matter how few electoral votes they have. Hillary assumed she had it in the bag; she should have paid more attention to states she felt she didn't need. And there is where small states have power to be heard; when elections are close.

In 1996 Bill Clinton won largely Democrat  West Virginia (5 electoral votes), but in 2000 Al Gore didn't care about West Virginia, all his loony shut down the coal industry talk, and Gore lost West Virginia and those 5 electoral votes went to Bush Jr.  5 more electoral votes for Gore would have put him at 271 electoral votes instead of 266. It would have held Bush instead at 266 instead of him getting 271 (270 to win).  So you tell us again how unimportant the Electoral College system is when it gives power to the small states during close elections? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kipper said:

The 2nd Amendment was not included to protect hunting, target shooting, and collecting. You seem very bright Peace Frog, consider the context of the Bill of Rights; why would protecting hunting have even been a concern--- it wouldn't. 75% of the colonies were rural at the time, hunting was as normal as owning a horse back then. No, the founding fathers had something else in mind.... and before you say militias consider that the Heller decision affirmed gun ownership as an individual right.

Why shouldn't everyone who is not a criminal own guns? It's a natural right to defend one's life is it not PeaceFrog?  Thing is everybody does not qualify to own guns namely criminals; however, when has any laws stopped a criminal?

Hi Kip

I only brought up hunting as an example regarding modern society. Of course everyone hunted during the 18th century or they starved so that is a non-issue. However, in the 21st century it is completely different. No one, not even a large group of organized citizens, could overthrow the government through force or use of arms or even mount any time of capable resistance so that argument is moot and ridiculous. The only other reasons to own a gun are for hunting, home defense, and collecting. If a person wants to own a gun, fine, I have no problem with that however there is absolutely no reason for any non-military person to own an assault rifle or a gun capable of firing more than 8 rounds without reloading. If you are hunting you get one shot only at your prey and if you miss they are gone, you don't spray the whole forest. If someone breaks into your home and you start spraying bullets, you will likely kill a family member instead of the perp, again, a standard six shooter is more than enough to defend your home. Finally, under no circumstance should ANYBODY be allowed to carry a gun in public, period. This is without a doubt the most common sense position regarding the subject. Citizens are not cops and should not be armed in public. The last time a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun, the good guy was shot and killed by the police while the bad guy lived as the good guy did not shoot him, just detained him. Cops said, whoops, how were we supposed to know which was which? Exactly, they can't.

You know, if everyone else is doing one thing with success and you are doing another and failing, maybe everyone else is doing it right and you are in error. No other country has this problem with shootings like we in the US do, it's not particle physics, it's pretty common sense. Shure, guns don't kill people by themselves, it's the idiots with the guns that do. If people are gonna act like stupid children, they need to be treated as such unfortunately. If people cannot be responsible, they should not have a gun, simple as that. 

The fact we are having such a moronic argument (the argument, not you Kip) as a society, in the 21st century is just silly. Times change and those changes need to be reflected in law and regulation. Let's take the 13th Amendment as an example. The 13th needs a serious update as it allows slavery under the circumstance of incarceration. Under NO circumstance should a person be forced into servitude, prisons should be there to rehabilitate, not to make sweet cash for the prison as no contractor can compete with free labor.

IMO, a Continental Congress should be called and the whole of the Bill of Right's should be gone through, necessary edits and updates made as per the original direction of the founding fathers.

Fact is, if one really thinks about it, the 2nd amendment, insofar as 21st century society is concerned, is a joke as every single reason for it, with the exception of home protection, no longer exists. We do not have to worry about slave revolts, foreign invasion, or overthrowing a tyrannical government. Hunting, collecting, and personal, home protection are the only reasons to own a gun and under any of those scenario does a person need a military grade weapon or a weapon which holds more than 8 rounds, nor do they need to carry in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kipper said:

People don''t elect the President, the states elect the President.  A little technicality about us being a Constitutional Republic and not a straight democracy. The founding fathers had many more reasons NOT to form a Union, so having balance was key to them coming to an agreement.

But the small states do matter, they matter a lot. Although maybe not every election cycle. I think Hillary proved that a politician shouldn't ignore ANY state no matter how few electoral votes they have. Hillary assumed she had it in the bag; she should have paid more attention to states she felt she didn't need. And there is where small states have power to be heard; when elections are close.

