Who the fuck cares? ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP OUR GUNS!!! EVERYONE KNOWS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOU SAFE EVERYONE I KNOW KNOWS IT GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

regulated
regulated
regulation
regulation

regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]

1) a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2) the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

"The whole point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves"

No, it's not. Have you even read your own constitution?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

There's nothing in there about self-defence. It's so that you can be drafted into a citizen militia to protect the state.

And every time I hear this argument, I thank my lucky stars that I don't live in a country where people are actually this paranoid.

@Velocity5

If I was to advocate voting as a strategy, I'd probably take a look at the Tenth Amendment Center (linked above). Vote on local elections for candidates that will 'nullify' regulations imposed from above, like counties ignoring/countering state laws and states ignoring/countering federal laws.

The Free State Project is actually about 'taking over' (so to speak) New Hampshire through the political process for such purposes. And I suspect that the initiative to break California into several states has similar goals.

A deep constitutional scholar such as yourself probably already knows this:

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”"

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment says nothing about the right of the individual to bear arms. It mentions gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia, which was the precursor to the American military. The current prevailing anti-government definition of the 2nd amendment is a fiction that has more to do with the revisionist history of 1980s conservative think tanks than it does with the intention of the founders.

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

additional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"Dearest F-----, I want to thank you for making me realise something. It requires quite an ego-free state of mind not be drawn into battle with you, since you love to manipulate others into the same state of rage that I believe you must be frequently in. This helps me a lot.

I haven't seen the Mad Max film you referenced to since I was about 17. I've forgotten the characters, so you'll have to spell out exactly with words, how you're trying to manipulate my ego right now. Don't hold back, love, I can take it." - A very, very wise woman.

It's never a all of nothing...

Do I agree that, in the best or worlds, education should be free. Absolutely.

Do I think that, in the financial situation this province is in, it's realistic to protest against a tuition hike that still will make it (one of) the lowest tuition in North America? Absolutely not.

We have a bunch of problems to solve - including waste government spending etc...and I'd love nothing better than to have a free education system...but as it is, we have the highest income tax rate in Canada (probably North America), we have debt issue, health system issues, etc. It just is not realistic at this point.

Have a little protest to make your point, and move on. Get some concession to have a bit better bursaries to help those students that need it, sure. Have a 200k protest where you jam up everybody during rush hour, close bridges, etc...I'm sorry, that justs feels like first world problems to me.

Do I have any evidence or polling about who agrees with the protesters...no. That's just based on what you hear on the street/news - which isn't scientific, of course...but I'd bet that there's a greater likelihood that it's the correct situation than not.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Tokoki:
Students protesting about tuition hikes...when they have the cheapest tuition in all of North America!
Typically, when a group is protesting about something, you find a decent part of the general population that agrees with them. In this particular case...pretty much everyone here agrees that they're out in left field on this - including most of the other students who were actually trying to go to school.

Ummm why would you think this? Just because it's cheaper there than it is in America doesn't make it right. Higher education like community colleges should be free. Mexico has free state schools that are comparable to American ones across the border...yet they're free in a poor country and in a rich country they'r not. Does that seem right?
Also why not present some evidence or polling about who does and doesn't agree with these protesters.

>> ^Tokoki:

Students protesting about tuition hikes...when they have the cheapest tuition in all of North America!
Typically, when a group is protesting about something, you find a decent part of the general population that agrees with them. In this particular case...pretty much everyone here agrees that they're out in left field on this - including most of the other students who were actually trying to go to school.


Ummm why would you think this? Just because it's cheaper there than it is in America doesn't make it right. Higher education like community colleges should be free. Mexico has free state schools that are comparable to American ones across the border...yet they're free in a poor country and in a rich country they'r not. Does that seem right?

Also why not present some evidence or polling about who does and doesn't agree with these protesters.

>> ^curiousity:

@bcglorf
You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.
POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.
PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.
Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.
In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.
VIDEO:
When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.
....
On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.


Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.

I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

@bcglorf

You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.

POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.

PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.

Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.

In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.

VIDEO:

When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.

....

On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.

Well with in their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

A militia is not, is not, the National Guard. The National guard is controlled by the Federal Government. These guys seem well spoken, but what did they think about Bush?

That wasn't a really big gun, it was what appeared to me, a modern version of the M14. Which shoots a .308 standard NATO 7.62x51mm round. No different than any other weapons issued in the modern world. Also, it appears that all of those weapons were Semi-Auto.

CAVEAT:

So I thought about this some while walking up the stairs. I stopped midway and said, "What the fuck?" There is some general Xenophobia seen in this group. The man mentioned Fort Hood. There also seems to be some general stupidity going on here too. First let me address Fort Hood. Fort Hood is a large sprawling base, where people live. Much like the Triangle in Virgina. There are tourists, and military people all over the place down there. Just because the shooter was Muslim, doesn't antiquate the fact that the shooter could have been anyone. Race means nothing in the eyes of Justice, she's blind. The man was a criminal all the same.

Secondly let's address that guy's fears of being shot in the back. I don't know how many weapons were present at the shoot, but given that there were many seen in the footage it would be safe to say that someone violated safety protocol at some point. Guns don't kill people by themselves. Negligence or intent of a person kills.

A gun by itself is an inanimate object incapable of any action. Safety is relative to the amount of training everyone has had. He doesn't want to be shot? Then put the gun down get back in the car and go home.

>> ^imstellar28:
the "free state" which only amassed 8% of votes for Ron Paul in the primary.
wankers; they don't want freedom they just want to smoke weed...


The freedom to smoke weed...