danielsangeo

Sure, Infringement: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. Also defined as: a breach or infraction, as of a law, right, or obligation; violation; transgression. Like it or not, forcing people to register their guns or lose their right to own them is infringement. Forcing people to attend training courses that they will be paying for out of pocket just to obtain permission to purchase / own a gun is Infringement. While I said that I agree with training let me tell you what I had to go through just to get my class A license. First I had to fill out the application form my local police station, then I had to pay to attend a one day training course ($100). After that I had to present my certificate as well as a $100 check to the town in ordered to start the process. I was interviewed by a detective, fingerprinted, photographed and had to be added to the FBI's database. after which I was given the license on the spot and sent on my way. Now let me tell you what buying a gun is like. Drive to the store, the guys where I shop are very friendly and polite. browse a bit and make your choice. then you have to fill out an request for purchase form (Can't remember what it's called) on it you go through a barrage of questions and after that has been filled out the store clerk fills out his own section on the form and then you have to place your finger on the electronic scanner, your print is instantly sent to the FBI's national criminal database and a thorough background check is run. If you have a single arrest or any criminal history for that matter, you have to wait five days or more to collect you firearm while they run a more extensive background check. If no criminal record is present then you can leave with your purchased weapon. Considering all that one must go through to acquire a gun I don't believe that more laws and restrictions would have any real effect on crime. If you feel otherwise ask yourself this: Is punishing the majority for the crimes committed by a few the correct way to deal with crime? I'm still failing to see how a licensing and training program is infringement since no one is telling you that you can't buy one. I bring out cars because they have a licensing and training program and it's not even for a weapon. And there are over a billion vehicles worldwide and over 200 million in the United States alone. So, licensing and training programs for cars have not infringed on anyone's right to drive. I don't see how a licensing/training program encroaches on anyone's right to own a gun. Yes, you have to go through a lot to get a gun, but you have to go through a lot to do things in this country. I went to get an apartment. I was in the rental office for three hours filling out paperwork. Getting a license to drive takes forever and a day. And these are completely harmless things. This isn't "punishment", it's just the way things are and it protects everyone involved. A loan from a bank takes five days or more, sometimes, to get. How about buying a house? None of these extraordinarily long and drawn out processes are "punishment". Complaining about the necessary things that you have to pay out of pocket to do something where you're buying something seems, to me....I dunno..petty?

The sun will only be a viable option for another few billion years, so technically it can run out Hehehe...The human race would've far evolved beyond the point of Homo sapiens by that point.

I'll thank you for not insulting me in the future. Also, do you have any evidence of anything you just claimed?

I personally believe that we should be going whole hog into renewable energy sources. If you can "run out" of something, then that's not a viable energy source in my opinion.

False analogy? There are 130 million automobiles in the United States weighing about a ton each and confiscation would be impossible. Size of such is irrelevant. Usage is irrelevant. In the United States, government confiscation is very hard to do, constitutionally. False? It's harder to find examples where registration did NOT eventually lead to confiscation. Again these countries you listed did not have our Constitution. However, Switzerland. Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. If you want to go after confiscation, then go after confiscatory practices. Registration/training requirements =/= confiscatory practices.

Like cars, right? (Especially hilarious as I was stuck in rush hour traffic for over an hour and just got home.)

Please elaborate on how a registration/training requirement would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Wait, what? "Lobbying under the table"? You mean, individual campaign contributions by private people who happen to be members of a specific union? Unreal. Are you also going to count the individual campaign contributions by private people who happen to be employees of a specific company into your figures? By the way, your list is a bit fatuous. There are far more companies than unions. And unions represent the people. Companies represent themselves.

The way I see it, in order to operate a car on any public road in the United States, you need to be able to show that you can operate the car and that you need to be licensed to do so. Are there people out there operating cars on public roads without a license? Yes. Does that mean that we shouldn't have laws for it? NO. Criminals will break the law (hence why they're called "criminals")...but essentially, the argument here is that, since a criminal won't follow the law anyway, why have the law? See how silly the argument is? As for a registration list being abused, that's why there are watchdogs out there....from the checks and balances system to other private groups such as the ACLU (which, by the way, protects an individual's right to own a gun) checking the government to make sure that things like this can't be abused. Also, if people feel they have a stake in the government (like they do, but too often, they shirk their responsibilities as a citizen to be a watchdog of the government, then wonder why the government turns to shit), the government is more apt to shy away from these kinds of abuses. Can you imagine millions of gun-owners going to the government and asking what is being done with the registration lists? Baby, they'll turn paper-white with fear and make sure they're not abusing the lists! And that's a good thing. People should not be afraid of government. GOVERNMENT should be afraid of US.

That wasn't what I was asking.

Goal: Uranus (Planet) From: Haidong Prefecture (Random Article) Haidong Prefecture > Qinghai > People's Republic of China > Shenzhou 5 > Human spaceflight > Spaceflight > Planets > Uranus Jumps: 7 Did I do it right?

I'm really having too much fun making these subtitles. As always, if you see an error, please let me know and I'll fix it.

Agreed. I listened to it again and, indeed, that's what he said, and that makes much more sense. THANKS!

