Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) It's firearms training in support of arming teachers in the classroom. And to what degree we don't know. Maybe the school will keep a single gun locked in a safe only to be used in emergencies. It's up to the individual school districts. All this is doing is providing people with police-level training (the same test administered to police officers) in the use of firearms.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) Wow...so 600 is all they'll ever sign up? 2 weeks go by, they register 600, at a random site in Ohio, and then shut down? Well, that sounds like a pretty silly program on their parts, but thank God you informed me that they're shutting it down so rapidly and no one else following the lead, because I wouldn't want one of those 600 around anyone in my family. At least it's only 600 and no other fools will try to think it's a good idea to bring a gun into a classroom. It's firearms training. It's not a license to kill. Jesus.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) Meanwhile: So, 600 out of the ~7.2 million teachers. Again, might as well build that bunker to stay out of the cross fire.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) haha no it doesnt, but it means the PEOPLE support that person's platform over yours, and you should respect that. So again, to the point you never responded to the first time you made this argument -- 2 years ago Obama should have laid down and signed any Tea Party bill that crossed his desk, right? Meaning we shouldn't have Obamacare as law right now.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:44 PM) as they SHOULD seeing as how they lost the election........... lol You've made this terrible point before. Losing an election doesn't mean you give up on your ideologies.

It's not like he lost the debt ceiling issue. They kicked it down the road. He got basically his entire tax deal and what he gave up was continued negotiations on the debt ceiling. Big whoop. He's still in the driver seat for that because if there's not an agreement the Republicans get blamed for it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) yeah that's just insane. What exactly did Obama NOT get in this negotiation? A measly 200K income gap between his original 250k threshold which he later backed off of like a month after the election? The estate tax affecting slightly bigger estates than he wanted? Obama gave an inch, the GOP gave up a mile.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) I'd just like to re-highlight this because I think there will be a few laughs. Laugh all you want. Apparently this party is all talk and no bite. Months and months about cutting spending and they didn't cut anything. If they continue to negotiate like that, they'll happily give up gun rights.

LOL. "Guns are awful. We need to get rid of them! More regulations and restrictions!!! Wait, what? Oh, s***! We're in danger! We need to hire security for protection....security with guns!" http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/02/newspa...-gun-owner-map/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 12:37 PM) Who is going to pass this new legislation? The Republican House? Ha. Funny. They might pass a bill allowing the FBI to track gun purchases used in crimes as long as the bill also makes gun ownership mandatory for everyone over 6 and bans safety switches on guns. The States might try...but they're literally hamstrung. The places that want stronger gun legislation can't really do anything because they can't get the help of the Feds even in monitoring dealers and they can't ban this type of rifle on their own. Meanwhile, the states and cities that do have strong gun laws continue to have them dismantled by the courts (see: concealed carry in Illinois). And there is plenty more that can and will be struck down, maybe not tomorrow, but over the next few years. The states that don't have strong gun regulation aren't going to create them because of this incident. We already see what is happening instead, Tennessee and Arizona are happy to lead the way in arming teachers and having Sheriff Arpaio's insane clown posse taking up positions in schools. And on top of that, those 20 dead kids have been the best marketing incident the Bushmaster rifle could ever ask for. We just had a gun show here in knoxville, and those style of guns were going for 4x the price that they were going for before this rampage. Background checks all over the coutnry skyrocketed after this killing, because people wanted to stock up. So, we're going to watch now as even more of these things wind up on the streets and in the hands of people who are capable of such acts. So yeah. More guns. No new laws. And the crazy states will lead the way in coming up with new idiotic places to put guns. Obama plans to tackle it. The way this current Republican party folds on their demands, i'm sure they'll fold on any and all restrictions on guns. States like Illinois (especially since they've been forced to amend their concealed carry law) will address these issues by adding more restrictions. Just watch. People are buying those guns because they think they won't be available pretty soon. But yep, continue to believe that a small crazy minority that wants to arm teachers will win. I'm 100% positive that's going to happen. You'll be killed the day that happens with the 100% certainty of massive gun fights on every corner of every street in America. Might as well buy that bunker now.

Probably could go in its own thread, but i'll put it here: http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable...1#ixzz2GkSFccYf I think the article talks about the problem with this - once you start taking the subscriber base payments out, the cost of those channels rises to the point that for the same money you're getting about 5 channels. I'd love this if it were cost effective since I only watch about 15-20 networks, but I think over the long term TV will suffer and we'd be back to watching crappy network shows. With this model I don't see how shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad are made because there would be no network with the funds to give them a shot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) The problem of course is, they're winning. They're going to get more guns in schools and on the streets out of this. Sitting here angrily watching the body count pile up until the next massacre happens and we wonder how in the world the next guy got his hands on an assault rifle seems like a reasonable reaction. Bulls***! You can keep spewing this nonsense out, but everyone needs to know it's utter and complete bulls***. The gun crazies are going to lose ground in the next 6 months or a year. There will be new legislation with new restrictions. It won't be anywhere near what you want (no guns) but it's not somehow going to go the other way and become the wild west. BTW, 6 people already killed this year in Chicago (two days for those doing the math). With a ban on handguns on the books for years, and already having laws against straw purchases, please again explain to me how any more restrictions are going to stop criminals from committing criminal acts.

