There are probably individual liberals out there who are capable of debating the issue and seeking a consensus - whether it requires changing the Constitution or not. However, the liberal base of the modern Democratic Party is not. They pretty much want to shove their agenda down everyone's throat. They're very emboldened, even as they've been defeated at the polls. Nevertheless, if you don't believe in the supremacy of the written law (as liberals largely do not), then going through the trouble of amending the Constitution is a bit of a needless headache. Why make the political compromises and fight the battles needed to amend the Constitution when 5 guys is black robes will just force your will without regard to the written law and with no compromise or effort?
Indeed this has been their Plan A. And now for my broken record -- had you guys let Hillary win, this would have gotten much worse
It's kinda funny. I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, but nobody says I "let Obama win." They usually understand why I wasn't interested in voting for McCain. However, I get judged for doing the same thing in 2016, even though McCain ran as more of a traditional conservative than Trump did.
This is an interesting phenomenon. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/2...-showered-with-fan-mail-donations-report.html Why do attractive women throw themselves at scum like Cruz? Anybody see the movie "The Paperboy" with Nicole Kidman, Matthew McConaughey, and John Cusack? It had one of the hottest scenes I can remember. It involved Nicole Kidman's character visiting an inmate (Cusack) in jail.
Lots of chicks dig the "bad boy" and the excitement/drama he brings, and I think they like the idea of "civilizing" the bad boy and view it as a conquest of sorts. It's a sickness, but lots of women have it. Same thing happened with Charlie Manson. He started out as a homeless loser, but once he became a dangerous criminal, suddenly chicks all over the country were hot for him.
I can't explain it, but every loser guy I've known had no problem getting dates especially if they acted like jerks to women. But dudes who were nice guys and were responsible adults? It was entirely hit and miss.
Just to be clear, I never struggled getting dates but I never had women queuing up to send me nudes and $$.
Nope, me neither. However, sometimes being on the receiving end can go badly. A friend of mine who was in grad school while I was in law school did get some nudes from a girl he knew, and it didn't go so well. The girl (whom I had met - not bad looking but nothing special and boring as hell) had gone on a trip to Greece during the previous summer. She sent him a CD with photos from the trip. He had a female professor whom he thought would be interested in seeing them because she talked quite a bit about Greek history, so he put the CD in his laptop and started showing her the pictures. The first several were what you'd expect - photos of Greek ruins, views of Athens, etc. About a dozen pics in, suddenly there were pics of the girl not only nude but fully engaged in sex acts with some hairy, fat guy who was probably in his early 40s (clearly a Greek guy she hooked up with). My friend was humiliated since the prof ended up seeing the first pic or two. My friend invited me and some other guy friends over to his apartment that weekend, and of course he whips out the CD. (We were in our mid 20s, so obviously he was going to show them off.) They were not remotely sexy or alluring and left absolutely nothing to the imagination. Obviously she was trying to send him a message of some kind, though I'm not sure why she'd think a guy would want to see pics that included some other guy's junk. Was she trying to make him jealous? Was she trying to send him the message that she was OK with getting with fat, hairy guys? (My friend was a little portly and hairy but much less so than the guy in the pics.) Seemed like a dumb move to me.
Not surprised. A cousin of mine in California used to make a living dealing pot and selling pirated porn videos to high school boys. Back then, he had hot girls all over him. About 15 years ago, he became a Christian, cleaned up his life, and got a decent job. Now he can't find a date to save his life. Hard to imagine why not. He looks better now, and though he's not rich, he makes a pretty respectable living - a lot more than he did selling weed and pirated porn.
Yes, that's probably part of it, but I think it may go even deeper. I think it's some bizarre manifestation of a female's instinct to mate with the biggest, baddest caveman in the clan, so that her progeny will rule the roost one day and her own position in the clan will be elevated.
Could be that God was protecting him from the kind of girl that wanted a guy like he used to be and maybe even helping to prepare him to be devoted to one woman the rest of his life.
I hope that's what it is, but I see this sort of thing happen so often. Nice guy can't get a date to save his life. Bad dude has more chicks (even many "good girls") than he knows what to do with.
Really. That's speaks to some kind of deficiency in women unfortunately. The desire to be taken advantage of. It could also speak to a mistaken idea of manhood in Christian circles. Passivity isn't manly and doesn't attract women even if it is due desire to obey God. Men need to obey God and be manly, risky, initiators.
