• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 310 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. People like their free ****. No doubt about that.
What free ****?

Only way forward for the R's now is to outspend the D's. Not sure that's possible, but we shall see.
Odd, I seem to remember this same crop of Rs spending money like it grew on trees under the last administration. Is that what you mean? We should go back to that?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sounds like a whackjob you would feel right comfortable with. Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than guns.
If you want to discuss/argue about how to reduce alcohol-related deaths, fine, sure, we can do that. What does it have to do with the gun control thread, though?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
mikeNphilly said:
"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 first part of the amendment allowed the US to create an army, as there was no standing army to speak of after the end of the Revolutionary war. The second part of the amendment says that we have the right to keep arms. The two parts have nothing to do with each other.

That comma is one of the most important commas ever used.
But commas and general punctuation back then didn't have the same meaning they do today, and besides, we don't even know which version of the 2nd was the one intended - the one with two commas or the one with three?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0

Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version.
Punctuation was used pretty liberally back then - it may be that the commas have no real meaning or intent at all:

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. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
What free ****?

Odd, I seem to remember this same crop of Rs spending money like it grew on trees under the last administration. Is that what you mean? We should go back to that?
Obamaphones to food stamps to unemployment to job training to people who frquent this site regularly;

http://www.benefits.gov/help/faqs/#four


Growing traffic to this site is about the only thing this prez is interested in doing.
 
VeloCity said:
But commas and general punctuation back then didn't have the same meaning they do today, and besides, we don't even know which version of the 2nd was the one intended...
Someone let me know when my right to bear flame throwers, rocket launchers, anthrax and plutonium are no longer infringed on by the liberals in government.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
VeloCity said:
If you want to discuss/argue about how to reduce alcohol-related deaths, fine, sure, we can do that. What does it have to do with the gun control thread, though?
This isn't a gun control thread. It is clearly labeled "U.S. Politics". Gun control is a subset, as would be alcohol-related deaths and the political response, or lack thereof, to same.

VeloCity said:
But commas and general punctuation back then didn't have the same meaning they do today, and besides, we don't even know which version of the 2nd was the one intended - the one with two commas or the one with three?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0

Punctuation was used pretty liberally back then - it may be that the commas have no real meaning or intent at all:
The NY Times piece you link to is an excellent discussion of the topic. However, I don't think it is quite accurate to say that commas did not have the same meaning back then. From the NY Times article
Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking.
. Which is pretty much what they do today. Pause in the speaking, the phrasing, the grammar, or the idea. All of which would be denoted in speech by a physical pause.

For a better understanding of Jefferson, what he wrote, and how he wrote, I think it is critical to read Locke's 2nd Treatise. In Locke you will find a very precise manner of sentence formulation. One that encompassed the ideas of a topic from every possible linguistic and grammatic angle, and with extreme precision. Jefferson was a known scholar and writer, and obviously plagiarizes Locke in the Declaration of Independence. Plagiarization was a compliment in that day and age.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Someone let me know when my right to bear flame throwers, rocket launchers, anthrax and plutonium are no longer infringed on by the liberals in government.
You'll never get that notice.

But if you have a long rifle the DOJ is recommending mandatory turn-ins. All actions constitutional, of course.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Someone let me know when my right to bear flame throwers, rocket launchers, anthrax and plutonium are no longer infringed on by the liberals in government.
those are reserved for the few with the maturity level and requisite training to be trusted in proper situational use. (like me and glenn) :D
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Obamaphones to food stamps to unemployment to job training to people who frquent this site regularly;

http://www.benefits.gov/help/faqs/#four


Growing traffic to this site is about the only thing this prez is interested in doing.
So in other words, "free ****" is just more made-up **** that you parrot because you want it to be true. Or maybe it is conventional wisdom in the up-is-down black-is-white conservative alternative universe. Either way, it's just more made up ****.

btw you are aware that the "Obamaphone" program started under Bush, I'm sure.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
So in other words, "free ****" is just more made-up **** that you parrot because you want it to be true. Or maybe it is conventional wisdom in the up-is-down black-is-white conservative alternative universe. Either way, it's just more made up ****.

btw you are aware that the "Obamaphone" program started under Bush, I'm sure.
It's Bush's fault. lol. You're hopeless.

What's made up? Food stamps? 99 weeks unemployment? Job training? Obamaphones? Govbenefit site? What's made up?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
hiero2 said:
This isn't a gun control thread. It is clearly labeled "U.S. Politics". Gun control is a subset, as would be alcohol-related deaths and the political response, or lack thereof, to same.
Shouldn't have said thread, meant that the discussion was about gun control.

