Conch KingdomBoard

Nambarbidorpoonanded wrote:

I don't know how this wager is working, but I'm going with the 49ers. The Chiefs have been pretty inconsistent this season, and being an Eagles fan I know all too well how good Reid is when it counts.

I'm working on it right now, but the basics are that there's going to be about 4-6 categories (the winner, over/under how many total points, etc.) and each person who choose to participate gets 10 points to bet. Each person can bet however much they want for each category, winning however much they bet on what they got correct, and the person who has the most points at the end is the winner. It's still in the works though.

Hello Conch Kingdom!

This is probably old news to some of you, but the Law Enforcement and Overturn Procedure amendment was passed by a stunning margin of 29 votes to 1 vote. It has now been officially added to the Conch Creed. The amendment can be found here:

Woohoo! Bulimic empire is gone!

Huh, really says how little attention I'm paying. I didn't even realise something was at vote.

lol how does the military work?

New Jaedonstan wrote:

In regards to the poll. Yikes, well, here we go. I am a strong believer in the idea that gun registration will not end shootings or murders or anything else. They've tried that elsewhere and people just start using knives. Clearly, taking away guns or registering them is not the solution.

But registration might help at finding murderer or culprit.

Nyeznakomka wrote:

If weapon is stolen the report might alarm the police in the said area or province. If the weapon is stolen from the registered ammo store the police if serious enough should organize the purge against those dummies and hunt them down, the other thing to prevent all of this is why not embed the micro sized chip into steel of weapon so if it is taken off of it, it will rise alarm at the monitoring centre and show its location when and where it went off. If all of these dont work simply ban private weapons ownership because peasants will never get enough of freedom they already got and so on they need to be punished.

Right.

New Jaedonstan wrote:

While much of what you said is worth arguing and rebutting, I have neither the time nor the mental capacity at the moment to even bother. I hadn't wanted to get into an argument about this. I will reply to a single and crucial point of yours that many people use. The original text of the Second Amendment no longer reads anywhere near the enforced law. To read the text of that amendment and say that is the basis for gun regulation and the government taking away guns ignores 250 years of policy and judicial rulings. Basically, it boils down to the case D.C. vs. Heller, which fundamentally changed the Second Amendment to functionally read "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I think that is something people often overlook in their defense and attack upon our right to bear arms.

Everything else you have? Yeah, you clearly have more time to for this than I do. Maybe some weekend I'll come back and reply to this.

I will have to disagree that DC v. Heller was a "fundamental change" from the get-go; all it practically addressed was a local enforcement of a tiny piece of a federal law that was nearly 40 years old by the time of Heller that mandated disassembling and trigger locks in home storage, which the case's background argued was counterproductive to home defence. What it does not talk about is what I said in the first point: use of gun safes (or areas otherwise inaccessible for the wrong people to get their hands on it, criminals included, but readily accessible for the right people). Disassembling a weapon, as the case was fighting against mandating, makes it difficult for home defense, and in my humble opinion, disregards the technical skill of even the wrong people to assemble that gun and just use it anyway. However, the mention of Heller really was not at all relevant to what I said before, as I didn't advocate to take guns away to begin with. All I said broke down to 4 things:

1. Put your guns somewhere safe, and only where you as a gun owner could have access to. Gun owners should be held culpable for what their guns are used for, just like anything in their possession.
2. Mandate training programmes that are no-nonsense. Accidental deaths will be greatly alleviated, and there is a lot of merit in being able to see how people act under pressure when you send them off into the world with a tool designed to kill people.
3. Knives are not equatable to guns when it comes to weaponry. There's a reason that "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" is a term that exists.
4. The issue with guns is not a problem with guns as objects, but a cultural and political problem with the US itself.

I probably should have emphasized this point more, and the reason I bothered to respond now is to clear this point up: I am not against the right of (the vast majority of) people to bear arms, and I own guns myself, but what I am against is the extremism in mainstream American politics around this topic, like many others. It's tiring to hear these false dichotomies of "taking all my guns away" and "think of the children", and it is indeed possible to choose both the lives of ordinary people and the property rights of gun owners if people can simply learn to compromise meaningfully.

We can end this conversation here, if you would like, but I just thought it worth mentioning that I am not the typical "one of them". As I said before, there are a lot of regulations on both state and federal levels, such as magazine limits or waiting periods, that do not make sense or solve anything to the root problem of why there is all this gun violence. Once the politicians in the States quit with attempting to get brownie points to advance their own careers, maybe something meaningful could be done, hm?

Ruotsaland wrote:

You'll have to be more specific. If we're talking about countries, many of them have long histories of corruption that encourage under-the-table proliferation of weaponry, such as Mexico, who gets the vast majority of their weaponry from the US. That is just consequential to corruption in general, as I would sincerely doubt the cartels would have much issue with steamrolling locals that don't do as they say. Same in Africa and the Middle East.

Once more, it's largely an issue that you have governments that are corrupt or entirely unstable to begin with, and the fact they happen to have laws that technically ban guns means little when they are never enforced.

Ruotsaland wrote:

Lol, I could write a book on how completely nonsensical the US itself has been for decades, if not for its entire history, in how the government does not do anything substantial that is also long-lasting. People already have though, so I would not care to bother for that. :P

I don't give up that issues can never be fixed, but when you have only two relevant opinions in government, well you got nothing to stand on for meaningful change for too long. *shrug*

Try not to double post. I've saved your quotes here for good measure.