Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
That's generally good advice regarding anything, I find.
Figured this was the best place for this: Was murder knife found at O.J. Simpson's estate?
The article said itself what I was going to state, so here it is:
The article said itself what I was going to state, so here it is:
Still, interesting. Discuss.
I thought double jeopardy didn't apply when compelling new evidence was found?
Considering the circumstances around this knife, I doubt it could be compelling enough.
Not in the United States. They could try to do federal charge (dual sovereignty allows this) but it's unlikely to happen. Basically, they'd have to prove the jury was bribed to allow a retrial at this point.[DOUBLEPOST=1457215985,1457215954][/DOUBLEPOST]
Also this. He's doing... what, 9-33 for armed robbery? What an idiot.
GasBandit
Staff member
From what I've heard, the knife is actually much smaller than whatever knife was used in the murder. It sounds more along the lines of the cop might have been trying to manufacture a collectible with the somewhat renewed interest in the case, given there's a new documentary about it now.
Iran sentences another Iranian billionaire to death along with two others. He was apparently neck deep in some of the corruption of the previous administration.
Considering what he did to get it, it's almost certainly going into a government coffer somewhere.
Good to know that the current court can have a unanimous opinion even when perfectly divided: Supreme Court rules the states must honor adoptions by same-sex parents who move across state lines. They didn't even hear arguments this case was so clear: States may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning or deems it to be wrong.
In other news, they are still deciding if they should hear a lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma regarding overturning Colorado's marijuana laws.
In other news, they are still deciding if they should hear a lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma regarding overturning Colorado's marijuana laws.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Really, we should be banning "gun-free areas."
I think it would be more accurate to ban areas where only certain people can have guns. Either everyone can have them, or nobody can have them. Pick one.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Really, it's already picked. There was an amendment. Second one they thought of. Pretty important.
But not as important as saying black people were worth 3/5ths of white people.
Right. The word you're looking for is "enshrined."
I completely see the need for zones where NO guns should be allowed, but due to safety issues, not political ones.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
At a time when rapid firing of guns meant you could do 2-3 shots per minute if you were good. The people who made the second amendment could not conceive of the firepower we have today.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ironically, the people who gripe about this seldom realize that if the constitution had originally "counted" slaves as an entire person, it's far less likely slavery would have been abolished as early as it was. This was not counting *worth,* it was counting population for delegates in the house of representatives. If the entire slave population had been counted, the slave states would have held 66% more power in congress than they did. Abolitionists wanted black people to count *zero*, since they were not free to follow their own destiny, much less vote or run for office.
At that time, the musket was the deadliest instrument of war capable of being carried by one person. The idea was that every single private citizen was to be as well-equipped as a regular soldier in case tyranny should rise again. Unless, of course, you think that freedom of speech shouldn't apply to radio, tv, or the internet, since at the time all the "press" had was a literal press - the movable type printing mechanism, and the founding fathers could not have conceived of the tools the media would have today.
The original framers were well aware of the rapid pace of fire arms development, having seen significant improvement in their own lifetime. If they truly believed that citizens should be limited to their own firearms and not benefit from new developments, they wouldn't have generalized. They knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the simple language that didn't limit or define the weapons.
That's not really what it says though. Exact wording ahead-
"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."
I wish people would stop inputting their bias into this. The meanings everyone is trying to assert to this phrase isn't nearly as cut and dried as you would like it to be, and it doesn't necessarily support what you are trying to say it does.
I'd like to point out this goes for both groups that interprete the 2nd amendment. Not trying to just pick on you, Gas. You were just the most recent to comment on it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Except there are letters and correspondence and on-the-record quotes from those who authored the amendment as to exactly what it means.
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Thus "the militia" means the ENTIRE POPULATION, not some small officially sanctioned paramilitary force.
And, as we've been over a hundred times in the past, the word "regulated" did not mean "tightly controlled by government" until the 20th century. In the 18th century, it meant "well functioning," as in up to the standards of regular infantry.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
So, in modern parlance, the 2nd amendment reads, "As the security of a free state requires the entire population to be well equipped and trained in the use of firearms, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And please don't tell me that's "just my biased interpretation" when I've just sourced all my arguments.
Some other pertinent quotes:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " - Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
And another for food for thought -
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3
GasBandit
Staff member
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." - George Washington's First Annual Message To The Congress. In other words, he's talking about a national army: trained and disciplined troops in uniform with their own supply chains, not armed civilians.
Another interpretation is that he's calling for America to begin the manufacture of it's own armaments and supplies instead of relying on imported goods from Europe, which is to be accomplished by this "uniform and well-digested plan". That's sort of the trick with early English; it often doesn't mean what we think it means. Worse, our founders were a VERY politically diverse group of people for a bunch of old white dudes. The Founders can and did disagree with a lot of things.
