The (Un)official write anything you want page

[KILL TULLY]

*raises hand* (alas...)

It was a serious question; because all statistics and studies put the USA far ahead of any other nation as far as charity goes. Both from the government and private citizens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-u-s-takes-top-spot-as-most-charitable-nation

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...y-us-most-generous-country-world-giving-index

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16260782

https://www.cafonline.org/publications/2011-publications/world-giving-index-2011.aspx

Etc. etc.

 

[dorian gray]

How was slavery constitutional in the first place?

Im not sure what youre asking. You implied that no "progress" ever arose from changing the Constitution. I countered with the notion that the abolition of slavery would be considered, in the minds of educated and intelligent persons, progress. Slavery, while not mentioned in the literal sense, was a concept built into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers as a means of building this country.

 

[KILL TULLY]

Im not sure what youre asking. You implied that no "progress" ever arose from changing the Constitution. I countered with the notion that the abolition of slavery would be considered, in the minds of educated and intelligent persons, progress. Slavery, while not mentioned in the literal sense, was a concept built into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers as a means of building this country.

It was a concept in their mind, yes. It is still unconstitutional. 'Slavery' is not mentioned a single time in the constitution. It is hinted at though; you are right. I would still argue that slavery was unconstitutional from the get-go (people much smarter than myself and more knowledgeable on the subject would/have as well).


I believe the only example of actually negating/changing the constitution is the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. I could very well be wrong though and would be interested to find out.

 

[einride]

gun-controlling, socialist-esque states

im sorry i dont really care to have a strong opinion about most of this but it doesn't really help your case to throw around the word "socialist" like it actually applied to anyone here

i'm sure there are valid arguments to be made but "we are not SOCIALIST, therefore:" is the weakest and most misguided shit


also

You just want to be comfortable and safe; admit it.

yes it should not ever be the purpose of government to keep its populace comfortable and safe, what is this horseshit

 

[KILL TULLY]

im sorry i dont really care to have a strong opinion about most of this but it doesn't really help your case to throw around the word "socialist" like it actually applied to anyone here

i'm sure there are valid arguments to be made but "we are not SOCIALIST, therefore:" is the weakest and most misguided shit

That's not how America works. For instance my state (Massachusetts) has socialized-health care, higher taxes, more variety of taxes than other states, etc. I'm not 'throwing the word around', I'm using it in it's literal sense.

yes it should not ever be the purpose of government to keep its citizens comfortable and safe, what is this horseshit

The only purpose of the United States Federal Government is to enforce the constitution and maintain the military (who's job is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic') . Through this they allow the people the ability to keep themselves comfortable and safe.


Again: We are a very, very different place than the rest of the world. You may think us crazy/stupid, hate us for it, etc. but it's still the truth.

 

[thebaron]

Hail Tully!

I can't wait to move to New Hampshire.

I'm in a technology company office full of engineers, there are multiple concealed carry license holders with weapons on them in the office. I have zero fear. Live free or die.

 

[einride]

That's not how America works. For instance my state, MA has socialized-health care, higher taxes, more variety of taxes, etc. than other states. I'm not 'throwing the word around', I'm using it in it's literal sense.

ok, that is kind of fair enough. i tend to read "state" as "sovereign country" and somehow took it as an attack on those of us living in SOCIALIST SWEDEN or COMMUNIST FRANCE or whatever, so never mind

although it is pretty extreme to call an entire american state "socialist" because they have some manner of public health care. not exactly what "socialism" means to the rest of the world

The only purpose of the United States Federal Government is to enforce the constitution. Through this they allow the people the ability to keep themselves comfortable and safe.

so in essence, one of the purposes of your government is to try as best as it can (within the confines of an 18th century framework) to keep you comfortable and safe then?

it just sounds really funny that you're using the words as if safety and comfort are somehow not desirable things

Again: We are a very, very different place than the rest of the world. You may think us crazy/stupid, hate us for it, etc. but it's still the truth.

no, i understand that, and i have full respect for you for sticking to your guns (har-dee-har-har)

personally i'm happy to live in a place where the risk of getting shot or subjected to violent crime is almost nil, but as you say, we have an entirely different history and mindset compared to you guys

so yeah, keep on truckin'

 

[KILL TULLY]

ok, that is kind of fair enough. i tend to read "state" as "sovereign country" and somehow took it as an attack on those of us living in SOCIALIST SWEDEN or COMMUNIST FRANCE or whatever, so never mind

although it is pretty extreme to call an entire american state "socialist" because they have some manner of public health care. not exactly what "socialism" means to the rest of the world

Socialist-'esque' enough here in America, though.

so in essence, one of the purposes of your government is to try as best as it can (within the confines of an 18th century framework) to keep you comfortable and safe then?

