Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (4): ablueguy, economicfreedom, lulzfornigeriagirl, turtletroll, anonymous(9).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #15298 - gravediggernalk (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm not quite sure that my question is completely political, but here I go:

When someone from Country-A travels to Country-B, and has their Country-A money exchanged for the currency of Country-B, what is done with the money from Country-A?
User avatar #15322 to #15298 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
User avatar #15289 - avoideduniform (12/04/2012) [-]
**avoideduniform rolled a random comment #2158911 posted by mamalunarwolf at MLP Friendly Board ** :
Don't be upset
It's not that great of a DLC
#15268 - zaw (12/04/2012) [-]
**zaw rolled user brayburn ** <-- I declare you president of the dolphins.
#15269 to #15268 - zaw (12/04/2012) [-]
**zaw rolled user loyal ** And you're vice president.
User avatar #15262 - robopuppy (12/04/2012) [-]
Is it just me or is it kind of pathetic that not a single bill regarding same sex marriage was even introduced by the latest congress?
User avatar #15310 to #15262 - KiraLives (12/05/2012) [-]
Not everything should be handled by the federal government.
Actually, not much should be handled by the federal government.
Congress already dictates to us far too often. Allow the states to handle it, and they already are, steadily.
User avatar #15311 to #15310 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
But not even one was even introduced. It doesn't matter if the Federal government handles it or not, not a single person even brought it up.
User avatar #15313 to #15311 - KiraLives (12/05/2012) [-]
It's not high on the agenda for anyone right now. The election is over so the Dems don't have to pander to their base anymore. I'm not offended by it, I wish they'd take the federalist approach more often. Personally, I don't think marriage should be defined by the government at all.
User avatar #15302 to #15262 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im more upset about the fact that Marijuana (or just drugs in general) are illegal. gay marriage seems almost like a trifling issue in the scope of the problems we face today.
User avatar #15304 to #15302 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
I don't mean to be rude but how is making some people second class citizens less important than weed? Don't get me wrong, I love weed. But if I were to choose between losing weed or being less than everyone else I would lose weed.
User avatar #15305 to #15304 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Its a matter of priorities. If I were mayor of some town and I found there were landmines around that killed people, imprisoned people, and made them needlessly unemployable, I would hesitate to then deal with the fact that the local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first.

That is a very shitty but accurate analogy of these two issues in context. I am a full blown egalitarian but I think it is wrong to place this issue so high on the to-do list.
User avatar #15405 to #15305 - robopuppy (12/07/2012) [-]
I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.
#15432 to #15405 - mexicoman (12/07/2012) [-]
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.    
GIF very loosely related.
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.
User avatar #15327 to #15305 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?
User avatar #15331 to #15327 - Ruspanic (12/05/2012) [-]
The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.
User avatar #15301 to #15262 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Instead of focusing on gay marriage why don't we focus on separation of Church and Sate?

Marriage is a religious affair. If you want a union that's fine, but marriage is meant to be biblical.
#15307 to #15301 - apatheticdemon **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15308 to #15307 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Marriage is defined as matrimony between a man and a woman. The definition has been shat on, yes, but I feel that if there were an actual separation of church and state, defining a legal unionship as a separate affair from marriage, it would be a lot more sacred. You're talking about a unionship, I'm talking about a priest declaring two people husband and wife.

Marriage is a religious term that has been used politically.
User avatar #15328 to #15308 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
Ancient Sumerians didn't condemn gay marriage, and actually supported homosexual acts if someone so chose to join in them. Since Sumerians came well before christians and they had marriage in their communities with their religion, then they must own marriage right? Thus we must follow their restrictions.

Marriage is a simple word used to define a partnership, nowhere besides the abrahamic religions in modern day society does it say marriage is defined as "between a male and woman" and anyone saying so is ignorant of the beliefs that came well before theirs and the evolving beliefs of today's current populace.

If you are talking about a priest declaring two people husband and wife, then you are talking about marriage where a priest declaring two people husband and wife. Just like it's "marriage" if a priest who does support gay marriage declares two people husband and husband/wife and wife. It doesn't even need to be a priest doing it.

The fact is you can have 3 reasons to be against gay marriage:

>You don't like it. To bad this gives no basis on telling someone else they can't do something.

>You don't like it and you don't want priests forced to marry gay couples. GOOD NEWS~! They don't have to, even today a church can turn away someone if they don't want them going through a marriage ceremony, so even if gay marriage was legalized, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

>It's against your religion. Too bad.

User avatar #15342 to #15328 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Ancient Sumerians didn't practice Christianity. It's a different religion. And if there were practitioners of their form of marriage, they shouldn't get benefits from the government, and neither should Christian marriages.

I'm talking about biblical marriage. It's why Christians are so butthurt over gay marriage. If we took marriage out of the government there would be no butthurt. How hard is that to understand?

I have no reasons to be against gay partnerships, because I am all for it. But Christians are butthurt because marriage has become a legal thing. It shouldn't be. Marriage should be a PRIVATE MATTER.

If marriage were private, religious people would have no way to illegalize gay marriage. It's simple.

I never said gays can't get married. I simply said they shouldn't get married in the traditional Christian way because it goes against Christian beliefs.

What if your religion required no marriage? Then too bad, you can't receive legal benefits? That's retarded. There's a reason there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State.

You can get as butthurt as you want about religion, but that doesn't make you any more better or virtuous than butthurt Christians.

