StrangeSox

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) So you'd prefer everyone walk around with a gun on them? I'd prefer to allow law-abiding citizens who wish to carry, carry. This has been shown empirically to reduce crime. At the very least, it does not raise crime. So what is the problem? I would disagree with forcibly arming every person (as would just about everyone else), so your question is just another straw man. I would not try to pull my weapon in that position. You've proposed one no-win hypothetical position. Either way, gun or no gun, you're dead in that situation if the mugger chooses. Now, what if that mugger thinks twice about robbing someone because they might be carrying and the mugger might get shot, even if they do kill or wound the victim? And of course this ignores countless other situations where guns are in fact used to prevent or stop crimes.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) Do you live in the Congo? No, I live in a decent suburban area and I don't have a gun. Is there no threat of crime in the United States, or are police omnipotent?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Fire extinguishers rarely kill you. Or other people. Irrelevant. That analogy was about the "vigilante hero fantasy" strawman argument, not about the relative safety of guns. Yes, you occasionally get people like the guy in Texas who shot two criminals who were robbing his neighbor's house, but that's an extreme example, not the norm. You know what also routinely kills people? Not being able to defend themselves.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) Guns do not make you more safe. If you want to collect an arsenal because it makes you feel cool that's your right, but once you bring them in public it infringes on my rights. It should be legal to own a gun, but not legal to bring it anywhere. I dont care how much of a vigilante hero you might invision yourself being. Please cite any relevant data supporting your positions here. Empirical data shows almost universally that places with incredibly strict gun controls are much more dangerous than places with concealed or open carry. It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" idea; criminals are less likely to mug you if there's a good chance you're carrying a gun. Carrying a weapon isn't about being a "vigilante hero." That's just a typical straw man thrown about by the anti-gun crowd. Carrying a weapon is about being responsible for your own protection and well-being and having the proper tool available when needed. The police cannot always be around and are not there to protect you personally. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen -- its not because I dream of being a firefighting hero, but because I want to be prepared in case my frying pan bursts into flames. Carrying a weapon is no different, and empirical evidence clearly shows that you don't get rampant vigilantism or Wild West-style shootouts. Could you also please explain how it infringes on your rights?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) There is zero question that 2A applies to the states. The only question is to what extent the states or localities are allowed to restrict the right. Admittedly my info comes from wikipedia (I have not read the sourced decisions), but their article clearly states that the 2nd hasn't been held as incorporated. It does seem like they're saying "We haven't made it official ever, but if and when it comes down to it, we probably will." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...s)#Amendment_II

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) I'm sort of a contrarian on this issue. I was raised a hunter and a sportsman and support the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms, but I'm anti-handgun and militantly anti-assault weapons. That said, I think its reasonable that you should be able to keep just about anything short of a nuclear or chemical weapon as protection in your home. On the street, whether on your person or within access in your car, is a completely different story and, imo, should be totally illegal. I know reasonable people who feel safer having one handy while in a "bad neighborhood," but I've heard too many stories about folks like that that have bad endings. FWIW, "assault weapons" are classified almost entirely on cosmetic features. Many assault weapons are just look-alikes of military assault rifles that have the same functionality as a typical hunting rifle, and possibly even less stopping power (9mm AR-15 vs. a .308 rifle, for example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon I'm curious as to why you think concealed carry (or even open carry) should be totally illegal. It doesn't lead to higher gun crimes or accidents. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) Depends on a number of things. First of all, the DC Handgun ban was an interesting case in that DC is run by the federal government, so the court could specifically say that the DC government is bound by the 4th amendment in a way that the other districts aren't. In addition, right now is likely the most conservative court we'll see for the next decade, so the moment there's a retirement or death, the calculus could change. Can't recall who was the swing vote on that one, but it's entirely plausible that we could within 8 years wind up with the most polarized court in my lifetime, with Bush's appointees, Thomas, and Scalia being hard, hard right and Obama's appointees and Clinton's appointees being the opposite. You're correct in that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated to the states, but I know of no reason (and I'm definitely not a legal scholar) why it couldn't be.