This is right. SCOTUS and courts in general do whatever the hell they want and make up BS out of thin air with no justification other than "it is implied by the constitution that the courts can do _____________" The founding fathers made a flaw in the Constitution -- the checks and balances on the courts are not as strong as they are on the legislative or executive branches.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a flaw. There are a few things that the Founding Fathers almost surely didn't anticipate. First, they never would have suspected that the American legal community would embrace the concept of "evolving meanings" of the words in the written law. The idea of the "living document" would horrify them. They'd wonder what the point of writing laws down was if the meaning of the words can change. Second, they probably didn't anticipate the other branches' almost absolute deference to the judiciary. When the Supreme Court rules, the executive and legislative branches as well as the state governments just mindlessly comply, even though the Constitution doesn't give the judiciary that degree of authority and gives them no enforcement power. It was likely assumed that there would be tension between the branches with enforcement powers (the executive and states) and the courts. Furthermore, they likely assumed that the legislative branch would use its impeachment powers over the judiciary a lot more than they do. In short, the checks are in place. The other branches just need to exercise them. Third, the founders certainly didn't anticipate how broad federal power would become. They gave the federal government supremacy but very limited jurisdiction. That has been turned on its head. It still has supremacy, but its jurisdiction has been radically expanded, opening up opportunities for the federal courts to interfere on legal questions that the founders never would have expected. They never would have expected the federal courts to be deciding issues like abortion or gay marriage - not because they would never have approved of abortion or gay marriage but because they would never have expected the federal government to be involved in two issues that are so wildly unrelated to any legitimate assertion of federal power.
A smooth stone did the trick for David. The logistics of aiming, shooting and reloading can be disrupted, allowing a mass to disarm or escape a shooter. A perfect answer? No. A better alternative to cowering and waiting for help? I'd say so.
Excellent post Mr. Deez. I can tell you this paragraph is not a "probably." The founding fathers 100% expected all branches AND the states to push back against one another (see the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, etc). The founders might even think we are fools for how much deference we give to a mere 9 individuals and, in our current situation, Justice Ayatollah Kennedy.
I have an inspiration. Make up a fake criminal life - say fly to Cozumel or Shanghai for some so-called illicit activity. Have your friends play a part in the scheme, just to fool the girls. They probably would find it exhilarating.
The best explanation I have heard of this phenomenon is a combination of ignorant confidence coupled with probability. The "jerk" will not care when he gets rejected by women so he will try multiple times - likely getting rejected most of the time. Compare that to the "nice" guy who scrapes up enough confidence to ask a girl out and then is devastated when he gets rejected - leaving him to not try again until his chances are much better. Because the "jerk" tries more often, he will achieve a successful outcome more often. Ask enough girls to leave the bar with you eventually you will find one or move to another bar and start over.
I'll give it a run. I consider myself pro 2nd Amd... The difference is the interpretation. I would propose, to kick off the discussion, these things. 1. It shouldn't be less difficult to buy an AR-15 than a handgun. It was not in Florida. 2. Every firearm sale should be subject to background checks and the seller should be responsible (read: liable) for both documenting that the sale was appropriate and maintaining the records. 3. Address the low hanging fruit - bump stocks and high capacity magazines. 4. Should regular civilians be able to purchase military grade weapons like the AR-15? I'm ambivalent. I listened to a Florida GOP Congressmen who was on the field the day of the baseball shooting pointing out that maybe civilians don't need those things. I also see plenty of ex-military folks making strong statements that they should not. I personally defer to that and I would listen to that logic to some extent but I don't see that playing out in policy. That said, I really am not an advocate for weapon confiscation. Are those reasonable things? I think it's interesting that these kinds of ideas are now considered "liberal".
As a prior service guy, I would say that you shouldn't be deferential to military folks. Respectful and even appreciative, but not deferential. While we've all raised our hand to defend the Constitution, 90% have never read the constitution beyond the bullet point version you get in 7th grade. As a group, military members are no more authoritative or informed on this subject than the rest of the citizenry. I could get on board with the above, IF I trusted that this would be the end of it. But since I don't think the above will prevent future Parklands, I'm confident that when these measures don't provide 100% relief from future shootings, the gun control advocates will ask for ever more control.
I think in the absence of a strong opinion on my part, it makes sense to listen to the opinion of people who've carried those weapons. I'm not an expert on a lot but on that little piece of the world that I am, I think people should defer to me. We also have to know that changes like this are just one aspect. Regardless, there will be future school shootings. There is no silver bullet. We have to accept that minimizing mortality is the goal. MADD did not get rid of fatalities related to drunk driving. However, they SIGNIFICANTLY impacted the number of lives lost annually due to alcohol related MVA's. I'd guess we could fill football stadiums with the delta as compared to the past. Car safety and better roads help as well. There's no silver bullet there either.
That's not a particularly good comparison. Before MADD, DWI laws were lax and frequently not enforced even when people were caught. It just wasn't taken that seriously. Murder has pretty much always been taken seriously and prosecuted.