If gay people actually wanted rights to marriage, they would push for a separation of Church and State. What it seems to me is that they simply want to piss Christians off in the process. How is that progressive or tolerant at all?
User avatar #15373 to #15342 - noblexfenrir (12/06/2012) [-]
1.) Wow you really missed the point I was trying to make. Marriage extends farther back than christianity, so unless they plan on following sumerian marriage conditions, then they can't claim anyone has immediate control over the word "marriage".

2.) Again, they don't own the word marriage, making the reason they are butthurt misplaced.

3.) There is absolutely nothing saying marriage should be a private matter. Again, They do not own marriage.

4.) They have no reason to now, it's something they do not own and they are telling another group of people they cannot do something because they feel entitled to have it purely for themselves.

5.) What if they are christian and a pastor/church has accepted gay marriage and wants to give them the ceremony?

6.) Then we do have legal unions, I'm not saying these are bad, just that christians down have specific rights to marriage.

7.) "Butthurt over religion" yes because disagreeing with a group because what they are doing is wrong is totally being butthurt. I never said it made me better but it sure as hell does make me right when their only standing is their "religion says so" and mine is "That doesn't matter."

8.) Progressive and tolerant? You mean like telling telling another group they cannot get married because "we own marriage and it says in our religion being gay is a sin so nope we don't want it". Don't be ridiculous, there are christian gay couples and even if they aren't someone should not be forced to go another route because a group doesn't like them.

Your outlook seems to be to just give them what they want and not piss off the church, which is laughably ignorant and beyond idiotic.
User avatar #15410 to #15373 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
No my argument is to give no marital benefits at all. I'll set aside most of those points because I find them irrelevant, but my whole argument is that in order to have true equality, the government needs to get the fuck out of marriage. That way you can do whatever you want, and nobody gets legally discriminated against, and there's a lot less hate.

I feel like most of my argument got straw-manned.

And I never said Christians are tolerant or progressive. I said that the gay rights movement claims to be tolerant and progressive when it doesn't take into consideration another group's feelings on it (even if it is opposing), which is the opposite of tolerant.

If the government got rid of all marriage laws, we'd be a lot better off. Why does marriage even have to be legally recognized? It doesn't do anything but add a shitload of legal fees to relationships. I think the only reason it was made a legal thing in the first place was because Christians wanted marriage to be a permanent thing, and wanted benefits from it to try and keep it that way, and also deter divorce through legal fees, and since we are mostly a Christian nation, it was made so.

And let me point something out to you. There's different ways to morally view things. "disagreeing with a group because what they are doing is wrong" is being butthurt. What they are doing isn't wrong in their eyes, while what gays are doing is wrong in their eyes. You can't say somebody is "wrong" about that opinion. You have no facts to back that statement up. Saying that they are "wrong" about something that they believe in is being just as intolerant. It's just the same as saying "gays are wrong about their opinions because the bible says so."

Now if you want to say they're being intolerant, that they are over reacting, and being plain retarded, that is your opinion, and I can agree with that mostly.
User avatar #15363 to #15342 - Ruspanic (12/06/2012) [-]
Marriage has been a legal thing since the early 20th century, when the government began issuing marriage licenses. I have never seen any modern Christian conservative object to these- the only people who seem to oppose them are Libertarians, who do not do so on religious grounds.

Religious marriage really isn't that entangled with legal civil marriage. Two atheists can get married in a court and sign a contract, and their marriage is recognized by law. Conversely, two Christians can get married by a priest, in a church and with a formal religious ceremony, but if they don't sign the marriage contract they receive no legal benefits.
Otherwise put, the law doesn't recognize marriages under God, and God (or the church) doesn't recognize marriages under the law.

The only apparent "entanglement" is the word "marriage", which some social conservatives claim is a purely religious term. If that was ever the case, it no longer is.

As for the issue of "legal benefits" - the best, and perhaps only appealing argument against same-sex marriage I've heard is that the legal institution of marriage is a matter of public policy: that is, marriage has special legal status because the government wants to encourage reproduction and ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce, their unions serve no public benefit and therefore deserve no special legal status.

Not an entirely convincing argument, but it illustrates that people aren't entitled to the legal benefits associated with marriage. gay people, or anyone else can already "marry" privately - according to terms set by a church or by themselves. The "gay agenda" is pushing for legal recognition of same-sex unions.

User avatar #15411 to #15363 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
The government wants to ensure that children are raised in a stable environment? How the hell do marriage laws help that? If anything it causes more fighting between parents because of all the legal issues before they can actually get divorced.

But that's beside the point. There's lots of other legal benefits to marriage rather than just "being recognized as married." You get tax breaks, shared income, all sorts of little things that help in small ways, there's a lot to marriage. That is the main argument for the "gay agenda." And I think it's silly, because they think they are asking for marriage equality when instead they are asking for legal benefits that in my opinion shouldn't be there in the first place.
User avatar #15414 to #15411 - Ruspanic (12/07/2012) [-]
Marriage by law binds the parents in a legal union, a contract, that helps ensure they stay together for the sake of their children. Unfortunately, the normalization of divorce has somewhat undermined this goal. Social taboos were a greater obstacle to divorce than money and paperwork.

I'm aware of the tax benefits and such related to marriage. Those all come with legal recognition of marriage - i.e. they are not granted to people who only have church marriages. Regardless of whether you agree with the benefits accorded to married couples, right now most states give these benefits only to straight couples. So it is in that sense a matter of equality - if straight married couples get legal recognition and tax benefits and so on, so should gay married couples.

