Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2013, 05:56 PM   #76
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 34,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Go fishing somewhere else....nice try on your part. I believe in the basis of law in this country the Constitution. Really simple.
And you say this bill violates it. All I asked was how, which shouldn't be hard for you to tell us.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:57 PM   #77
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
That's what I thought.

Angry for no reason.
Incorrect.

Irish.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:57 PM   #78
Incorruptible
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
I'm not diving down this rabbit hole...I'm tired. It's an open ended question and I think you know the answer.

Read the Constitution. The second amendment is clear. Her bill is violating that right.
Good point, Most of these bills are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment and the politicians know this
Incorruptible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:01 PM   #79
exdeath
Lifer
 
exdeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
But her constituents are the people she was elected to represent. Why are you upset about an elected representative representing the wishes of her constituents?
I live in AZ. They live in CA. They can fuck off and stay off my property.

Last edited by exdeath; 01-04-2013 at 06:03 PM.
exdeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:02 PM   #80
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
And you say this bill violates it. All I asked was how, which shouldn't be hard for you to tell us.
Well then it shouldn't be difficult to explain what you think is OK in that bill and how it doesn't infringe on my rights. I implied from another post that you served as a Marine at one point. Did you not swear to defend the Constitution?

I can play this game as well although I'm about to stop as I've said I'm tired and need to sleep.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 06:04 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:03 PM   #81
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie View Post
Incorrect.

Irish.
True....damn. Being Irish can be tiresome sometimes.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:04 PM   #82
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 34,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Well then it shouldn't be difficult to explain what you think is OK in that bill and how it doesn't infringe on my rights.

I can play this game as well although I'm about to stop as I've said I'm tired and need to sleep.
That doesn't make any sense. I never said anything about the bill, you made a positive statement that it was unconstitutional. That means the burden of proof is on you.

Similarly if I said the moon was made of cheese the burden is not on you to disprove it.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:06 PM   #83
Fern
Elite Member
Super Moderator
 
Fern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 24,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
I read an article recently that I thought was very on point. Why the fetishization of the second amendment but not the others? Of all the amendments that guarantee personal liberties, having to overthrow the government with guns is absolutely the least likely to happen.

Many of the same people who so fervently defend the second amendment were fine with warrantless wiretapping in the name of fighting terrorism, were down with indefinite detention, etc, etc. Those are freedoms the government might abridge EVERY DAY, yet I see no similar level of outrage from these people. Why?
The wiretapping I was OK with was that for foreign communications originating (and terminating) in foreign countries, but because of new technology are now passed/routed through the USA. Previously, if two foreign 'spies' were communicating, say one was in Berlin and the other in Paris, we had no Constitutional problems - no subpoena required. If technology changes such that the foreign call is merely routed through US territory I find that change insignificant to compel a subpoena. Non-US citizens in a foreign country have no US constitutional rights IMO.

Warrantless wiretapping of US citizens is something I do have a big problem with.

I have no problem with indefinite detention of non-US citizens captured on the battlefield. I remember in past wars prisoners were held indefinitely. I have no problem with a US military tribunal to determine if they (foreign combatants) should, or should not, be treated as POWs.

I do have a big problem with the concept of US citizens being detained indefinitely without (non-military) trial.

Oversimplifications are of no help when discussing issues.

Fern
__________________
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
Fern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:08 PM   #84
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
That doesn't make any sense. I never said anything about the bill, you made a positive statement that it was unconstitutional. That means the burden of proof is on you.

Similarly if I said the moon was made of cheese the burden is not on you to disprove it.
Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy. She also has a beehive hairdo and yellow teeth that I don't care for.

Are you saying the moon is made of cheese? What kind? The burden of proof is now on you. Should we have the federal govt legislate on cheese as well? That's probably in their job jar. Funny thing...they already do.


Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 06:11 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:11 PM   #85
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 34,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy. She also has a beehive hairdo and yellow teeth that I don't care for.

Are you saying the moon is made of cheese? What kind? The burden of proof is now on you. Should we have the federal govt legislate on cheese as well? That's probably in their job jar.
So you have no answer. That makes me think your objection is based more on tribalism than actual objections to it.

Pretty lame.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:15 PM   #86
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
So you have no answer. That makes me think your objection is based more on tribalism than actual objections to it.

Pretty lame.
Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:19 PM   #87
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 34,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?
I have no idea why asking you why you oppose something has you so riled up.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:22 PM   #88
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
I have no idea why asking you why you oppose something has you so riled up.
Maybe I'm just angry today and I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. Do you agree with the bill?

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 06:24 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:32 PM   #89
ivwshane
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?
Not in the mood? And yet you are in the mood to post 15 times in this thread? Sorry not buying it.
__________________
System Specs
ivwshane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:43 PM   #90
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
Not in the mood? And yet you are in the mood to post 15 times in this thread? Sorry not buying it.
Then don't...

I've answered his question and played the bait game...with no answers to my simple question. I wasn't aware that I needed your buy-in.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 06:57 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:25 PM   #91
Hayabusa Rider
Elite Member
 
Hayabusa Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 38,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
So then if the majority disapproves then she will be voted out and the law will be repealed or changed.

No one senator or congressman has the power to usurp the constitution.
No but they can lead the way and prevent legal challenges so things can't even go to court. When the law is created in such a way that it cannot be challenged by citizens how is it repealed?

