Geeto67

In a manner of speaking yes. The nearest legal counterpart model you can look at to heroin is the prescription opioid market, which far exceeds the heroin market in terms of both new users and damage to society. Heroin use prior to the current opioid situation was fairly low - in fact any growth in the heroin market is directly linked to legal perscription of opioids. So yeah, restrictions were doing a good job of keeping the market small and legalization of a similar or substitute drug made it much worse.

Everyone wants this to be one thing or another thing exclusively, and I have to ask...why can't it be both a health issue and an access issue? And why can't a solution have reasonable measures drawn from both? Oh that's right....not one inch. Jez, you'd think the government was coming for their cocks with that mantra.....oh, wait....

I have to ask, do you think incest, rape, and ambush insemination are things that only happen in the porn you watch and not real life? How about this - the person whose body it is gets to make that call, mmmkay.

Any measure that is currently being proposed. Agreed. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a measure that would affect that without being a total ban. ok, point to Any other incident where a school was blown up by a gasoline bomb. Since 1760 there have been 1373 reported school shootings in this country. By comparison in that same time frame there have been 12 reported school firebombings or serious but unsuccessful attempts at firebombings (and some of them are generally related to larger acts of terrorism like the OKC bombing and the Columbine incident). The highest number of incidents and highest death toll related to school shootings has occurred between 1970 and now. The highest death toll for a school firebombing that was not related to a larger act of terrorism was the bath school disaster of 1927 that occurred over several days and left 45 dead. You know what, I'd take those odds. Guns are fucking easy, making a pipe bomb, or a gas bomb that is effective is decidedly less so. You seem to be the only one here talking about a total ban. You are also the one advocating "not one inch" and "no compromise". Which means you are the roadblock to a solution. What you fail to understand is that the only reason you have this perceived right in the first place is because of political compromise - the decision that the phrase "well regulated milita" (US v. Miller) was no longer relevant to the conversation wasn't decided until 1939, and it was done so as to prevent an early ATF tax and registration law that sprung up in the wake of the St Valentines day massacre. The lower court was actually in favor of the law, but knew that the defendant (Miller) was a bank robber and had testified in court against his gang, and would have to go into hiding after the trial - so he tried to keep it out of the supreme court because he knew the defendant wouldn't show. However, the case was appealed on another issue, and the Supreme court heard it anyway and of course the defendant didn't show. So the idea that a well regulated militia includes any weapon was won on default without any discussion as to the ramifications to it's meaning. It's an accident of history that fucked us all. you are the bar to that true honest discussion. nobody want's to have a talk with an extremist.

yeah because compromise would lead to less dead children and who wants that? :dumb:

No Quite the opposite, the things you talk about go far beyond the current boundaries, and you don't seem to have any problem with this. You have more rights than you think, but you need to know about them and most Americans don't, or are cynical to the point where they convince themselves they don't when they do. There is still that option. People do it, it requires you to remove parts of yourself from society. A lot of the "Personal liberty" and Privacy people give up is still voluntary. Not true. Pay cash for everything and work for yourself in a cash transaction business, and keep off social media and you can pretty much reduce your public profile down to a driver's license, an SSN, and a ITIN. If you work for a company that isn't the government your employment records should be private and protected, same for medical records. The majority of public information people bitch and moan about has to do with social media and their voluntary participation in information sharing. You don't have to be on facebook, or twitter, or snapchat, or hipstergram. Level with us how? Let's assume the answer is no, how do you restrict him in accordance with due process, and the existing "shreds" of privacy we still have? How can you keep it out of his hands but still allowing others to buy an AR15? Remember Social Media is not truth, neither are medical records - they are people's opinions and they can (and often are) wrong. How do you propose to deal with the massive error rate that comes with incorporating "social media" and everything else that is "recorded" (but we still may have privacy rights to) into a government background check? How do you address the massive error rate that comes along with what you are proposing? If you want some historical reference about how what you are proposing can be abused, a good historical parallel that can be looked at is the history of Credit Reporting. Prior to the 1950's people's credit reports had all sorts of things in them. Women often had items that commented on their appearance, personality, etc...often people put things untrue negative things in the reports for immigrants out of spite or xenophobia, it was unregulated. And it was used for many of the same things we use it for today - employment background checks, renting shelter, etc. How would you like to know you lost a job opportunity or couldn't purchase a firearm because a few people put into your credit report that you have a fat ass? Congress intervened and now we have a huge amount of regulations concerning the information credit reporting agencies can collect and how they need to verify it, and still more is needed because they seem to be shitty at keeping that information private. Remember the Credit Agencies are not the government, and they have no obligation to turn over your credit information without a warrant or you agree to it.