Also "marriage" in modern times has come to mean legal marriage. Most people will not consider you "truly" married unless you have a marriage license and have signed a marriage contract with your spouse. Otherwise, you are seen either as a religious fundamentalist or merely a pretender, and any children you might have may be considered to have been born out of wedlock. Such social perceptions are very hard to change intentionally. Marriage laws serve to establish marriage as a secular institution that nevertheless has a concrete definition. Without a legal institution of marriage, the definition would either be purely religious - in which case it wouldn't be open to non-religious people - or it would be whatever any individual couple says it is, in which case the concept would simply lose meaning. This could create problems with how married couples are treated in society.

I believe that although marriage is a private matter, the legal institution of marriage is necessary for pragmatic reasons to help resolve matters of inheritence, parental custody, hospital visitation rights, and so on.
User avatar #15428 to #15414 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
I'm saying they don't need those benefits. It's not a duty of the taxpayer to give married straight people benefits. It's not the duty of the taxpayer to give married gay people benefits. Without a legal institution of marriage, there would be a lot less confusion. The definition would end up being whatever any individual couple says it is, in which the concept would retain the religious meaning to the work while weeding out the useless definitions of people who just want to have a long term partner. How would this create any problems? It becomes a private matter where nobody cares unless they are religious, and in that case who cares? They can't legally discriminate against you at that point.

Inheritance is easy through a will, something like that should be set up in a contract at time of marriage. A spouse shouldn't have legal obligation to their partner's stuff. Parental custody would be better handled without the institution of marriage. You don't need legal marriage for custody battles, or visitation rights for that matter.

It's not necessary. Does it help? Maybe, I can't disprove that. I don't think it does, but even so is it actually worth the legal fees and cost of legislation as well as the moral hazards created by legal marriage?
User avatar #15295 to #15262 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
because the majority of americans don't want it.
it's failed in california multiple times.
User avatar #15299 to #15295 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
The majority of Americans actually do and we all know why prop 8 passed. The Mormon Church funded a huge multimillion dollar campaign against it.
#15278 to #15262 - tweetyftw **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#15260 - DiAnonLord (12/04/2012) [-]
anyone who knows of argentinian politics

would greatly appreciate an explanation of what's going on
User avatar #15247 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
Anyone want to place bets that the attempt to change the rules on filibusters is going to be filibustered?
#15286 to #15247 - anonymous (12/04/2012) [-]
#15212 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
ITT: Gun control
Needed or not? And if needed, to what degree?
#15300 to #15212 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Of course you need gun control. Keeping lists, waiting periods, and permits are all necessary to mitigate the damage caused by that freedom. Otherwise you would just have a bunch of faggoty 'liberals' move to ban them all. But I remain against talking about it on a national scale because I just don't trust these 'liberals'. They don't want gun control, they want gun bans, they want to ban the ones that are especially effective and that just turns into a slippery slope so it is better not to talk about it so we can keep the freedom while we can.    
Gif Related
Of course you need gun control. Keeping lists, waiting periods, and permits are all necessary to mitigate the damage caused by that freedom. Otherwise you would just have a bunch of faggoty 'liberals' move to ban them all. But I remain against talking about it on a national scale because I just don't trust these 'liberals'. They don't want gun control, they want gun bans, they want to ban the ones that are especially effective and that just turns into a slippery slope so it is better not to talk about it so we can keep the freedom while we can.

Gif Related
#15303 to #15300 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
Don't attach a position to an entire group of people, call them faggots, and then just make up shit about the extent of their positions as a collective whole.
User avatar #15306 to #15303 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
No, no, no. I was just calling some 'liberals' (Air quotes indicating that I do not believe true liberals actually hold this position) faggoty (different from full blown faggot). And I do not consider the obvious truth as 'making shit up'. This subsection of pussy-bitch authoritarians who want to control guns the most also want to ban assault weapons, and very logically can be inferred to having a 'ban all guns' mentality.
User avatar #15312 to #15306 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.
User avatar #15314 to #15312 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.
User avatar #15315 to #15314 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.
User avatar #15316 to #15315 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.
User avatar #15317 to #15316 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 to #15317 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#15279 to #15212 - tweetyftw **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15231 to #15212 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
guns are illegal in mexico.
that's working out great for them isn't it?
User avatar #15284 to #15231 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
Though I agree with your stance in general, Mexico is a rather poor example because its government is not very capable of enforcing its laws, due to the immense power of the drug cartels. I could point to the UK as an example of a place where gun control is extremely strict and gun violence is much less common than in the US.

Each country has its own specific set of circumstances that will impact the effectiveness of gun control laws.
User avatar #15292 to #15284 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
you should realize the differences between the us and the uk.
the UK has NEVER had a bad gun violence problem, and gun violence has actually doubled since the ban were put in place.
since gun violence wasn't bad anyway, the fact that it has doubled isn't as noticeable, only giving the illusion the bans are doing anything.

also, the UK is fucking island half the size of texas.
to make a comparison is asinine.
User avatar #15293 to #15292 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
That's exactly what I said.
User avatar #15294 to #15293 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
well i could point to cities like DC, where gun bans are having absolutely no effect.
User avatar #15296 to #15294 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
You're not arguing against me. Read my original comment again.
I brought up the UK simply as a counterexample to your Mexico. My point is that every country is different and to base your arguments on how gun laws have or haven't worked in another country is largely misleading. The US is not Mexico or the UK or Switzerland or Colombia or whatever other example you'd care to bring up.
User avatar #15224 to #15212 - rageisfunny (12/03/2012) [-]
Not needed.
User avatar #15219 to #15212 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
Gun ownership, regardless of government regulation, will still happen.