You underestimate the ability of determined representatives. I suggest you look into how she's an integral part in preventing legislation which provides accounting for purely domestic wiretaps. Considering her and many in the government there's little reason to trust them when safeguarding other rights.

You suggest to just vote them out and things will change. In theory that's nice. In practice it doesn't happen. You can't even get politicians to sit down and work out other issues like the cliff unless they have their feet to the fire. I'm not so naive to believe that theoretical solutions to wrongs written in law are easily corrected. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples.
Hayabusa Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:53 PM   #92
ivwshane
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider View Post
No but they can lead the way and prevent legal challenges so things can't even go to court. When the law is created in such a way that it cannot be challenged by citizens how is it repealed?

You underestimate the ability of determined representatives. I suggest you look into how she's an integral part in preventing legislation which provides accounting for purely domestic wiretaps. Considering her and many in the government there's little reason to trust them when safeguarding other rights.

You suggest to just vote them out and things will change. In theory that's nice. In practice it doesn't happen. You can't even get politicians to sit down and work out other issues like the cliff unless they have their feet to the fire. I'm not so naive to believe that theoretical solutions to wrongs written in law are easily corrected. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples.
You really didn't prove your point. No one senator or congress person has that kind of power. Now maybe if you get a couple of them together you might have a point but even still there are checks and balances, it's up to the people to ensure that those balances happen. You complain but you are blaming the wrong thing. People get what they vote for.
__________________
System Specs
ivwshane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:13 PM   #93
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
You really didn't prove your point. No one senator or congress person has that kind of power. Now maybe if you get a couple of them together you might have a point but even still there are checks and balances, it's up to the people to ensure that those balances happen. You complain but you are blaming the wrong thing. People get what they vote for.
Yea, you're right, it isn't just one career politician on the Hill with that power...they run in packs. This is true for both parties. Another great reason for limited terms and to knock them off their high horses.

You're also correct that it's people's own fault. People need to wake up and realize what power THEY should yield in terms of our government. Alas, the true housewives of Beverly Hills in on....fuck it.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 08:18 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:48 PM   #94
ivwshane
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Yea, you're right, it isn't just one career politician on the Hill with that power...they run in packs. This is true for both parties. Another great reason for limited terms and to knock them off their high horses.

You're also correct that it's people's own fault. People need to wake up and realize what power THEY should yield in terms of our government. Alas, the true housewives of Beverly Hills in on....fuck it.
I agree which is why I don't spend all my time preaching and defending a right that won't be taken away and instead focus on real issues that actually do and have eroded our rights or that make it harder for the citizens to have the government they want.



Sadly, most only care about amendments with a "2nd" in front of it.
__________________
System Specs
ivwshane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:22 PM   #95
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy.
Link to proof from a reputable source? IOW, from someone other then a troll.

If Congress passes a law, guess what, it's the law and must be obeyed unless and until a Federal Judge finds it illegal (or Congress amends/voids it with another law). You can choose to not follow it at your own peril, but it's the law and you and others would be breaking the law.

It's not up to an ex-corporal or you to pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.
GarfieldtheCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:47 PM   #96
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldtheCat View Post
Link to proof from a reputable source? IOW, from someone other then a troll.

If Congress passes a law, guess what, it's the law and must be obeyed unless and until a Federal Judge finds it illegal (or Congress amends/voids it with another law). You can choose to not follow it at your own peril, but it's the law and you and others would be breaking the law.

It's not up to an ex-corporal or you to pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.
Prove you're argument...the second amendment is clearly written and had and has a purpose....that's my source. Just because the government is doing something doesn't make it correct. This isn't just about the second amendment; it's about a slow and steady erosion of our Constitutional rights.

YOU might be OK with that I'm not and many others aren't either. YOU can choose to accept whatever comes your way; I don't have to. That is one of the founding premises of this Republic.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 09:52 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:49 PM   #97
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
I agree which is why I don't spend all my time preaching and defending a right that won't be taken away and instead focus on real issues that actually do and have eroded our rights or that make it harder for the citizens to have the government they want.



Sadly, most only care about amendments with a "2nd" in front of it.
I'm not preaching shit by I am defending it. I'm stating what is a fact based in law. To what level of "taken away" is acceptable? This can mean many things. Saying something won't be taken away is a pretty trusting and not really what history has proven to be the case.

It's a slippery slope and you're also correct that there is a lot more at stake than the second amendment.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 01-04-2013 at 09:58 PM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 10:04 PM   #98
Tom
Lifer
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ohioan living in Tennessee
Posts: 13,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1970 View Post
Because clearly registering firearms will stop the senseless mass shootings. It worked rather well from keeping Jiverly Antares Wong from taking his 2 leaglly registered in New York pistols and killing 13 people in Binghamton NY.
no one thinks it will stop all senseless shootings.

but it might stop one.
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:00 PM   #99
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
no one thinks it will stop all senseless shootings.

but it might stop one.
So the responsible citizen pays the price for those individuals who are bat shit crazy? Nope....
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:10 PM   #100
Tom
Lifer
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ohioan living in Tennessee
Posts: 13,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
So the responsible citizen pays the price for those individuals who are bat shit crazy? Nope....
pay what price ? what will be missing ? this doesn't ban firearms.

what if it saves a child's life ?

I can agree that dealing with mental health issues is probably even more important, but is also a very difficult problem because of the social stigma and the financial cost.

Many of the same people who don't want the AWB are the same people who don't want to give food to hungry people. We're supposed to believe they want to address mental health ?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.