jcd11235

I don't disagree with your basic statement, since there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people; but again - why the sudden change in what you're willing to use to makeyour point? I think we mean different things when we refer to dangerous weapons. I'm referring to the effectiveness of a weapon when used, not the danger a weapon poses when not being used. I haven't changed what I'm willing to use to make my point at all. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

News:More spelling errors plague Obama releases "Misspellings continued to plague the Obama administration on Thursday, after two more releases containing errors were sent to reporters in the last 24 hours..."Source: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/09/more-spelling-errors-plague-obama-releases/ It's a stretch to call what are clearly typos misspellings. That doesn't justify typos making it past the proofreading stage, mind you. Still, I wouldn't classify them as misspellings. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Um, uh, er, NSFW!!! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No change of thought. I said, "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters." We was intended as collective we, represented by TSA enforcing security regulations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There, I fixed it to accurately reflect my assertion. A box cutter is to knives what a firecracker is to bombs. Okay. Would you like to bet that if you try to attack me with a box cutter, I can neutralize your threat using an object allowed on board by TSA as my weapon? That would accurately test my assertion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're using a single year (1998) for the baseline of your comparison. It's a mistake that is leading you to an invalid conclusion. Try comparing the average temperature from 1989-1998 to the average temperature from 1999-2008. A long term warming trend does not imply that every year will be warmer than the previous year. (Note that I don't know what such a comparison will show, only that it avoids the mistake I highlighted. The data would likely still need to be corrected for solar cycles, etc. before any reliable conclusions could be drawn.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Incorrect - it would ABSOLUTELY disprove your original comment, above - unless you LIKE getting cut, that is. For myself, I try to avoid it. No, it wouldn't. My comment: "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either." You'll notice that it in no way compares the effectiveness of a knife against a gun. If you would like to discuss the merits of guns against other weapons in various scenarios, feel free to start a thread on that topic. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you not misconstruing my words. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You make a good point. There is undoubtedly a subset of people who are physically and mentally capable of effectively defending themselves with a gun, but not by other means. To be fair, I believe such people are a minority of people at large and of air travelers at large. I'm not saying that firearms are useless for self defense. But, I do think that most people use weapons because they have chosen to fight, rather than choosing to fight because they have a weapon. I guess what I'm saying is that guns don't kill people; people kill people. If someone wants to do harm to someone else (justifiably or not), if they don't have a gun, they'll just use some other weapon. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Your proposal is irrelevant, and would serve to neither support nor disprove my assertion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not by Tom's logic. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That makes sense. I tend to ride alone or with only one other person, so I never considered that. Shifters? You must have one of them newfangled fancy bikes with more than one gear! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When I bought my most recent bicycle, the first thing I did was to put my front brake lever on the right and my rear brake lever on the left. This configuration makes more sense to me (personally), since most of my stopping power comes from the front brake and I'm right handed. I rarely even use my rear brake. I know that in the US, it's most common to have the rear brake on the right and the front brake on the left. I also realize that in some countries, the opposite configuration is typical. What is your preference, and why? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Income level was not an aspect focused on in the show. As do I. I also know quite a few that do (or have). The show, however, did not select a pro gun family that lived in a trailer. I know two families with substantial gun collections (i.e. well over 50 firearms). One lived in a trailer when I met them. The other is a multi-millionaire with hundreds of guns in his personal collection. He also owns several expensive cars and his own company. Of the two families, I consider the former to be more typical, not only of gun owners, but of Americans in general. I know I'd rather spend time with them than the other guy. It seems that you're the only one who is viewing the pro gun family in the show in a negative light due to their income. I didn't see it as relevant. There was no indication given by the anti-gun person that she felt like she was stuck living with the poor for 30 days. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. It can, and in my opinion it should. Your observation in no way takes away from Ron's argument. Did you have a response to it? By that logic, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be eliminated no matter what laws are passed, so why even worry about it? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nope. Nor am I okay with a city outlawing guns. So, you're saying that the individual's rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment are not unlimited? Fair enough. The same can be said of the second amendment. Give me a break. We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. Do you still don't get it? The words of the founding fathers that count are the ones in the Constitution. The judicial branch has the responsibility to interpret those words. The SCOTUS has the final word in the matter, under the authority granted to them in Article III of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has decided that the second amendment is an individual right, but not an unlimited right. No quotes from any of the framers changes that, no matter which side of the debate the quotes may support. My position is and has been that the SCOTUS has the final say. It is you who has been unable to produce any evidence or quotes to the contrary. I can produce Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to support my position. Do you have something that trumps that? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That was the premise of the show, to have someone from one end of the spectrum spend thirty days with someone from the other end of the spectrum. It wouldn't have worked using someone from the middle, such as myself, a gun owner who does not see every gun law as an attempt to take away everyone's guns. Neither person was portrayed as being typical. Both were pretty accurately portrayed as holding extreme positions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. But there's no probable cause to justify the search. Why aren't you outraged that the fourth amendment has been defiled so? It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not part of the judicial branch of government. I can state my opinion in public and private forums. I can vote consistently with my opinion. I can write my government officials and petition my government. But, at the end of the day, judicial opinion is the only opinion that really matters w/r/t what does and does not constitute a violation of rights. Don't look now, but that's all your argument is based on. In your opinion (which is no more or less important than mine), it seems like your (not necessarily you, specifically) rights, as guaranteed under the second amendment, are being violated. Right, which lends strength to the power of the states. The fourteenth amendment, on the other hand, explicitly says that states cannot abridge citizen's rights that are recognized by the Constitution, i.e. the Constitution trumps state laws. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I suspect that, of the possible hosts with suitable accommodations to take on a house guest for 30 days in a reasonably comfortable manner, he was chosen because of the characteristics [downwardspiral] already mentioned. Was it even a trailer? I've never seen a trailer with a basement. (Maybe I just haven't seen enough trailers.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Ever tried yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Ever had to empty your pockets or walk through a metal detector to get into a courthouse? To get on a plane? To get into a public or tax subsidized museum (or similar attraction)? [lawrocket] said there is no present need for due process. More seriously, consider how the RIAA has been able to successfully sidestep due process requirements by "prosecuting" in civil courts instead of criminal courts, since they know the standard of proof could not be met in a criminal case. Seems like most any punishment for victimless crimes (e.g. drug law violations, gambling, prostitution) could be considered cruel and unusual. Have you read about the fines handed down in RIAA cases? You've structured a nice argument showing why few, if any rights we have in this country, including the right to keep and bear arms, are unlimited. I fixed that for ya! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Technically not part of the DZ, but the airport bar in Deland has the best burgers I've encountered anywhere in Florida (or anywhere east of the Mississippi River, for that matter). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't have a good answer to that question. I don't think being attacked always implies going to war is justified (e.g. 9/11 & OEF). Nor do I believe going to war is never justified unless attacked (e.g. US declaring war on Germany during WWII). Yours is a very good question. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Um, he's quoting from currently valid Supreme Court Precedent (Miller). Perhaps, but not in a context that supports his disagreement with Kallend's (correct) assertion that the opinion of the SCOTUS is the only one that really matters w/r/t interpreting the meaning of the second amendment. His quote from Miller further supports the claim that the second amendment guarantees an right that is not unlimited. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's quite the rock collection you're accumulating. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You realize the USA was founded on liberalism, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And what if it had been women under there? Gee, then nothing else would have happened. They could have gone on their way, with no harm done. Not likely. In all probability, it would have caused more problems than not checking did. One of the purpose of the burqa is to shield the female body from the sight of males. Given that the motivation for doing so is religious, your solution may even be arguably interpreted as a violation of Article 3 of the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention. If you let men who think like that define how you are going to fight, then once again, the terrorists will win. We are in their country trying to motivate change. It is by their standards that are troops are judged. Not sharing their ideology (and I certainly don't admire their ideology) doesn't change that any. Trying to impose our own ideology upon them, rather than allowing them to embrace change of their own accord, is a recipe for failure. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!