The difference is that with gun regulations, only the honest, law abiding citizens will give up their guns or avoid purchasing guns, while criminals, since they are already breaking the law, will be the ones buying guns on the black marker or simply making the guns themselves (which can also be quite dangerous). We find that in places such as Chicago, where gun regulations have been in place for a long period of time, violent crimes involving firearms are very common.

In the case of Europe, where gun laws have, for the most part, always existed, violent crimes are still more rampant. You are more likely to actually be wounded by a knife in Europe than you are to be even held up at gunpoint in the USA, let alone get shot.

And in places with few gun control laws, such as Texas, violent crime rates are relatively much lower, all around, not just with firearms.

So just by looking at the statistics, we can easily find that gun control doesn't work. All gun control laws do is make it easier for the government to oppress people (not talking about just the US or Europe here) because revolution becomes much less likely.
User avatar #15220 to #15219 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
do you think we should at least require a safety training course before you purchase a gun?
User avatar #15227 to #15220 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, because then the government could decide the requirements for gun ownership, essentially indirectly banning them for most people.

VERY few accidental deaths are caused by firearms.
slipping in a bathroom is more common.
User avatar #15228 to #15227 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
requiring a safety course is nowhere near banning them from most people. You have to take a safety course to get a drivers license, this is a similar thing. You would just have to learn a bit about using a gun safely and some psychology of using guns. I don't want complete idiots on the road, and I don't want complete idiots to have a gun.
User avatar #15230 to #15228 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
but it isn't needed.
people don't just go and buy guns out of impulse, with no prior experience.
most, if not all, new time gun owners have shot guns with friends, parents, etc before.
User avatar #15233 to #15230 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I think it would reduce violent crimes at least by a little bit. It wouldn't do anything but good, the only cost would be maybe an hour of your time. Just the same as drivers license are needed, people aren't brand new to driving before they buy a car either, the point is to make them learn.
User avatar #15235 to #15233 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, it wouldn't do shit.
how the fuck would it reduce violent crime?
criminals don't buy guns legally.

also gun ownership is a constitutional right.
driving is not.

just so you know,
classes are required for a concealed carry weapon license.
User avatar #15238 to #15235 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
Knowledge of psychological factors that lead to violence reduces the likelihood of violence.
Criminals would more likely to buy guns legally if it was easier to do.
Gun ownership was a constitutional right because we did not have a standing army, so they could defend their country if needed.
I think we need similar classes if we're going to have open carry laws
User avatar #15240 to #15238 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
if a criminal won't buy a gun legally now, he sure as fuck won't take a class to buy one.
i don't understand your logic.

obviously we need better education, but that's a different issue, unless you want to teach proper safety with a firearm in public school, which i wouldn't be against.
ofc that would never happen.
i just don't want a mandatory class for firearm ownership.
that serves no purpose but to make it harder to buy a gun legally.
User avatar #15242 to #15240 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
a class to teach proper safety would be okay in school, but not to buy a firearm?

and maybe it wouldn't reduce gang violence, but it might reduce domestic violence. I honestly don't see what the big deal is here, making it like .5% more difficult to purchase a gun seems worth at least trying to reduce it through education. I don't mean like night school, I mean something like the DMV has, you just take a quiz on safety and maybe have a firing range out back where you demonstrate shooting a pistol. 45 minutes of your time tops. And you would learn how to actually use the gun if you did need to defend yourself.
User avatar #15244 to #15242 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
it still isn't needed
most people don't buy firearms without prior experience.
it won't help with domestic violence
if you have the capacity to shoot someone, a 45 min class wont change your mind.
User avatar #15246 to #15244 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I disagree, but I don't think we're getting anywhere.
User avatar #15353 to #15246 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
classes are meant to provide information and give experience to help prevent accidents. No amount of classes, besides maybe anger management, would help in the case of murder. Especially if this class was mandatory, making it incredibly inefficient. History tells us that "mandatory" regulations are almost never taken 100% seriously.
User avatar #15355 to #15353 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
Except things that are mandatory, like a drivers license or a fishing/hunting license. If you construct the class well, focusing on how to avoid dangerous/ temper raising situations it might be effective.
User avatar #15357 to #15355 - Yardie (12/06/2012) [-]
The class won't be constructed well if you force it. The class will either be begrudgingly taught, or there will be a state worker teaching, and we know how well our public school system, DMV, and USPS do. Its easy to say that it can work, but history tells us it doesn't.
User avatar #15360 to #15357 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
At the very least we could recommend some local gun safety courses.
User avatar #15361 to #15360 - Yardie (12/06/2012) [-]
recommending and advertising are the only things that actually do any good. And there are plenty of gun training/informative classes already. Those classes are taught well because they have people teaching them who are doing it out of free will, and the people that go to them are practically the only people who actually want the help, therefore they are the ones learning. Others would just blow through it like the DMV exams. I mean do you really remember anything that isn't common sense from the DMV courses?
User avatar #15362 to #15361 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
I remember almost all the rules, but it's something I studied for and it's also something I do everyday, so it's not really comparable.
User avatar #15250 to #15246 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
obviously not.
User avatar #15222 to #15220 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I don't think a training course would help, but it really would be worth considering. You need a licence to drive a car because traffic works in a specific way, and not obeying traffic laws can end up getting somebody killed, but accidents still happen very frequently. I don't think that requiring a licence to drive actually helps the accident and death rate of cars. Guns, I feel, are much less complicated than a vehicle, and slightly less dangerous. So I do not think that requiring a licence to buy a gun will actually help the accident rate by a number that would be worth the cost to enforce something like that.