Wiki behind the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Basically, space-time is not smooth and continuous. It's "grainy." If it is what they think it is, they've observed the smallest possible unit of time. From the article: "The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface." And a wiki on holograms in general, if anyone is interested in the phenomenon and maths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram

Just about anything in quantum physics blows my mind because things behave so completely differently than they do on even the microscopic scale. I have a stack of other pop-science books that I got for Christmas that I'm working through, but I'll have to check this one out afterward.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:20 AM) Again, I don't have the answer...but I have to question your data here. First and foremost, looking at the rate of increase doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the actual rate of occurrence. Secondly, a lot of the data out there disagrees with the claim that the UK violent crime, murder, or whatever rates are increasing at double-digits per year...depending on exactly which method of surveying it you use. First, I don't know how they can say "levels of violent crime has [sic] remained stable according to BCS interviews in 2006/07 compared with 2005/06" directly below a graph that indicates a 5% increase in violent crime. Second, even if violent crime is remaining stable, it certainly doesn't make a case for gun bans. Also, official reports have been called into question: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/c...icle2328368.ece By any measure, gun bans do not reduce violent crimes.

I wasn't even talking about in-store CS. That's bad enough. About two years ago, my mom purchased a printer online. It was supposed to come with a free digital camera. When she received it, there was no camera. She called and they basically said "sorry, it was out of stock, you're out of luck." No credit, no rain check, no apologies. After a long series of letters, she finally got up to the senior brass and received a full refund. They did something similar a few years ago to a friend who ordered a DVD online. It was backordered and they refused to honor the sale price and tried charging his CC for the difference.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) It annoys me how people use gun statistics. "Check out Tassaloosa Wyoming! Everyone has a gun and they haven't had a crime in 14 years!" Tassalloosa, town of 400. I mean, I'm saying what we have now is fine. I think violent felons give up their right to own a weapon to society, at least for a number of years. I think background checks and all that jazz are reasonable. But, until you can guarantee people their safety, you can't take away their means to protect themselves. s***, even still I have a hard time saying in a place like Chicago concealed carry is reasonable, honestly. I disagree completely. In Chicago, no law-abiding citizen can have a gun, but that doesn't stop thousands of criminals. There are other large cities with concealed carry without a problem (39 states have shall-issue policies). You can never guarantee every individual their safety. Police cannot be everywhere all the time. More importantly, they are not legally required to protect the individual (this is mainly to prevent people from being able to sue if the police can't stop every single crime, I believe). http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) First of all, that's cool as hell. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the guy said they're in Minnesota at the very beginning. I didn't have the audio on. Also, looking at it a second time, it mentions Minn. in the description. My powers of deduction aren't as strong as I thought. Here's another page talking about this same sort of thing. Some bad cold burn pictures at the end http://www.extremeinstability.com/08-2-10.htm

Circuit City had absolutely awful customer service. My mom had a direct phone number for one of the VP's because of how poorly some lower people treated her. I'm glad to see them gone. Now lets watch the liquidators come in, jack up the prices 25% and then "discount" them 30%.

Hot water freezing in mid-air (guessing its Minn. based on the Twins cups). http://www.nmatv.com/video/851/Hot-Water-Freezing-in-Air

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) the problem is, technically, the 2nd amendment says I have the right to forify my house with machine gun turrents at every corner and have an AK-47 in the dinning room window if I so choose and you cant stop me. Of course, we DO stop people from doing that. There are die-hard libertarians out there who feel they have every right to do just that. Libertarians' #1 motto is "no initiation of force" but they want to reserve the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. For some, this means that restricting nuclear and chemical weapons is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.\ QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) There not that much diffferent. I like collecting things and I could see guns be a fun thing to collect. One of my best friends is a gun "nut". I totally trust him with guns. I like guns as machines or tools (I'm an engineer and like pretty much any machine or tool). I'll never get the "chicks with guns" fetish, though. Highly effective, well-designed, cheap gun that was associated with the Russians and now with insurgents/ terrorists/ etc. around the world.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) I was just messing around with the whole AK-47 thing. Are AK-47's legal in this country? Yes, sort of. Citizens can own fully-automatic weapons, but there's a lot of red tape and I think they had to be manufactured prior to 1984 (or maybe 1986?). edit: here's the wikipedia on the bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Weapons manufactured and registered prior to May 19th, 1986 are grandfathered in. Before this, machine guns were heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (and pretty effectively, so I don't know why the Hughes amendment to the FOPA was necessary). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act There are also AK-47 "look-alike" semi-automatic rifles. These (and US military look-alikes) are usually the "assault rifles" you hear about on the news and in the bans. Functionally, these are little different than a regular hunting rifle and just about anyone can own one (subject to local firearms restrictions, felony convictions, etc.) Oh absolutely some people do -- it gets borderline creepy. But is the gun nut all that different from the Coca-Cola or sports memorabilia collector?