Nope, it's just to support the constitution. The people should be in charge of their own comfort and safety beyond that.

it just sounds really funny that you're using the words as if safety and comfort are somehow not desirable things

They are desirable, but they aren't the MOST desirable.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

No, you don't know enough. You have not shown that you know anything at all in fact. You come across as the type of person that would ban all Pit-Bulls because they attack people and were bread for 'nothing else besides violence!'. Who would own a pit-bull besides a 'sagging pants, tiny penised, thug' after-all?

Pit-bulls do not exist for the sole purpose of killing/violence.

I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are really that influenced by what you are fed by the media to actually believe that this is how gun owners are. Either way it's pretty idiotic; if trolling than you are making light of a serious debate. If not, than you are just showing your gullibility.

I live in a redneck, gun-crazy state called North Carolina. I know a shitload of this type of people personally. Some of them are even friends and family. Yes, I am stereotyping here. But so are you--blaming the "librul media" for something that for a TON of people is simple common sense.

Please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment it says anything about guns? You think that 'muskets' were the only weapons that were around during the time of the constitution?

Can you tell me why ANY civilian should own a Bushmaster .223? The SOLE purpose of this weapon is to kill a fuckload of people. If it has another purpose, then I would genuinely like to know.


Also, you can't tell me that FREEDOM is the main reason to regulate guns better. Do we not have limits on free speech in this country, i.e. burning an American flag? Do we not have limits on who can drive a vehicle, and what kind, i.e. a civilian can't drive a tank to work? Do we not have limits on what you can look at, i.e. kiddie porn? Face it, this country has a LOT of limitations on so-called "freedom." And most of them are necessary,

 

[KILL TULLY]

I'm in a technology company office full of engineers, there are multiple concealed carry license holders with weapons on them in the office. I have zero fear. Live free or die.

Awesome man; you mean that not all gun owners are 'inbred tobacco spittin' red neck small-penised psychopath idiots' or whatever people were saying in previous pages? I AM SHOCKED!

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Awesome man; you mean that not all gun owners are 'inbred tobacco spittin' red neck small-penised psychopath idiots' or whatever people were saying in previous pages? I AM SHOCKED!

Not all. Just most.

 

[einride]

Nope, it's just to support the constitution. The people should be in charge of their own comfort and safety beyond that.

but they wouldn't have written the constitution the way they did if they had no regard for your comfort or safety, though

 

[KILL TULLY]

Pit-bulls do not exist for the sole purpose of killing/violence.

Do enlighten me on what pit-bulls were bred for than?

(I love them, by the way).

I live in a redneck, gun-crazy state called North Carolina. I know a shitload of this type of people personally. Some of them are even friends and family. Yes, I am stereotyping here. But so are you--blaming the "librul media" for something that for a TON of people is simple common sense.

I'm not sure were I ever stereotyped anyone or mentioned the 'librul media'. Please quote me so I can apologize and correct my mistake if I did so.

Can you tell me why ANY civilian should own a Bushmaster .223? The SOLE purpose of this weapon is to kill a fuckload of people. If it has another purpose, then I would genuinely like to know.

That's not type of gun: that's a manufacturer and a caliber of round. Assuming you mean an AR-15; plenty of people hunt with them.

Explain to me how having a weapon that is efficient at killing people is somehow against the 2nd Amendment?

It doesn't matter anyways; I will never be able to convince you.

I can't even begin to comprehend why you think American citizens shouldn't be able to have them; so we are even I guess.

Also, you can't tell me that FREEDOM is the main reason to regulate guns better. Do we not have limits on free speech in this country, i.e. burning an American flag?