It's a very tough subject though, and I would definitely be willing to listen to any argument for it.

I do, however, think that gun tracing through bullet markings etc. should be enforced to prevent guns being used for violent crimes.
User avatar #15229 to #15222 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
it's proven markings, (micro serial numbers, "bullet markings" whatever the fuck you mean by that, etc) don't do anything.

most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally.
User avatar #15234 to #15229 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I did a bit more research. Turns out I was wrong about bullet markings, as you don't need any regulation to use ballistic forensics. I was under the wrong impressions.

So yeah we don't even need that.

There does need to be a way to make the gun traceable to its buyer though. For example if somebody pays for the gun in cash they must sign off on it or their fingerprint must be taken or something. Otherwise it would be incredibly hard for police to do their job.
User avatar #15237 to #15234 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
handguns have to be registered.
long guns do not.
canada is scrapping their long gun registration because they found it doesn't help anything.
long guns are rarely used in crimes, and even more rarely are they acquired in a traceable manner.

even though handguns are registered, it still doesn't help BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T BUY GUNS LEGALLY.
User avatar #15241 to #15237 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
Hmm... Thinking about this more if guns were not registered, weapons would go out to criminals. If weapons went out to criminals shop owners would be held partially responsible. If they were held partially responsible, they would either be run out of business or come up with efficient ways to monitor who they give guns out to. If they come up with an efficient way to monitor who they give guns out to, everybody is better off.

The more I think about this subject the more I see.

I just have a personal bias against firearms because I've been held up and mugged multiple times.
User avatar #15243 to #15241 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
i have to go through a background check every time i buy a gun.
that's good enough.
i'll repeat once more

if you've been mugged, go through the process and get a concealed carry weapon.
it's not that hard.
User avatar #15245 to #15243 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I got held up when I was younger. I'm only 20 now, and I have to be 21 to be able to own a concealable firearm in California. I've moved out of the area I used to live in though. I used to live in Stockton, California, which is a horrible place, and there's no crime here compared to there. Don't go there. Actually don't come to California unless you're visiting.
User avatar #15249 to #15245 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, i wouldn't even visit.
but you can hardly assume the handguns you were mugged with were registered.
User avatar #15251 to #15249 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I can almost guarantee they weren't.

I'm not asking for regulation on firearms though.
User avatar #15223 to #15222 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I didn't mean a course just in using the gun, also have it be a course on when not to use it, like on how not to make rash decisions. Someone else mentioned an open carry law, and I would just like to point out that guns and other weapons are violence facilitators, their mere presence makes people behave more violently. And if two people have a gun, one is more likely to shoot the other than if just one had a gun.
User avatar #15225 to #15223 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
The statistics provide conflicting information. In places with open carry laws the crime rates tend to be significantly lower. I don't doubt the logic behind what you're saying, but I think that if two individuals know the other is carrying a weapon, or can safely assume the other is carrying a weapon, they are less likely to even start a fight in the first place. Fights that escalate into gun pulling usually would happen between gang members, which would happen regardless of any gun classes or any gun control laws.

People are going to be turds, and classes, or laws, or anything short of violent force won't stop turds from doing stupid things.
User avatar #15226 to #15225 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
while that is true, the places with open carry laws are much more rural places, less populated, less dense, and not to mention less diversified. Those factors alone significantly lower tendencies for violent crimes. I feel you wouldn't find the same results in LA or Miami (where open carry is prohibited).
User avatar #15232 to #15226 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
And again to my previous point. Those are cities that have big gang presence. They obviously do not care about the open carry prohibition. That is why the crimes still happen. If you were to have everybody able to carry a firearm, it would make people think twice before pulling a gun, especially against people who are not known gang members. Law abiding citizens not carrying guns are at a disadvantage to criminals, and can easily be pushed around. At first there may be a few deaths, but I feel most of the deaths would be against criminals who do not expect a gun to be pulled on them. Eventually it would even out and people would probably be less likely to use gun on each other out of fear of being shot themselves. Gang presence would actually probably lower significantly at this point.

Criminals do not have to fear getting shot by law abiding citizens if they can't openly hold their guns, therefore there is more incentive to perform crimes. If you add fear to the equation, crime rates would go down logically speaking.

