User Tag List

Page 61 of 63 FirstFirst ... 1151585960616263 LastLast
Results 901 to 915 of 933

Thread: 58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

  1. #901
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    worth mentioning here that artie is from england, where you can travel the whole country in a day


    here in America, the difference between eight hours at a 55 mph speed limit and traveling at, let's say 85 is 240 miles - in other words an extra 4 hours and change on the road at the slower speed.

    New York to LA? 51 hours vs 33
    The record for the "Cannonball Run" is 26 hours and 28 minutes.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...-infiniti-q50/

  2. #902
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Thurso to Brighton? 725 miles

    at 55, 13 hours

    at 85? eight and a half hours


    so you can see why this discussion takes on a different flavor when you're discussing the tiny country of great britain and comparing it to america

    the UK is about a third the size of texas, our second largest state

    it's 1/7 the size of our largest state

    in fact, eleven of our states are each larger than the UK


    overall, the US is about 40 times the size of the UK

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  4. #903
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    The record for the "Cannonball Run" is 26 hours and 28 minutes.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...-infiniti-q50/
    with slaughtered children littering the shoulders of the roads, right?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  6. #904
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Why not 1? 1mph is probably not enough to cause physical damage to most objects, so in the interest of safety, let's just limit it to 1mph!



  7. #905
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    The difference between 20 and 30mph may not sound like very much but it's significant in terms of the damage inflicted on someone being struck by a car, especially in relation to children, not to mention the increase in reaction time which would improve the chances of people not being hit at all.
    and both reaction time and survival rates would be further enhanced by reducing the speed limit even further

    or don't you care about all those injured children?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  9. #906
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    maybe we're missing something here, JR, something cultural

    artie keeps referring to all these children who are too clueless to get out of the way of a car in the road - maybe it's a british thing

    maybe the brits don't tell their kids it's dangerous to play in the street

    maybe british kids aren't smart enough to know that an oncoming car might be dangerous

    maybe it's a defining quirk of their society, like poor dental care

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  11. #907
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I think the effort is to make every man equal in the exercise of right. So it's not a question of whose rights are paramount, but what is the nature and effect of the exercise.


    That presumes an equality of value among rights and exercise that I think is hard to argue for. Take the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has lost a great deal of the value it had in founding and a problem associated with the right at that time is exponentially worse in present circumstances.

    When the right was written into our Constitution the weapons people maintained were incapable of producing the sort of harm they are now, did not represent the threat to neighbor and peace that they do now. When the right was established people used those weapons for livelihood and self-defense, and their possession was necessary for a citizens army absent a standing one. Most of what made the right desirable is no longer true and the danger posed by those weapons, absent significant limits, is overwhelmingly greater.

    I'm not for abandoning the right because of its diminished utility and greatly advancing danger, but I think the reasonable limits on its exercise, the cost/benefit analysis that made the right meaningful to begin with has to be reexamined. And we can possess (and I've argued for) weapons that were and remain capable of providing security without providing the means for mass shootings/murders.


    You also don't need an assault rifle, a bump stock, or a magazine that holds 30 rounds.
    I think we are close to being on the same page (or at least the same chapter), but why should need come into play when talking about rights? Why should the government decide what a private citizen needs (beyond the assessment of how it necessarily will impact the guaranteed rights of other private citizens)? It may well be overkill to have an assault rifle (not knowing a whole lot about weapons details myself, I don't know what that means since in my mind all rifles are for assault of some kind) or a semi-automatic machine gun - but where it doesn't necessitate unreasonable infringement on the rights of others (the reasoning I was going at with the nukes), why should it be restricted? A nuke will certainly affect hundreds, thousands and millions of people beyond the legitimate target. And when the end is stopping a burglary or assault, that's certainly unreasonable. But if someone can properly handle an automatic weapon, then it is reasonable to assume they can use it in the right situation and limit the fallout to the immediate area. Use of it doesn't necessitate affecting innocent bystanders (like the nuke does). It may happen, but it doesn't have to. We have 30 and 40 mile an hour speed limits in residential areas for a reason - as we do (in Texas) 75-85 mph limits on certain freeways. You wouldn't go 75 in a residential area (and should be prosecuted severely if you do) but you don't put a governor on the car to keep someone from going above (for example) 55mph.

    My understanding of the way rights are to be looked at is that they are to be curbed only when it can be shown that there is no good reason not to - or the good impact significantly outweighs the bad precedent. So when the government says "We don't think you need a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself", the only justification I can see for it is overwhelming evidence that use of that weapon will almost inevitably result in notable harm to those who aren't the intended target. So a rocket launcher in an urban townhome development will almost certainly destroy surrounding homes. And since it isn't a necessary weapon, I can see limiting it to military use.

    Here's the problem, conceivable and reasonable are often at very different poles. Aliens may well exist and it is conceivable that you might meet one. But it's not reasonable to expect it and it may well be irresponsible for you to prepare a special compound for the chance of that happening.
    It may be - but unless building that compound directly infringes on the rights of others in a clear way, why should the government care?