I'd give Looper a B+. Cool idea, JGL rocked the crap out of that part and sounded exactly like Bruce Willis, the kid was really good..... Yet the ending could be seen from a mile away, the style didn't always fit (in one scene they drive a Dodge Ram truck with some kind of PVC exhaust attachment, in the next scene there's a hover bike), and overall the movie just didn't have much depth. An entertaining movie, but not anything special. Also, my wife and I were confused about one part -

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 05:38 AM) Shameless. Cant Wait. My wife and I started Shameless last night after Directv/Showtime finally put the first two seasons on the ondemand. I had given the first episode a shot a while back and didn't care for it, but this time it seemed to click. Perhaps the lack of any other TV at the moment was necessary. The first two were really good.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) Lives are more important than gun owners' "costs". Nice to see your priorities are in order. And again, who's saying ban guns? Adding a registry for all guns, a fingerprinting database, closing gun show loopholes, etc. doesn't prevent legal gun owners from obtaining guns. I have yet to see you agree with or come up with any idea to change current gun controls laws/rules. Your entire attitude comes off as "why bother" so why do you devalue human life so much? Because I'm a realist. You can't and won't stop all manner of unfortunate deaths. We constantly "accept" death because it's too much of a cost to prevent and/or simply not worth the effort of trying. Anything to do with cars, cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, etc. We all know death for someone awaits, but we don't care because it's improbable that it will happen to you and we'd rather have the freedom to use those items even if it guarantees the death of X number of people a year. Go back to page one. I've said to i'm fine making it more difficult to purchase guns. I'm fine having to register the guns you buy. I've fine having to get certified or trained to use a gun. I'm just not under the delusion that this will stop mass tragedies from happening or even reduce homicides by a significant amount. I should have clarified when I said those restrictions won't do ANYTHING. I'm talking about meaningful changes. And at that point it really does because a cost benefit analysis, just like everything else in society. IMO the benefit of the freedom to own a gun outweighs saving the relatively small number of people that might be saved from severely restricting that freedom, such as an outright ban on handguns. And btw, you're the one like two pages ago that said you'd support banning certain types of guns.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) I'd guarantee that if done properly, we'd see decreases in gun homicides over time. I'm sure there would be a minimal decrease at a substantial cost to the 99.9% of gun owners and users that own/use their guns legally.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. Yep. Same as the "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid" line you had the other day. It's pointless having a debate with you when you come from that kind of position.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) I wasn't speaking specifically of social issues. Scalia is a hack in all fields. And so SS decreed! Ugh, I don't know why I engage.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas Of social significance. When's the last time he took on a social issue? Read any book on the court and you'll find that everyone understands that he's a smart guy, but not someone that is often chosen by the other justices to write a controversial opinion. I'm sure he's done it at some point, but it's not as frequent as the other justices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) Nobody in this thread has even once commented on how local bans are not effective when surrounded by areas with looser restrictions, it's true. Just think, though, that if we registered and fingerprinted gun owners nation-wide and kept a national registry and decreased the ability to buy handguns in the first place, maybe there wouldn't be so many of them flooding the streets. All of those things are just bulls*** hoops to jump through. Not one of those things would prevent anyone from doing something criminal with a gun.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Thomas doesn't actually write opinions and dissents? Yeah, every judge has to look at the facts of the case before him, but that doesn't mean that no judge could possibly be a hack. Scalia is, in my opinion, a hack, unlike the rest of the Justices, including the other conservative ones. Not as many no. I can't even remember the last majority opinion he wrote. And that's great, I disagree. I think he's relatively consistent and a good judge, even if I don't always agree with his decisions or how he justifies the decision.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) I don't think you could read his comments or opinions in cases like lawrence and not come to the conclusion that he believes that gay acts are immoral. "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change". Yeah, again it's the problem with 9 people in robes deciding what the nation should think, as opposed to letting people do it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) It's funny because of his whole supposed judicial philosophy that explicitly claims he doesn't do that. I don't think someone like Thomas, for example, is the same as Scalia in that sense. I agree with probably even less of what he says, but he's at least consistent. Scalia simply makes s*** up as he goes to justify his conclusions and even tosses in tangential political rants into dissents at times. That's because he actually writes opinions. To be a judge, unless you get a case with facts that specifically fit with another previously decided case (which never happens with the Supreme Court) you have to mold the law to justify the opinion. There is no other way to do it. His judicial philosophy is to not expand powers that haven't been recognized by legislatures. I'm sure he's not 100% consistent on that, that would be very difficult to do, but in the vast majority of cases he sticks with that in his decisions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) Scalia's only consistency is in consistently finding ways to fit the law to the conclusions he'd prefer. He's a standard reactionary conservative and judges that way. Name me a judge that isn't like that. That's the only way to be a judge.

Laugh all you want, there are exceptions to every rule, but he almost always want to defer to state legislatures to decide social issues like that. i think even in his abortion decisions he's said it's not the supreme court's role to decide if there is some right to an abortion or not