The NY Times piece you link to is an excellent discussion of the topic. However, I don't think it is quite accurate to say that commas did not have the same meaning back then. From the NY Times article . Which is pretty much what they do today. Pause in the speaking, the phrasing, the grammar, or the idea. All of which would be denoted in speech by a physical pause.
Right, but that was left entirely up to the whim of the author - there were no "rules" of comma use at the time. And what the author intended and how it's interpreted 200-odd years later, using different "rules" of punctuation, may be two entirely different things.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/fanfare-for-the-comma-man/

As I said, what’s right and wrong changes historically, and the comma shows this clearly. In the 19th century and earlier (when rules were generally more lax than they are today), comma use was pretty much a crapshoot. That is, writers rolled one in when they felt like it, which was usually when a natural pause seemed to occur. So in the first line of “Pride and Prejudice” (1813), Jane Austen wrote:

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

By about a century later, comma rules had been codified such that both commas in the sentence (after “acknowledged” and “fortune”) would be dispensed with.

You can glimpse a reason for this codification — which emphasized consistency rather than sound — by looking at the opening of the Second Amendment of the Constitution (1789):

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 are three commas. The one after “state” would be used today; the one after “arms” would not; the one after “militia” is ambiguous; and all three have caused a world of hurt, confusion and argumentation over the last 223 years.
For a better understanding of Jefferson, what he wrote, and how he wrote, I think it is critical to read Locke's 2nd Treatise. In Locke you will find a very precise manner of sentence formulation. One that encompassed the ideas of a topic from every possible linguistic and grammatic angle, and with extreme precision. Jefferson was a known scholar and writer, and obviously plagiarizes Locke in the Declaration of Independence. Plagiarization was a compliment in that day and age.
I've never read Locke, I'll check it out. Thanks.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's Bush's fault. lol. You're hopeless.
The "Obamaphone" program began in 2008 as part of the SafeLink Wireless program signed into law by George W Bush. Providing low-income Americans with phone subsidies originated in 1984 under the Reagan administration. And the program is payed for by telecommunication companies through a non-profit, not by taxpayers.

Yes, you're making **** up again. Or reading too much Breitbart.

What's made up? Food stamps? 99 weeks unemployment? Job training? Obamaphones? Govbenefit site? What's made up?
:rolleyes: Pretty much says it all, really. But anyway, most of the "free stuff" goes to red states, so why don't you go tell those lazy ****ing conservatives to get off of their asses and stop whining about non-existent Obamaphones?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
The "Obamaphone" program began in 2008 as part of the SafeLink Wireless program signed into law by George W Bush. Providing low-income Americans with phone subsidies originated in 1984 under the Reagan administration. And the program is payed for by telecommunication companies through a non-profit, not by taxpayers.

Yes, you're making **** up again. Or reading too much Breitbart.

:rolleyes: Pretty much says it all, really. But anyway, most of the "free stuff" goes to red states, so why don't you go tell those lazy ****ing conservatives to get off of their asses and stop whining about non-existent Obamaphones?
The "Obamaphone" program began in 2008 as part of the SafeLink Wireless program signed into law by George W Bush. Providing low-income Americans with phone subsidies originated in 1984 under the Reagan administration. And the program is payed for by telecommunication companies through a non-profit, not by taxpayers.
Oh, I see. You're for corporate welfare except when you aren't. Telecom profit used to provide free phones is profit not taxed. But hey, it's all free right? Who cares?:rolleyes:

Pretty much says it all, really. But anyway, most of the "free stuff" goes to red states, so why don't you go tell those lazy ****ing conservatives to get off of their asses and stop whining
Yes and even the author of the piece that you posted couldn't quantify what that meant.

So who's making **** up again?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I see. You're for corporate welfare except when you aren't. Telecom profit used to provide free phones is profit not taxed. But hey, it's all free right? Who cares?:rolleyes:
Never said I was for it or against it. You blamed it on Obama without bothering to check whether or not it was true solely because you wanted some "free stuff" to blame on Obama.

Yes and even the author of the piece that you posted couldn't quantify what that meant.

So who's making **** up again?
Course they were quantified - look them up yourself.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/sr139.pdf

btw, since it doesn't jibe with the meme, you'll probably be rather upset to know that CA is one of the lowest recipients of federal "free stuff".
 
patricknd said:
those are reserved for the few with the maturity level and requisite training to be trusted in proper situational use. (like me and glenn) :D
LOL!

Hey, check it out. A supposedly left leaning democratic governor, one who was a former ER physician, in a very blue state with democratic legislature in both houses, recently pushed through a hasty bill giving Nike one of the sweetest tax deals in memory, and one other similar companies can't get. Link here.

Yep, that's right folks. The Democrats are out there looking out for the working man, while the evil Republicans stand for corporations. Sure.

Supply-side economics is alive and well folks, fueled by cronyism and held in closed door backroom deals. No matter what party or side you think doesn't, or think has your back.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Sweet zombie Jesus! Velo might blow his wig. Here in Utah the process is on track to make it a constitutional right for any law abiding citizen over the age of twenty-one to not require a concealed carry permit to carry a gun.

Expect fear mongering about gunfights at high noon and shootouts over people laughing at other people's mules.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
LOL!

