Lord Ratner

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Do you defend the Constitution or not?

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Jesus do you not see how f&*king ironic your post is. You equate my position to a partial endorsement of slavery, by waiving around a document that originally endorsed slavery! The second amendment is proof that the Constitution was not perfect. The other 26 amendments are additional proof. I'm honestly baffled that you could think that way. It makes me think our gun rights are in bigger peril than I suggested. If the "pro-gun" folks think and debate the issue as you just did, we have no hope of winning this battle after the next few mass murders tilt the balance of public opinion.

Agreed. But they don't have to. No one is going to outlaw semi-trucks or pressure cookers. This isn't about "how do we stop murder," it's about "how do we keep our gun rights in a changing world." Guess what, pressure cookers and semi-trucks weren't specifically designed to end human life. And unlike semi-trucks, we don't need access to high-powered, high-capacity firearms to keep the economy running. The opposition will waltz right past your argument and say "well we can still save 59 of those lives." Your argument boils down to "if you can't fix everything, fix nothing," and it's a ridiculous argument coming from either side.

You're talking theory. We agree on the theory. I'm talking reality. And the reality is that gun owners, including the people in this thread, do a shitty job of persuading people of these theories. If enough people disagree with you, you lose your guns. That's it. Sure, a bunch of us will puff up and say something silly like "pry them from my cold dead hands." But most of us will hand them over when forced to choose between being a martyr and one day walking your daughter down the isle. We have three options. 1) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes, guns are confiscated. Freedom suffers. 2) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes. 2a) Some gun owners refuse and are killed/imprisoned in their righteous stand 2b) Most gun owners refuse and we get a catalyst to a civil war. 3) Gun owners accept that the 2nd amendment never envisioned what is possible with firearms today. They further accept that even if the framers would have loved machine guns, amendments can be amended. They start working to put a real argument together as to why 59 people should be executed at a concert so they can have removable magazines, silencers, hollow points, etc. This is not an impossible task, but it will take more than "freedom isn't free" or "Do you support the Constitution or not." You know what's great about a civil war? All the early adopters die. I'd rather avoid that. I think republicans/conservatives need to unilaterally pass legislation (important to not include any anti-gun people, to avoid legislative creep) that makes it harder for someone to go crazy and kill people. Lots of fucking people. I think limitations on how quickly one can obtain weapons is a fair trade. Cooling off periods, limitations to how many guns you can buy at once. Expanded background checks. I don't know if those are the right answers, but I know "do nothing" isn't. You can disagree, and I'm sure many do, but I know I wouldn't be able to look a widow, or daughter, or father in the eye and say "sucks dude, but this is the cost of freedom." This wasn't a battle. No one took a stand, no one made a choice. There will be no justice; the killer is already gone, just how he wanted it. I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm really not. I'm still trying to internalize this disaster and work my way through what I believe it means for the future of gun rights. What I want is for you to think about where your head would be if your wife just had her head canoed while enjoying some music. If we don't argue it from that position, we lose. https://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/03/country_musician_changes_mind_on_gun_control_after_las_vegas_shooting.html That's the only chance we have at keeping our guns. /Devil'sAdvocate

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s. If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect. I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill. You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already. I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom." Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Did his incredibly weak command of the English language prevent you from getting the point?

"In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer. Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population." https://www.city-journal.org/html/hard-data-hollow-protests-15458.html I promise you, if the left keeps up these straw man protests, The Donald gets 8 years. And what comes after him is going to make liberals dream of the days when Ted Cruz was their biggest fear. On the plus side, NFL started are about the worst possible role models for American youth, so I hope they keep it up long enough to really sink the NFL for good. They won't, of course. Kaepernick got very quiet as soon as his career seemed imperiled, the others will declare "mission accomplished" and stand when they see their sponsorship deals dry up.

The AF says promote everyone. He'll have a hard time justifying a DNP without a reason you shouldn't be. Your best bet is still a letter to the board, since your reason is based on personal want, and not Air Force performance.

Yup. Let's take a stand against our nation's highest symbol in support of the statistically disproven claim that cops are disproportionately killing black people that started when a criminal tried to kill a police officer and got shot doing it.

Can't find it. What did they say?

If we can't find enough good leaders to run the wings and squadrons, how exactly will we find IGs who can recognize bad leadership and generals who will stop it?

I don't think that many write letters. That said, I'm guessing after offering blanket continuation to the critical AFSCs, they saw how many people are refusing continuation and realized there was a leak they could plug.

"It" was awesome. Very true to the spirit of the book (and most of the plot), and they finally made the clown as scary as the book portrays. Great movie on its own, but probably in the running for the best horror movie ever made.

How hard are you working?

Hasn't stopped him from trying...

Too bad that's about one year after most guys are eligible to separate. $50 probably isn't changing many minds

Jesus H Christ, yes! They should be fired. But life isn't fair, and when you choose to make yourself the icon of a crusade, sometimes you get to die for the cause, while your foot soldiers fade back into the fold. CK very publicly stated that his cause was more important than his career. Lucky him, he gets to put this money where his mouth is. The fact he stopped taking a knee when it became clear he might actually lose his job shows just how dedicated to the cause he really was.

I've only talked to a couple people who knew him, but it seems like everyone who was there gets real stiff when his name is brought up.

Once again, why are people upset over the use of this word?

Why do people get in a tizzy when someone says pu$sy? (Not saying you specifically were offended)

Don't worry, the opportunity for these types of qualifications will increase greatly as the applicant pool shrinks

The FEB recommended all three crew members keep their wings. The wg/cc agreed for the copilot and boom, but not the AC. Regardless of where you stand on this particular mishap, I have a pretty big issue with having a board, but disregarding the results, especially when the board sides with the defendant. Have the board, or don't.

Thanks, that's what I was wondering. Then it all adds up. They should be giving you bonuses, so of course they aren't.