And before you get started on the police, it is well known that the police don't do shit in crime dense areas. They don't want to die either.
User avatar #15236 to #15232 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I agree, but disagree with "people would probably be less likely to use a gun on each other out of fear of being shot themselves." That's completely wrong from a psychological standpoint. If you think someone will shoot you, your probability of shooting him and his probability of shooting you are both significantly increased. But my real point is that I still think we need licenses if we have open carry laws.
User avatar #15239 to #15236 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
What I mean is people would be less likely to resort to violent crime to settle their differences. Nobody wants to risk getting shot, and puling a firearm is what increases that risk, not the fact that they are carrying one. The reason a firearm is pulled in an argument is to assert dominance. If the playing field is even, and both parties are carrying a weapon, that factor is canceled out. Neither person will feel dominant if both have a gun, and logically neither will pull their weapon unless their life is threatened. If somebody is violent enough to pull a gun in an argument anyways, chances are that they would have a gun on them regardless of open carry policies, and even if they didn't they would resort to fists, blades, anything and everything. Evening the playing field and adding fear to the action of pulling a firearm will decrease the chances of firearms being pulled in the first place, I can guarantee you that.
User avatar #15213 to #15212 - duudegladiator (12/03/2012) [-]
Not needed. Needs to be less strict if anything, Open Carry Laws are what needs to be put into affect. (In America that is.)
#15206 - fredthemilkman has deleted their comment [-]
#15205 - AreyouSerious (12/03/2012) [-]
In all honesty, I can't understand the plan of Communism. I mean the general plan is pretty good, No one is above the other, everyone is equal socially and pitches there fair share into a collective and the group as a whole prospers. It's like you and your friends don't have enough money to buy something alone but if you pool it all together you can have it. But what Communist want is so outlandish. Basically the final stage of Communism is that there are no nations and everyone in the world lives together in a giant commune. Right off the bat, trained people who are doctors, lawyers and farmers are going to be favored more then unskilled workers. Also who's going to manage everything, the basis of a Communist system is that everyone has a say so it has to be a democracy. There has to be a chain of management from presidents, to senators to governors and they are going to be held higher then factory workers. Also when communist are actually successful and not brutally murdered, some communist say how they handled things was wrong and they're betrayers to the revolution. Finally, for a system that's about brotherhood, they bicker with each other all the time and label themselves as Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist etc. and how different processes on how they're "revolution is going to happen". I don't even know anymore. Is there something I'm not understanding?
User avatar #15265 to #15205 - threeeighteen (12/04/2012) [-]
The more people involved in a communist movement also means the more chances of that movement being corrupted, Communism seems like an easily corruptible and manipulative ideology - not that the others are much better, ideologies practically exist to benefit one group of people over another, be it race, religion or even another political ideology.
User avatar #15263 to #15205 - robopuppy (12/04/2012) [-]
Communism is a math problem. 2+2=4. Except humans are variables. You can't say that 2+X=4 with X still being a defined variable. With so many humans the outcome is never perfect.
User avatar #15210 to #15205 - airguitar (12/03/2012) [-]
The thing is, true communists believe that "human nature" is purely based off of people's surroundings. They believe that if money and greed were abolished, then everyone would act different and be able to function in this way. For me, this is the hardest area to argue with them on. They might as well be writing a fictional story, human nature is a certain way and always will be, history will tell them.

As an economics major myself, there are also COUNTLESS other problems involved related to your "managing" point. Prices are needed to allocate resources to their best uses- in a system without prices the level of efficiency would be much lower and there would in the end be more poor people since the gains of trade wouldn't be captured.
User avatar #15259 to #15210 - DiAnonLord (12/04/2012) [-]
thinking that human nature is one and only is a clear misunderstanding of how humanity works.

go back 100 years: it was agreed that anyone who wasn't male and white was inferior. now if you think that you're labelled as a racist chauvinistic bastard

200 years: slavery

etc, etc.

although therea are certain aspects to humans that are somehow natural (trust your group, reject other groups), they are molded in outsanding, spectacular and suprisingly easy ways by the society they're inserted in
User avatar #15258 to #15210 - arisaka (12/04/2012) [-]
I was the guy who told you that.
User avatar #15270 to #15258 - airguitar (12/04/2012) [-]
I had heard the argument a bunch before but never in such a thorough fashion. I still think you're insane ;P
User avatar #15221 to #15210 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
It's easy to counter that argument though. Violent crimes have always existed, even before currency or actual jobs or any of that existed.

In communism if you want to advance yourself, become better than others, you either have to get yourself into a government position, or become a criminal and steal from your neighbors. Anything else you do will not grant you a better life material-wise.
User avatar #15257 to #15221 - arisaka (12/04/2012) [-]
Those violent acts were born out of poverty. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.

Secondly, I truly hope you are not dismissing socialized behaviour. It's a really relevant and well-proven theory.
User avatar #15266 to #15257 - Yardie (12/04/2012) [-]
It's human nature to want to advance yourself. We have big brains for a reason, we're not sheep. Well some people are but humans can be self-sufficient regardless.

Violent acts don't always stem from poverty either. There's other motives for murder, rape, theft, etc.

You say "its not that hard a concept to grasp" when you don't even look past the surface value of things.

The whole notion of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" seems retarded and counter-productive to me.