Greg you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand due process in the slightest. To him if a cop visits you, you are as good as guilty. He doesn't even see the amazing overreach and invasion of personal liberty he is advocating.

Your wife keeps telling me it is. But you are probably right, it could be anybody in the neighborhood.

my battery has top poles, positive on the right and negative on the left (if you are sitting in the drivers seat). I don't know the duralast part number but you are welcome to borrow it if you come picke it up and drop it back off in dublin. Heck I am even around all day tomorrow till 4 if it helps.

What is the pole configuration? I have my jeep wrangler battery you could probably borrow as I don't drive the car except on weekends. On a side note, why is she scrapping it? Pick up is still a pick up, she couldn't get a couple hundred bucks for it?

Actually you can, it's just very expensive and very very difficult as there is a finite and shrinking pool (roughly 500,000). The going rate to join the fully auto club starts at around $20,000. You also need a completely spotless criminal record. Automatic weapons in this context is a stupid conversation. There are many many work-arounds to make a semi-auto perform to the same level as an auto without breaking the law, and plenty of conversion pieces if legality is not a concern. To bring in an area of ownership that is not accessible by discussing fully auto weapons is pointless. Again, I am going to say repeal the dickey amendment and let's have the CDC start funding independent research in this area again. You complain that our existing measures aren't working, well that is one of the kinds of research topics the CDC would investigate as part of its root cause analysis of gun violence. The NRA and those that cower behind the mantra that there isn't a need for research are purposefully keeping you stupid and if you are a member, you pay them to do that. Once we have data, we can start having a conversation about intelligent gun control, because guess what - we already have gun control in this country and it isn't going away, and all you "responsible owners" aren't doing enough of a good job self policing so it's time to intervene.

I have a 6 year old.

you know someone is going to bid the shit out of that car.

Not if you paid me. I don't think you are coming off anti-american. I think you'd be happier in another state. There are a lot of great things Ohio has to offer but cultural diversity isn't one of them. Columbus has amazing immigrant populations but they don't mix because they are scared of the "locals". And for good reason.

Not everyone. Just you. Why does it baffle you? have you seen the stupidity you write? You lack basic knowledge of how your world works - no wonder you feel angry and disenfranchised. The part that saddens me is you seem to just double down on your stupid. I'm just done feeling sorry for you.

Seems like you want it to be the answer. Diverse experience is the answer, but you don't have to leave America to get it. If you are asking me if Ohio is a wasteland? yes it is. When I lived in NYC, completely different story. Same with New Orleans. And Boston. And it is the same with Italian, et al. All the eurocentric festivals here are going to be the same - the only difference is the flavor of sausage in the sausage and peppers they serve you. You want a real ethnic experience, you have to go into those neighborhoods and mix with those people and that's outside the comfort zone of most living here. Also given the white supremacy problem in Ohio (and columbus specifically) it's a little understandable why those groups don't go out of their way to make sure the white people attend. I meant things like shelter, access to food, mass produced cheap goods, access to various communication methods, and lots of services. There are many things in which the US absolutely blow (infant mortality rate anyone?). Yeah there are few things we are the leader in, but bad television and blue collar cultural export we surpass everyone. Half the world probably thinks we are all Larry the cable guy. we got on this topic, because the 2A nutballs on this forum wanted an audience to yell their stupidity at in the context of a national tragedy and to feel like constitutional champions, and you and I probably like arguing beneath our station so we engaged them. I don't know when it became popular to hate the educated and not value education in America, but given the increasing speed of technology and automation the backlash worries me.