    It is conceivable that you might lose your mind and take whatever weapons you can put your hands on to kill as many people as you can. Is it more or less likely, on average, that you will either through malice or mistake harm others with a semi-automatic than it is you will be overrun by a ranging horde of criminals? I think we both know the answer to that.
    Again, I think that's too close to legislating based on misuse rather than unacceptable fallout from reasonable use. Should the government get to decide which is more likely in that case? I'm not arguing there shouldn't be considerable training on proper use of the weapon. But saying you can't use a semi-automatic because of possible misuse lumps the criminal with the law abiding citizen. Not so if you limit access (or totally ban access) to a rocket launcher, for example. Legal use is still problematic. Beyond that, the government is painting with too broad a brush, I think.

    The weapons considered sufficient to support the right when it was written are far less lethal than the bolt, lever, and cylinder fed weapons I advocate today, though they share one thing in common beyond being able to meet the right and need, neither could be used to kill large numbers of innocent people in seconds.
    I would simply add that the government has virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. And part of the reasoning behind the right to bear arms was protection against the government. If a government is not in some way intent on infringing the rights of its citizens to enlarge its own power (which the Founders were constantly suspicious of), then it has nothing to fear from a private militia. And the main reason to restrict firearms (within reasonable limits as I have tried to describe) would be to further subjugate the citizenry. This is where the healthy respect for rule of law is the critical counterbalance to giving more liberty in the "grey areas". And if the suspicion is that the citizen doesn't have that respect, then the government will encroach. And that's one way tyranny begins. So it is that I posted earlier today on Washington and the Rule of Law. Greater liberty and this respect go hand in hand. And this nation's laws were only made for a moral people (bible-adhering, if you believe GW).

    Freedom is like a weapon. If used intelligently and with the good in mind it can be a wonderful thing. If used without regard for anyone else it becomes monstrous.
    Agreed. And the increase of legislation tends away from freedom. I have to believe that in some ways we have too many laws (and too much reliance on the law itself to protect us) and too little respect for the rule of law as originally intended.

    No one should suggest it. But you can limit access to a thing whose utility is suspect except as an instrument to do a thing no one should desire outside of a military application.


    We have to have cars at present. We may not always have to have self-driven cars, but the nature of our country, its size and the way populations break down outside of cities necessitate them.


    When a car is used to kill someone it is not being used in accord with the purpose for which it was designed.


    Enjoyed it.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (November 9th, 2018)

  13. #908
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    the second amendment wasn't written to ensure a well organized militia to defend against criminals breaking into your home

    it was written to ensure a well organized militia to resist a tyrannical state

    if that ever comes to pass, i'd prefer a howitzer over a shotgun
    And honestly...it wouldn't make much difference against the professional military the US employs. So short of disbanding the professional military all together, I can't see allowing the accrual of weapons that - even when used properly - are bound to cause significant harm to those who are not the intended target.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  14. #909
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

    Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  16. #910
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

    Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.
    Sounds like a bad law to me

  17. #911
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    And honestly...it wouldn't make much difference against the professional military the US employs.
    not the place to discuss this, but the thinking is that if a coup occurs, some portion of the military will rebel, join the state national guards and private militias and act against the illegal usurpation of the constitution

    historically speaking, it's not only likely but inevitable - there's no reason to think that our form of government is going to be eternal

    and all too easy to dismiss as the stuff of kooks and conspiracy theorists

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  19. #912
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Sounds like a bad law to me
    it plays in new york city, which is all that counts in NYS politics

    irritates the heck out of me and a lot of my fellow northern new yorkers




    Clinton County's kind of an anomaly (upper right) - not sure why - most of the population is centered around Plattsburg, which is a college town, must be heavy on libs

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018)

  21. #913
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

    Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.
    I don't argue that. The conclusion I'm advancing is that a people who are not wanting to have a healthy respect for the rule of law are going to find themselves legislated into oblivion. The natural governmental response to generalized lawlessness is more laws. This goes back much further than Obama and Bloomberg (though I wouldn't support either one of them, myself) and I think George Washington's example shows how respect for the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution (which is not an evolving document) can result in better self-government on a large scale. We don't have many people in government like that. But that, in part, is a reaction to government's increasing scope ... which in turn is a response to increased lawlessness...which is partly in response to perceived ills (some of which are legitimate, many of which I don't believe are). While I agree with easing certain gun restrictions, I also don't have any illusions that that is going to do one bit of good for our "social ills". Neither is trying to solve things with political correctness and bigger government.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018),ok doser (November 9th, 2018)

  23. #914
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    not the place to discuss this, but the thinking is that if a coup occurs, some portion of the military will rebel, join the state national guards and private militias and act against the illegal usurpation of the constitution

    historically speaking, it's not only likely but inevitable - there's no reason to think that our form of government is going to be eternal

    and all too easy to dismiss as the stuff of kooks and conspiracy theorists
    At that point, the constitution will be in shambles anyway (as if it isn't on the path already).
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  24. #915
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    At that point, the constitution will be in shambles anyway (as if it isn't on the path already).
    kinda hoping the trump SCOTUS appointees will help mend some of the damage done by the left

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us