Also what are you talking about? The notion of Communism implies a dismissal of socialized behavior. It implies that humans can't be social without the intervention of government. It's human nature for us to help each other. That's why we have interdependent jobs, and have had interdependent jobs since our branch of humanity has existed.
#15195 - sherlyholmes (12/02/2012) [-]
I am looking for some informations upon the subject of transport and its impact on ecology in Dominican Republic, but I cannot access the official page of aforementioned country's ministry. Is it just me, or...?
I am looking for some informations upon the subject of transport and its impact on ecology in Dominican Republic, but I cannot access the official page of aforementioned country's ministry. Is it just me, or...?
#15143 - augustusxxiv (12/01/2012) [-]
Hey there guys and gals, I'm fixing to do an opinion poll on something that is a very hot topic among the youth today; Marijuana, and....   
The legalization of it for Medicinal Purposes   
The legalization of it for both medicinal and recreational purposes   
Have you ever tried it? If so, how often and do you still?   
First state Yea or Nay, then state why. You can list moral, economic, and/or political reasons as to why you hold your opinion. Also state what you think about our governments actions towards it on both state and federal levels, and what you think SHOULD be done about Marijuana in a general, broad sense.   
Please do not utilize hate speech or belittling language towards someone who has the opposite opinion, although discussion is encouraged.     
Thank you!
Hey there guys and gals, I'm fixing to do an opinion poll on something that is a very hot topic among the youth today; Marijuana, and....

The legalization of it for Medicinal Purposes
The legalization of it for both medicinal and recreational purposes
Have you ever tried it? If so, how often and do you still?

First state Yea or Nay, then state why. You can list moral, economic, and/or political reasons as to why you hold your opinion. Also state what you think about our governments actions towards it on both state and federal levels, and what you think SHOULD be done about Marijuana in a general, broad sense.

Please do not utilize hate speech or belittling language towards someone who has the opposite opinion, although discussion is encouraged.

Thank you!
User avatar #15211 to #15143 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
Yea to all, and I occasionally partake today. Like once every other month with a friend. Not my particular cup of tea, but it's alright once in a while.
Philosophical reason it (and other drugs) should be legal is that to say one type of drug is okay (caffeine) but another is not, or is immoral, is slightly idiotic and judgmental. You're in charge of yourself, if you abuse drugs, you are the only person to blame. People don't refrain from drugs because they're illegal, they refrain because they do not wish the effects (good or bad) of said drug.
"Drugs are bad. Unless you call them medicine and make a profit off of it."
Economic reason, the war on drugs is ineffective. We're wasting money.

I hope you're not doing this for any real research though, this isn't even close to a random sample
User avatar #15253 to #15211 - augustusxxiv (12/03/2012) [-]
Oh no, not research, just curiosity and seeing people's reasons. Thanks for your input.
User avatar #15203 to #15143 - mexicoman (12/02/2012) [-]
Here is a comprehensive list of some of the main reasons I want it legalized.

>98% of people who acquire these 'medical marijuana' cards or licences are actually just stoners without any real medicinal use for the drug. Effectively what happens then is doctors become glorified drug dealers and there are reams of fraud in the medical industry.
> Most people in our prison system are in there because of drug related offenses, many of these being Marijuana. This takes away potentially years of a person's life and brands them a felon and therefore needlessly unemployable. So now the best way they can survive in this world is by going back to the black market (Potentially selling heroin, crack, or other drugs to children and shit).
> When Marijuana is legalized it will remove a large cash cow currently taken advantage of tax free by the drug cartels. Not only could the money be spent better as taxes, but it allows horrible people to now have power the same way mafia types took advantage of alcohol sales during prohibition.
> When there is not any governmental regulations around marijuana like we have in regards to selling cigarettes to minors children can turn to the unchained black market (which has a monopoly on the substance) to get the drug.
> Marijuana has killed nobody. Alcohol has killed, ripped apart families and has side effects that are not as lax as Marijuana. Marijuana almost could not be any more ideal than alcohol in these regards.
> The government does Not have the right to dictate to me or you what we can and cannot do with our bodies and minds. If we give them control over our minds it gives them the authority to turn the country into a police state. A police state can only become more and more totalitarian and tyrannical in times of the technological advancements we see today.
> Marijuana kills cancerous cells, this along with many other positives makes it an ideal drug for recreational as well as medical purposes in a society so riddled with cancer.
User avatar #15193 to #15143 - Ruspanic (12/02/2012) [-]
Legalize it.

1. The criminal justice system should serve to protect the people and their rights. It should not prosecute non-violent crimes that do not harm significantly endanger anyone (other than the drug-user). I'm aware that smoking weed impairs judgment and motor skills, but its effect is not more harmful than that of alcohol, which is legal.
2. Marijuana use, unlike the use of "hard" drugs like heroin, does not pose a significant threat to the general welfare of society.
3. The US already has the world's highest incarceration rate. Prosecuting and imprisoning this many people is extremely expensive, to say nothing of the cost to the rights and freedom of non-violent and non-malicious offenders.
4. Legalization would create a new industry (at least, new on the legal market) that would encourage entrepreneurship, and thereby both investment and consumption. This is obviously good for the economy.

And no, I have never tried marijuana. Nor do I care at all for the "stoner culture".
User avatar #15145 to #15143 - detrek (12/02/2012) [-]
Yes for medicinal and recreational, primarily so the stoner culture dissipates a little because it's annoying as fuck.

But truthfully, I don't smoke and I probably never will unless I'm 21+ and it's recreational in my state.

Tax it, regulate it, and use the profits to help reduce the deficit.
User avatar #15142 - detrek (12/01/2012) [-]
So I just received my essay topic for a scholarship contest, the prompt is as follows:

To what extent, if at all, does the Constitution allow the executive branch to use national security concerns in order to justify secrecy about its actions and/or programs and the rationale supporting them?

Thoughts? My first thought on the topic is that the President should be able to be secretive for periods of national concern or where the uncovering of the truth may put American lives at risk, but required to uncover the whole truth once the conflict has ended or when the information poses no more risk.