In 1996 Bill Clinton won largely Democrat  West Virginia (5 electoral votes), but in 2000 Al Gore didn't care about West Virginia, all his loony shut down the coal industry talk, and Gore lost West Virginia and those 5 electoral votes went to Bush Jr.  5 more electoral votes for Gore would have put him at 271 electoral votes instead of 266. It would have held Bush instead at 266 instead of him getting 271 (270 to win).  So you tell us again how unimportant the Electoral College system is when it gives power to the small states during close elections? 

The problem with the electoral college is the system is essentially rigged, What I mean is the electors can vote for whoever they want , regardless of how the citizens in the state vote. Also, it gives certain districts within the state greater power and vote over other districts in the same state. This is the reason Trump won the election but was literally trounced by Clinton in the popular vote. Wisconsin, Ohio, & Pennsylvania went to Trump because of less than 30,000 votes from key districts within those states. The system is bad, period, by design. If you wanted a truly accurate and fair electoral system, the electoral votes would be distributed based on the popular vote within the state, not all or nothing which is the exact opposite of a republic. As Walter pointed out such a system would enable the will of the people to be more accurately represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

We do not have to worry about slave revolts, foreign invasion, or overthrowing a tyrannical government. 

Your awareness of current events is none. 

 

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Your awareness of current events is none. 

 

New Zealand's knee jerk reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, redrum said:

New Zealand's knee jerk reaction.

knee jerk? They have a register system that registers a person, not a firearm. So they literally do not know how many legal guns are out there. Now here's an idea - knowledge and data lead to better analysis and decision making. So not having assault weapons DESIGNED FOR CONFLICT available to an otherwise happy/advanced society (on the whole - not problem free paradise, but a great country with great people on the whole) and controlling what you know of what is legally out there is not only not a knee jerk reaction, it is long overdue. Sensible reform after a horrific terrorist attack.

REASONABLE reforms I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rm2551 said:

knee jerk? They have a register system that registers a person, not a firearm. So they literally do not know how many legal guns are out there. Now here's an idea - knowledge and data lead to better analysis and decision making. So not having assault weapons DESIGNED FOR CONFLICT available to an otherwise happy/advanced society (on the whole - not problem free paradise, but a great country with great people on the whole) and controlling what you know of what is legally out there is not only not a knee jerk reaction, it is long overdue. Sensible reform after a horrific terrorist attack.

REASONABLE reforms I'd say.

New Zealand, an island nation at the bottom of the planet, is a non-player on the world stage and always has been. Most of the world knows almost nothing of it and be hard pressed to locate it on a map. Their nerdy, left-leaning Prime Minister, most famously unmarried, pregnant and on maternity leave, now uses her status as the world's youngest female leader for Millennial virtue signaling in the wake of that nation's first mass shooting in over 20 years. The irony that an Aussie perpetuated the attack seems completely lost on her and many others. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

New Zealand, an island nation at the bottom of the planet, is a non-player on the world stage and always has been. Most of the world knows almost nothing of it and be hard pressed to locate it on a map. Their nerdy, left-leaning Prime Minister, most famously unmarried, pregnant and on maternity leave, now uses her status as the world's youngest female leader for Millennial virtue signaling in the wake of that nation's first mass shooting in over 20 years. The irony that an Aussie perpetuated the attack seems completely lost on her and many others. 

 

You are the one the irony is lost on Steve as the Aussie left Australia BECAUSE OF THEIR GUN LAWS to go to a foreign nation with lax gun laws to perpetrate his crime. You could not have come up with a more perfect example of how gun control works than this situation. All your nasty insults aside, the NZ PM did what was necessary. Now, when a NZ native with a bug up their backside cannot murder several dozen of their own citizens, and decides to come to the US to shoot up a Mosque, Temple, or Baptist Church due to our availability of guns and willingness to give them to ANYBODY with a pulse, you can further inform us how gun laws don't work and any hint at reasonable regulation is akin to shitting inside the Ark of the Covenant.

Give me a break

Ps. I believe Carlin was being sarcastic, or stupid. Then again, whenever I see a mass shooting the first thing I think about is THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!! By far Carlin's most stupid rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rm2551 said:

 

REASONABLE reforms I'd say.

They never really are once they start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, redrum said:

They never really are once they start.