And yet you apply a broad negative stereotype to American Children that isn't representative. based on what criteria? who even measures this and how? What do you know of me personally? Yeah I wasn't raised in South Africa, but I've lived in Europe and am fairly well traveled. My Grandparents (whom I lived with for a while) were immigrants here. I understand the perception the ROW has because we are the biggest media generator and frankly the culture we export isn't always the best version of America. But they don't live here either, they don't see that we also make fun of the kardashians and call Bud Light piss water (but still drink it because it is cheap). And nobody thinks Hershey's is good chocolate, it's just better than nothing and costs almost as much. Also, ever see what passes for candy in Australia? horrid. Cheeky.

yeah the cure for being spoiled is to move your kid to a third world country :dumb: (and yes Equador is actually a third world country, I am not just being dismissive of one of the top "happiest" places in Latin America and also a developing country). If you don't want your kids to grow up in American culture, then yes move them out of American Culture. But your are making the case that American Culture synonymous with spoiled and that is just not true. It certainly is different from any other culture but it is also hugely diverse and enjoys a high standard of living not found a lot of other places.

Even your jokes are stupid. I would take it as a personal insult that an American education system could yield just a staggering amount of ignorance, but honestly I don't really care about you that much. Of course you generally support the people that don't want to put money in education, you didn't get one so why should anybody else?

because you ran backround checks? fair point So do a lot of things that don't require hitting. Still not seeing an advantage. when I say easy, I don't mean emotionally easy, I mean intellectually. Parenting is hard overall, but add in taking the longer process of actually talking things out with a child rather than just the instant physical discomfort - yeah spanking is comparatively easy. You really hate the young. Why? Social media has changed the landscape but kids haven't changed that much overall. I think a lot of what cause adults to claim the next generation is "spoiled" has to do with increased standard of living across the generations. I'm fairly certain the 1800's generations called early 1900's generations spoiled because they had indoor plumbing. I don't think you are accurately describing the majority of American children. Are there some genuinely spoiled kids out there? sure. But I have a feeling they are just highly visible outliers rather than the rule. Fear of the young and hate for the young is as old as time itself. The things you are saying have been said about the next generation since the dawn of time. get over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebiphobia So you are ok with a much more sever punishment if it yields the exact same results? By the way, you still haven't addressed the moral question.

yeah, because the cops are such a shining example of what to do /sarcasm :dumb: Also, Police are not the people that hand out discipline. That role falls to the courts and the penal system. So congrats on being extra ignorant as to the actual role police serve in the the American justice system. How is it you don't know this shit? I mean seriously, they teach this to 1st graders. Also if you think about it - a prison stay is an extended "time out" from society. As far as I know, no judge has handed out a sentence to "beat the shit out of someone" in at least 30 years.

That you know of, anyway. I'm pretty sure you don't know all the secrets kept by just about everyone you know, including the sum total of their past history. But whatever. Still not hearing an "upside" or proof beyond apocryphal. At best you get the same outcome as using an alternative method of discipline, so what's the advantage? Because it's easy? Since this conversation was originally about moral decline: Tell me how physically harming a weaker being is moral when there are alternatives? And how using those alternatives more often is actually leading to a decay in morality? No study is perfect and of course these have flaws. There are also cultural differences that make some of the outcomes (like disaffected relationships) a positive and not a negative. But still, not seeing an overwhelming upside to this from anybody that says hitting your kids will make them smarter, perform better, or improve. The best possible outcome is they end up the same as any other kid who wasn't physically disciplined. That's not an overwhelming endorsement.

looking at the sales catalog, it looks like a lot of high mile Repossessions. Not that itself is anything wrong, but still...not seeing a lot of things worth getting out of bed for.

wouldn't you like to be reimbursed by the community? I assumed someone was paying out of pocket for it, just didn't know who.

Is there a situation where violence against a child is not an extreme reaction? Esp if someone is advocating it be performed by people who aren't family members. Hitting a weaker being because you lack the skills to resolve it some other way is a weakness of character. It's not strength, it's not character building discipline, it's just easy cruelty. But don't take my word for it, there is a lot of data out there on this. In terms of long term effects, children who receive frequent spankings are at a higher risk of mental health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, don't develop strong relationships with people later in life, increased aggression, and underdeveloped cognitive ability during development. https://www.brookings.edu/research/hitting-kids-american-parenting-and-physical-punishment/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-science-says-and-doesn-t-about-spanking/ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx But please, feel free to make the case for it. What is the upside to spanking children? It's not better behavior or a more moral person because the data doesn't support that. But you tell me...what's the upside to hitting children?