Honestly, if you have a different opinion, I respect it, and there will be a time for you to voice yourself over it, but I just really want to hear supporting arguments for the viewpoint presented. Any ideas?
User avatar #15138 - churrundo (12/01/2012) [-]
Enrique Peña Nieto has become elect president of Mexico. What do you think about mexican politics?
User avatar #15139 to #15138 - threeeighteen (12/01/2012) [-]
Smells nice.
User avatar #15133 - ginginhunter (12/01/2012) [-]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162704#.UOKTvYZ0O00 Thoughts?
User avatar #15136 to #15133 - duudegladiator (12/01/2012) [-]
For what is being done, 100 million is cheap as shit. They could easily spend 1 billion.
User avatar #15128 - davisdamen (12/01/2012) [-]
so my new job has kept me completely drained recently and i just realized i've probably missed out on the outcome of something i was mildly interested in

what happened with all those state secession petitions?

did the government have to do something about them? was the government "response" just a prolonged period of time to (officially) "prepare", (unofficially) make everyone forget about it? or is texas off doing its own little thing now?
User avatar #15098 - I Am Monkey (11/30/2012) [-]
These political standoffs always piss me off because it's a win-win for Democrats. They don't have to budge an inch because if nothing gets accomplished the media will blame it on Republicans. If Republicans cave it's hailed as a Democrat victory.

They should only make a deal if both sides give a little. Match the entitlement cuts with tax increases on the rich. Both sides lose, but at least something gets done about the deficit.
User avatar #15094 to #15084 - Yardie (11/30/2012) [-]
Democrats want Big Government, big spending, and big taxes.

Republicans want Big Government, big spending, and tiny taxes.

So they're basically the same.
#15115 to #15094 - duudegladiator (11/30/2012) [-]
Is that a joke?    
Republicans want smaller Government, i would agree on spending, and yes tiny taxes,    
Democrats want Total Government, Impossible Spending(What it is now) and Huge Taxes on Middle Class/Higher Class, and lesser Taxes on the Lower class.
Is that a joke?

Republicans want smaller Government, i would agree on spending, and yes tiny taxes,

Democrats want Total Government, Impossible Spending(What it is now) and Huge Taxes on Middle Class/Higher Class, and lesser Taxes on the Lower class.
User avatar #16153 to #15115 - weirdoo (12/23/2012) [-]
What's wrong with taxing the rich some more?
User avatar #15118 to #15115 - Yardie (12/01/2012) [-]
How much smaller is "small" though?

Republicans don't want to cut spending. Everything in the fiscal agenda of Republicans involves cutting taxes. Romney's plan didn't involve any serious spending cuts. Hell it hardly even lowered taxes when you factor in the loss of loopholes.

Republicans don't mind when government intervenes with things that agree with their agenda. Some things they want the government out of, some things they want the government to have full control over. The difference between the Big Government of Democrats and Big Government of Republicans is what the government is controlling. Sure Republicans are in favor of a smaller government than Democrats, but their agenda still calls for a big government.
User avatar #15081 - roliga (11/30/2012) [-]
Do you guys think the war on terror is justified? Why or why not? I'm not just making you do my law homework
#15117 to #15081 - lufieh (11/30/2012) [-]
No. Unprovoked aggression is never justified.
No. Unprovoked aggression is never justified.
#15089 to #15081 - badasscamel (11/30/2012) [-]
I think a good answer to your question would be to type something like... Americas Just Wars by Murray Rothboard. Very interesting stuff. kind of long though, but hey, i listen to stuff like this while im bord of playing video games. Its up to you. and get back to me about it if you find it interesting.
#15083 to #15081 - lecherouslad (11/30/2012) [-]
How do you declare war on a tactic? even the definition of terrorism is controversial, no one seems to agree WHAT it is, so how can anyone fight it?
User avatar #15077 - finni (11/29/2012) [-]
Why do liberlas, or leftist in general, support importing people who disagrees with their values? In America it is the Latinos. They are very Conservative and dislikes gay marriage, abortion and so on, and in Europe there are Muslims who hate gays and women's rights etc.

Of course I am not speaking for every single one of these. There might be Latinos who are very secular and support many liberal values and Muslims who are just the same, but the majority are very Conservative or Radical and goes against what Liberals think. I just wonder why Liberals would support such an import.
User avatar #15085 to #15077 - Ruspanic (11/30/2012) [-]
Well, first of all allowing immigration isn't the same as "importing" people. Liberals value (in theory) a diverse and open society containing a wide range of backgrounds, religions, and opinions. Refusing to allow immigration from certain groups based on their political views, especially if political views are inferred indirectly from race or religion, itself goes against liberal values.

Conversely, if Latinos and Muslims are so conservative, why don't conservatives support "importing" them?
User avatar #15096 to #15085 - finni (11/30/2012) [-]
Well for Latinos, they don't oppose immigration from Latinos in general, they oppose illegal immigration and that's a hole other thing. Its very interesting concerning the debate about the Latinos since their values are certainly directed more towards the Republicans, while their opinion about Immigration is directed toward the Democrats.

And for the Muslim part, nobody in Europe seriously want to have immigration from Muslim countries to get votes. The Muslims are very much for themselves and some consider it "Unislamic" to vote in elections. Their values are often so far away from the general public (when they first arrive) that the only ones gaining from the immigration, political wise, is the left parties because they want more immigration.
 Friends (0)