I somehow highly doubt that someone's personal stockpile of weapons will protect someone against the federal government (Half-Life notwithstanding ). The pen, in this case, really is mightier than the sword. As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

Global warming is an okay with me. The globe is getting warming. It's those that claim that it "snows in winter, therefore, global warming isn't happening" which has caused the change to "climate change". And now these same...well, let's not be PC about this this....idiots believe that we're changing it because we don't believe that the globe is warming. Which it is. We should be entering a mini-ice age and we're not. Can you imagine what's going to happen when we come OUT of the ice age we're supposed to be entering? I like what you said about Scotland. We have a long way to go in the United States before getting to THAT point... I don't really understand the fear about advancing our technology to so-called "green technology". When cars first came out, they were inefficient and clunky and there was no infrastructure in place for them. Now, if you don't have a car, you're pretty limited on what you can do. Why not do this for the future? Naysayers complain that X technology or Y technology isn't as good as oil or coal...there's a reason for that. Oil and coal technologies have been heavily subsidized and we've been doing it a long time so we've gotten good at it. It's like VCRs first coming out being a $1,000 or more and they couldn't do much but now you can't give them away hardly! Or the fact that a digital camera's computer today is much more advanced than the computers that helped the astronauts get to the moon! "640K is enough for anyone!" Get my drift? Just because we're still at the "hard drives the size of washing machines" stage doesn't mean that it'll never work. We just need courage. Sadly, that's far too lacking.

Anger is a survival instinct, I believe. Like fear, it raises your adrenaline so that you can defend yourself and go after attackers. Depression's an offshoot of sadness and, it appears, a malfunction of some sort in the brain where the sad feeling doesn't go away. Sadness, I gather, is there to help educate about a certain situation; sadness is not a nice feeling and you don't really want to do things that make you sad so it's there as another survival instinct. There hasn't been enough research into emotions to really know for sure.

So, I've typed up the subtitles for Episode 34 but there's just one part of the episode where I couldn't understand what Freeman was 'saying'. When he's fighting the "ninjas", right before he kills the last one, he says something like: "I trace a white dwarf's orbits, you think I can't find you?" But that doesn't make too much sense to me. I'm thinking it's something scientific but, as I don't know everything about science, I'm not sure what he's saying. What's he saying there?

Let's remove corporate personhood first. Unions have very little power and we can get them next. Teamsters, I think, you would consider a large union. In 2010, the Teamsters spent $2.1 million on lobbying. FedEx, by itself, spent $25.6 million on lobbying.

"Pro-abortion"?

Doom: Please read the "is-ought problem".

You could try to learn what empathy looks like and maybe try to emulate it (even if you don't have it yourself). Empathy means for you to put yourself in their shoes; if someone was going to act to you how you're going to act to them, how would you respond?

I agree, but the real problem creationists have is common descent. But "common descent" is plainly visible in any extended family. Your grandparents have three kids. One of those kids does the horizontal tango your other parent and gives birth to you. Meanwhile, another one of those kids does the horizontal tango with someone else and gives birth to someone else. That person is your cousin. The common ancestor for you and your cousin is your grandparents. Follow the human species (Homo) and the chimpanzee species (Pan) back through ancestry and you'll eventually arrive at the common ancestor. It appears to be the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (when dealing with older creatures, they don't generally have a 'lay' name like "humans" or "chimpanzees"...when talking about creatures, it's better to use their scientific names: Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, respectively). We are still part of the same Family, though: Hominidae. That's fine. I'm not going after you. Just explaining things. I thought we were talking about what is, and should continue to be, taught in schools.

The way I see it, things like Facebook and Twitter and such are much more informal than places like web fora (for instance, you'd probably never see the word "fora" on them) so people don't see a need to compose their thoughts a bit more prior to responding. It's more a "stream of consciousness" thing than a "I'm writing a letter to you" type of thing. "I'm sorry that I could not attend the meeting; I was detained by an emergency at work." becomes 'sry dude cant go shit@wrk!!!!ugh!!!1!" They are capable of doing the former but do the latter because they feel it's more informal. However, if the informal nature of the message is not the problem, it could have to do with how you and they communicate. You are not getting your point across for whatever reason so you need to figure out how best to explain it to the person. Other times, people are just assholes.

We were talking about the theory of evolution and how it being a "theory" means that it's not a "fact". Of course, this is an error as there are theories about a whole bunch of things that no one disputes. For some reason, though, evolution stands with just a small handful of other subjects where too many people say that it's "just a theory". A theory is a set of statements to explain certain facts using testing and observation. Simply having something be "just a theory" is like saying that a hot pan cooking food is "just a theory" or that plate tectonics (shifting continental plates) causing earthquakes is "just a theory" or gravity attracting masses to other masses (a human being 'pulled' to the surface of the Earth and the Earth being 'pulled' toward the sun) is "just a theory". We are disputing the "just a theory" claim. Evolution is a fact. And a theory. Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

I literally coughed while eating something when I read this. Are you guys even reading what I'm typing? How about answering the question? EDIT: Also, what gender is Walmart? I ask because Walmart was founded in 1962 and as of 1980, if Walmart is male, then he is required, by law, to sign up for Selective Service and, if the draft is reinstated, he would have have to go fight in a war. Is Walmart right-handed or left-handed? What's his waist size? I ask because if he goes into service, he'll have to have a uniform. Did Walmart sign up for Selective Service? If not, why not?