Sorry, I had to go to bed and now I'm going to work. Some of us sleep and actually have to work when they go to work
Necronic
Staff member
@Steinman, sorry for the late response. I had a pretty horrendous midterm this weekend and haven't been on the site since Thursday.
Dont worry about the tone. I mean let's face it, I started the conversation by calling all republicans who believed all regulations were bad to be either dumb, or scum. I was kind of asking for it.
As for your argument you do point out some of the nuances, but I think at the end of the day the only difference we really have is exactly how much regulation should exist, not whether or not it is inherently wrong. I don't disagree that regulations hurt companies bottom lines, but I do think that it's less significant than people think.
Consider Exxon. After the Valdeez they decided to take a serious philosophical shift towards a more safety oriented culture. Their rate of OSHA violations hit record lows in the following decades, and they are considered an industry gold standard in this. At the same time they also became the single most powerful O&G company in the world. Their ability to achieve financial success was in no way hampered by their self regulation (I appreciate that my use of "self" set some alarm bells ringing, bear with me a bit though).
Then you have BP. They have a long history of serious safety problems. If Exxon is the industry gold standard then BP is the brown standard (to be clear brown means poop). And it consistently shows in their bottom line. They carry an immense amount of financial risk because it's unknown what their next big screw up will be.
While on its face this seems like a strong argument for the value of regulations, let's adress my use of the word "self". Much of exxons success has been through their own understanding of the value of safe operations. But it's worth noting that said value is already tied to wealth. Accidents due to negligence cost companies massive amounts of wealth due to operational problems as well as litigation. BP is a great example of this yet again.
So self regulation can get you a long way, but only when the value and wealth are tied together.
Now as for the domino chain you described, it's true that regulations will ultimately reduce standards of living in the short term. If we had appropriate over site of the housing market many people would have earned substantially less money. But we also wouldn't have had the horrendous reversal we saw in 2008.
Because at the end of the day, the reality of the underlying value will come knocking.
But I do agree that unnecessary or ill conceived regulations need to be removed. Not all of them are good. But that is simply not the message the Republican Party transmits. We say "not all of them are good", they say "all of them are bad".
I did particularly like your example of the value low priced alternatives may present to low income people. That was good, I'll have to think more on that.
As for the tragedy of the commons, did you seriously reference the responsible use of public lands for cattle grazing as an example? I mean ok, you were talking about way back when. But good lord that's probably one of the only great modern examples of the Tragedy of the Commons, in the form of the Bundy gang.
Anyways. Sorry for the late reply. I appreciate your response.
Dont worry about the tone. I mean let's face it, I started the conversation by calling all republicans who believed all regulations were bad to be either dumb, or scum. I was kind of asking for it.
As for your argument you do point out some of the nuances, but I think at the end of the day the only difference we really have is exactly how much regulation should exist, not whether or not it is inherently wrong. I don't disagree that regulations hurt companies bottom lines, but I do think that it's less significant than people think.
Consider Exxon. After the Valdeez they decided to take a serious philosophical shift towards a more safety oriented culture. Their rate of OSHA violations hit record lows in the following decades, and they are considered an industry gold standard in this. At the same time they also became the single most powerful O&G company in the world. Their ability to achieve financial success was in no way hampered by their self regulation (I appreciate that my use of "self" set some alarm bells ringing, bear with me a bit though).
Then you have BP. They have a long history of serious safety problems. If Exxon is the industry gold standard then BP is the brown standard (to be clear brown means poop). And it consistently shows in their bottom line. They carry an immense amount of financial risk because it's unknown what their next big screw up will be.
While on its face this seems like a strong argument for the value of regulations, let's adress my use of the word "self". Much of exxons success has been through their own understanding of the value of safe operations. But it's worth noting that said value is already tied to wealth. Accidents due to negligence cost companies massive amounts of wealth due to operational problems as well as litigation. BP is a great example of this yet again.
So self regulation can get you a long way, but only when the value and wealth are tied together.
Now as for the domino chain you described, it's true that regulations will ultimately reduce standards of living in the short term. If we had appropriate over site of the housing market many people would have earned substantially less money. But we also wouldn't have had the horrendous reversal we saw in 2008.
Because at the end of the day, the reality of the underlying value will come knocking.
But I do agree that unnecessary or ill conceived regulations need to be removed. Not all of them are good. But that is simply not the message the Republican Party transmits. We say "not all of them are good", they say "all of them are bad".
I did particularly like your example of the value low priced alternatives may present to low income people. That was good, I'll have to think more on that.
As for the tragedy of the commons, did you seriously reference the responsible use of public lands for cattle grazing as an example? I mean ok, you were talking about way back when. But good lord that's probably one of the only great modern examples of the Tragedy of the Commons, in the form of the Bundy gang.
Anyways. Sorry for the late reply. I appreciate your response.