Needless to say, physics is weird. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) What we need is more AK-47's in this country. Countries with AK-47's have no problems. Places with unarmed civilians and armed criminals do tend to have problems. How many crimes are committed with AK-47's in this country? How many crimes are committed with any automatic weapons in this country (which are legal to own and are not the same as 'assault rifles')? QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 08:49 AM) Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership. Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 10:50 PM) Everyday Thomas, yes, they would... but then again, everyday Thomas wouldn't be making this kind of money. Since he makes this kind of money, and it's just an "oversight", of course it'll get glossed over. Now if this were a Republican, he would have had to withdrawl his name... I know my father had several clients with much larger tax problems than this guy who weren't looking at jail time. Hefty fines and penalties, but no jail.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:41 PM) It is worded in the definite "shall not". However, people only read the latter part in their arguments. If you read the entire amendment, it was written because of an immediate need of a state militia for personal protection and as a protest against Britain's attempt to control Colonist individuality. This was prior to national concription, so it is outdated. The only parallel where you can make a valid comparison today, would be if gun ownership was predicated on mandatory militia representation, i.e. each state's National Guard or military reserve branch. Thus, gun owners should be prepared to be called upon for state military service as an agreement for owning weapons. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with that reading. I think it is abundantly clear from both the wording of the amendment and other writings that they intended the right to bare arms as an individual right, not a collective militia right. QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) Yep, I've heard plenty of stories like yours. I just factored the chances of someone breaking into my home versus the chances that one of my kids or a friend of theirs would be curious and the potential for an accident and made a different decision. And you are an amazing person if you can get a safe open, and gun loaded in less than a minute with an attacker in your home. Most people could not do that. I don't own a gun, but what if you kept it loaded in a safe with a keypad instead of a turn dial? That should only take a few seconds to open, even if you are a bit panicked.

I wouldn't have a problem if he hadn't paid the taxes, was audited for several years, paid those plus fees, and then amended his other filings. Even after he knew he had underpaid his taxes, he didn't go back and correct the unaudited years. That is very dishonest.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 11:42 PM) I don't know how you guys put up with walking to class in that cold of weather. I mean, I had to walk about 15 minutes to class today in 12 degree weather (with the wind chill) and it was awful. I almost thought about stopping half way and going back home. I literally couldn't feel my face when I got inside. Do you guys cover your face or anything when it's in the negative degrees, or just suffer? The worst for me was Jan and Feb 07 down at U of I. Weeks of temperatures in the single digits or lower and a good 20 minutes one way to class. I usually had on long underwear, jeans, thick thermal socks, boots, two t-shirts, a long sleeve shirt, a sweatshirt, my winter jacket, gloves, a hat and a scarf. And I was still cold.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 11:24 PM) There is no reason on earth somebody shouldn't be allowed to get stoned and listen to Dinosaur Jr. albums all night to unwind. I dont smoke pot much at all, but sometimes I really need a night like that. If alcohol can be sold under the assumption that it will be consumed responsibly why cant weed? I dont care much about this issue, but I find most of the arguments against legalization blown way out of proportion and (for lack of a better word) Reaganesque. I prefer Pavement. My view is that the government needs explicit, compelling reasons in order to ban or prohibit something, not that citizens need to prove something's worth to government in order to allow it. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 07:38 AM) Wouldn't a lot of experience also cloud one's judgement?

I just started watching this show a few weeks ago. It's hilarious. Also, Charlie looks exactly like one of my friends and has many of the same mannerisms. An Arrested Development/ Always Sunny block would be fantastic.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) Truth is the market crash, GOP scandals, and GW Bush played a much larger role than Howard Dean. If things go badly during the Obama admin the GOP will likely make up ground, it's just how things work. It definitely helped, but Dean had already put the strategy and operations in place to take advantage of the situation.