Try to think of the reforms in the context of where they are being applied. Like Steve said - an Island at the bottom of the planet that is not a player and not well known - all true. Also a beautiful country both due to the incredible landscapes as well as its easy going people and great culture. Being away from the shitshow that passes as most of the rest of the world is a blessing. So given it's New Zealand, yeah, reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the Wall Street Journal - "Special Counsel Is Not Recommending Any Further Indictments: Senior Justice Official"

 

Well what do you know. :) Not a good day to be a libtard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Try to think of the reforms in the context of where they are being applied. Like Steve said - an Island at the bottom of the planet that is not a player and not well known - all true. Also a beautiful country both due to the incredible landscapes as well as its easy going people and great culture. Being away from the shitshow that passes as most of the rest of the world is a blessing. So given it's New Zealand, yeah, reasonable.

I know it's a beautiful country. Burt Munro is a hero of mine. 'World's Fastest Indian.' :)

https://www.indianmotorcycle.com/en-us/burt-munro/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, paplbojo said:

Per the Wall Street Journal - "Special Counsel Is Not Recommending Any Further Indictments: Senior Justice Official"

 

Well what do you know. :) Not a good day to be a libtard.

Yep, looks like the "insurance policy" has been cancelled and lib heads exploding all over the place.  Score another win for the big bad orange man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cryingbluerain said:

Yep, looks like the "insurance policy" has been cancelled and lib heads exploding all over the place.  Score another win for the big bad orange man.

Mainstream media, celebrities stunned as Mueller report filed with no new indictments planned

Tears for the celebrities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO...now I hope they start probing the DEMONcRATIC collusion in the 2016 election....you know, forcing members to bypass Bernie for the nomination, giving Hitlery the CNN debate questions ahead of time, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stryder1978 said:

LMAO...now I hope they start probing the DEMONcRATIC collusion in the 2016 election....you know, forcing members to bypass Bernie for the nomination, giving Hitlery the CNN debate questions ahead of time, etc. 

They deserved what they got for what they did re: Bernie. The fix was in supreme. Funny thing was, he also wanted to burn down the house. Trump v Sanders would have been a great race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rm2551 said:

They deserved what they got for what they did re: Bernie. The fix was in supreme. Funny thing was, he also wanted to burn down the house. Trump v Sanders would have been a great race.

...still could be a great race in 2020!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Discussion of politics, religion or any other contentious social topic is not permitted."

How is it that you think the rules do not apply to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stryder1978 said:

...it's not a contentious topic....Mueller's report is quite clear.

It's politics, which is not to be discussed here.  There are literally thousands of other web sites intended for political discussion, this is not one of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently if it's done with dignity and decorum, the Webmaster has no problem with it.....neither should you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of a question than a "random thought", but has anyone on here ever seen The Sisters of Mercy perform live back in the day?  Did Patricia Morison play bass with them at live shows? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 2:19 PM, PeaceFrogYum said:

The problem with the electoral college is the system is essentially rigged, What I mean is the electors can vote for whoever they want , regardless of how the citizens in the state vote. Also, it gives certain districts within the state greater power and vote over other districts in the same state. This is the reason Trump won the election but was literally trounced by Clinton in the popular vote. Wisconsin, Ohio, & Pennsylvania went to Trump because of less than 30,000 votes from key districts within those states. The system is bad, period, by design. If you wanted a truly accurate and fair electoral system, the electoral votes would be distributed based on the popular vote within the state, not all or nothing which is the exact opposite of a republic. As Walter pointed out such a system would enable the will of the people to be more accurately represented.

Sir or madam, with all due respect there is no such thing as the popular vote. It is a myth that dems bring up when they lose an election. All states are equal and without that provision, the states with the biggest population regarding party would always win so there is no real democracy without the electoral college 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stryder1978 said:

More of a question than a "random thought", but has anyone on here ever seen The Sisters of Mercy perform live back in the day?  Did Patricia Morison play bass with them at live shows? 

She did not tour with Sisters of Mercy. I saw her with the Gun Club and a band she had with Kid Kongo.

I saw Sisters of Mercy back in the day before Patricia Morrison joined. Basically, by the time Patricia was asked to join for the recording of "Floodland", Sisters was a one-man band...or two, if you count the ever-present drum machine. Even though "Floodland" sold well and many tracks were radio singles, Andrew decided to not tour the album. Patricia left shortly after that because of song royalty issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...