No, we don't have that limit.

Please look here, read a few other countries views/laws, and than scroll to the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

I believe the only limits to the 1st Amendment are those revolving around obscenity and pornography; which are totally irrelevant as counter-points seeing as I think they are also ridiculous and unconstitutional laws. I obviously don't support that; so using it in an argument against me won't work.

Do we not have limits on who can drive a vehicle, and what kind, i.e. a civilian can't drive a tank to work?

You can drive whatever you want on your own property.

And I don't see why a civilian wouldn't be able to drive a tank to work?

Do we not have limits on what you can look at, i.e. kiddie porn? Face it, this country has a LOT of limitations on so-called "freedom." And most of them are necessary,

Kiddie porn is so obviously anti-constitutional I don't think it deserves an argument.

 

[thebaron]

Awesome man; you mean that not all gun owners are 'inbred tobacco spittin' red neck small-penised psychopath idiots' or whatever people were saying in previous pages? I AM SHOCKED!

It's funny how different the mentality is here. My liberal leaning girlfriend argues for the right to carry. I know flaming gays who visit the Sig Sauer Academy. It's ingrained in NH culture, the only ones who can't stand it are usually MA transplants who came here thinking it was VT.

From my perspective I only worry about guns in the hands of the mentally ill and participants in our culture's cancers (gang banging rap culture, meth culture, etc). And even then the chance of being involved in any gun related violence is so tiny I hardly think about it. We should focus on eliminating the problems causing people to become motivated to use their weapons for senseless violence if anything.

On another note, what is 'progress'? I see it being thrown around in this thread... but I'm not sure what we are progressing too. I've asked this of self defined 'progressives' but they don't seem to have an answer outside of the issue du jour.

 

[thebaron]

Not all. Just most.

You're just thinking of the wildly vocal ones and the stereotypes. Most gun owners do not make it known.

 

[KILL TULLY]

but they wouldn't have written the constitution the way they did if they had no regard for your comfort or safety, though

They wrote it specifically so that the people had control of their own fate, comfort, safety, life, etc. not the federal government.


So you are half right; though it seems like you are thinking they wrote it in order to give the government power to 'keep the people safe and comfortable'.

 

[einride]

From my perspective I only worry about guns in the hands of the mentally ill and participants in our culture's cancers (gang banging rap culture, meth culture, etc).

to be fair, these groups find ways to get guns even in countries where it's basically impossible to get guns (sweden*)



* unless you're gonna be huntin' moose

 

[KILL TULLY]

to be fair, these groups find ways to get guns even in countries where it's basically impossible to get guns (sweden*)



* unless you're gonna be huntin' moose

True dat man.

I enjoy input from all over about the subject but some Euro-dudes need to really put stuff into perspective; there are GAJILLIONS of guns in America that are not going anywhere, ever.

 

[einride]

They wrote it specifically so that the people had control of their own fate, comfort, safety, life, etc. not the federal government.


So you are half right; though it seems like you are thinking they wrote it in order to give the government power to 'keep the people safe and comfortable'.

i don't actually see a useful distinction

for instance, the fourth amendment about "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" was clearly written to ensure the people are secure from government tyranny

if the government writes a document that aims to protect the people from itself, the goal being to create a country where people can live in safety and comfort (among other things), then that is giving the government power to keep the people safe and comfortable since the constitution is enforced by the government, no?

there are GAJILLIONS of guns in America that are not going anywhere, ever.

just because something IS and probably WILL BE for the foreseeable future doesn't mean you can't think it's wrong

i mean that remark in a very general way

with that kind of thinking -- "don't even try, cause shit's never gonna change" -- not much good would ever come of the world

 

[KILL TULLY]

i don't actually see a useful distinction

for instance, the fourth amendment about "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" was clearly written to ensure the people are secure from government tyranny

if the government writes a document that aims to protect the people from itself, the goal being to create a country where people can live in safety and comfort (among other things), then that is giving the government power to keep the people safe and comfortable since the constitution is enforced by the government, no?

I suppose it can be looked at that way; but it is more of a fence preventing them from having to much power in my opinion. It was very unique in that aspect at the time (and still to this day).