Hey, check it out. A supposedly left leaning democratic governor, one who was a former ER physician, in a very blue state with democratic legislature in both houses, recently pushed through a hasty bill giving Nike one of the sweetest tax deals in memory, and one other similar companies can't get. Link here.

Yep, that's right folks. The Democrats are out there looking out for the working man, while the evil Republicans stand for corporations. Sure.

Supply-side economics is alive and well folks, fueled by cronyism and held in closed door backroom deals. No matter what party or side you think doesn't, or think has your back.
Impossibru! The Dems look out for the working man. I know this because they told me so. Just you wait. Any day now the Dems will start indicting the Wall Stree fraudsters who wrecked the economy. Any day now.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
LOL!

Hey, check it out. A supposedly left leaning democratic governor, one who was a former ER physician, in a very blue state with democratic legislature in both houses, recently pushed through a hasty bill giving Nike one of the sweetest tax deals in memory, and one other similar companies can't get. Link here.

Yep, that's right folks. The Democrats are out there looking out for the working man, while the evil Republicans stand for corporations. Sure.

Supply-side economics is alive and well folks, fueled by cronyism and held in closed door backroom deals. No matter what party or side you think doesn't, or think has your back.
And that's really the sum of the equation.

Alpe wins.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
BroDeal said:
Impossibru! The Dems look out for the working man. I know this because they told me so. Just you wait. Any day now the Dems will start indicting the Wall Stree fraudsters who wrecked the economy. Any day now.
Don't be stupid. It was Bush's fault.:)
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet zombie Jesus! Velo might blow his wig. Here in Utah the process is on track to make it a constitutional right for any law abiding citizen over the age of twenty-one to not require a concealed carry permit to carry a gun.

Expect fear mongering about gunfights at high noon and shootouts over people laughing at other people's mules.
laughing at a man's mule is serious business
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
VeloCity said:
Shouldn't have said thread, meant that the discussion was about gun control.

Right, but that was left entirely up to the whim of the author - there were no "rules" of comma use at the time. And what the author intended and how it's interpreted 200-odd years later, using different "rules" of punctuation, may be two entirely different things.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/fanfare-for-the-comma-man/



I've never read Locke, I'll check it out. Thanks.
I first read Locke in a college philo class - on my 5th attempt to get my degree, 20 years after 1st having attended. That was the winning attempt. That particular class was one of the best I had - and Locke was a big part of that. He represented a turning point in thought. You don't have to read the whole thing - you'll be wading through way past mind death if you try, I think. However, I don't recall the excerpts we were given, but check with a philosophy prof - they would have a good idea.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You'll never get that notice.

But if you have a long rifle the DOJ is recommending mandatory turn-ins. All actions constitutional, of course.
Nonsense - nobody has suggested mandatory turn-ins of long rifles. Amof, so far as I can see, long rifles would be the LAST, or one of the last, remaining firearms on the market should regulation really get out of hand.

Usually the regulators go after those weapons that are specifically designed for human-hunting and battle scenarios - automatic fire, large magazines, assault style rifles, sawed-off shotguns, Saturday night specials in the pistols market. "Tommy" guns and sawed-offs have been illegal forever, and I don't see us hurting for the lack. I can still easily go down and buy sufficient long rifle firepower so that when the commies do finally land on our shores, I can be behind the trees sniping along with the best of my fellow NE "Live Free or Die" compatriots. I can do justice just as well with a bolt action as an auto.

If you've seen anything otherwise to back up your "long rifle" comment, please feel free to post a link that validates your conclusion.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
hiero2 said:
Nonsense - nobody has suggested mandatory turn-ins of long rifles. Amof, so far as I can see, long rifles would be the LAST, or one of the last, remaining firearms on the market should regulation really get out of hand.

Usually the regulators go after those weapons that are specifically designed for human-hunting and battle scenarios - automatic fire, large magazines, assault style rifles, sawed-off shotguns, Saturday night specials in the pistols market. "Tommy" guns and sawed-offs have been illegal forever, and I don't see us hurting for the lack. I can still easily go down and buy sufficient long rifle firepower so that when the commies do finally land on our shores, I can be behind the trees sniping along with the best of my fellow NE "Live Free or Die" compatriots. I can do justice just as well with a bolt action as an auto.

If you've seen anything otherwise to back up your "long rifle" comment, please feel free to post a link that validates your conclusion.
Assault style? To California Senator Diane Feinstein, that definition is "military looking" which translates to "scary looking."

My comment of long rifle was really more of be urban definition, but since you are looking for precision I will withdraw and say 'assault style'. My bad.:rolleyes:

Since precision is what you are looking for please go ahead and define "assault style rifle", or for that matter "assault weapon" for me. Seems to be a wide net there, maybe you can narrow that down.

If a bolt action is your weapon of choice, then good on ya.

And this;

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

is what got the hackles up. "Assault weapons" bann does nothing unless they are confiscated and even then they are not much of a contributor to intentional or unintentional gun homicides.

The point stands. Mandatory turn ins of guns (that are largely not he problem) is being discussed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS