zapatos

Yes, that would do it. Or perhaps if we have a war and guns are confiscated as part of a national emergency, and simply not returned.

I don't think there is anything that will be enough for a significant portion of the population. The reasons people don't want to give up their guns are varied: "It's my Right goddamnit!" "Don't punish me for the actions of another." "Yep, people die. Just like with cars, power generation, sunbathing, and saturated fat in food." "Hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, plinking, etc. are all fun." "If you take away my guns you put me more at risk." And of course many others. Any solution is going to be nuanced and complex, and will never be accomplished with appeals for people to do the "right thing".

Then you are inventing your own definition of the word "insane". Best we all use the definitions that are already in place so there is no confusion.

So you think that everyone who kills multiple people, say during a drug deal gone wrong or in a terrorist attack, is insane?

Can you please be specific? Who, when, how many, how much? Some examples would be great. Evidence as well.

I like cheap goods from China. Why should I subsidize 'your' manufacturing job just so you can have a better standard of living at my expense? That's just welfare for the middle class.

Agreed. But they certainly don't look realistic, which was a criteria set by Airbrush.

Well, if it's not for you then by all means let's ban it. Along with all Rocky and Star War movies, shows like The Living Dead, Opera, Dr. Seuss, Call of Duty video games, DC comic books and the resultant movies, Civil War reenactments, paint ball, and of course all works by Jackson Pollock.

I'm saying it is an example of an Obama supporter threatening to kill a Republican. The thing which Ten oz said he couldn't recall, and the statement of his that I responded to. The example was rejected because the person did not make his donation to Obama's campaign in real time as he was making the threat.

No, he didn't. He didn't request anything. Read the part I quoted. Read my response. He didn't say This is just a case of Ten oz rejecting an example which may minimize his portrayal of the gulf between the Republicans as bad guys and Democrats as good guys. My original response was simply intended to add some data missing from the conversation and Ten oz's knowledge. He turned it into another example of liberals claiming a superiority that is overblown. Bullshit. I donate to my college once a year. Does that mean I'm only a supporter while I'm writing the check? Give me a break.

Sort of? Are you further in the future than you were yesterday?

It's entertainment. Good guys vs. bad guys. Lots of action. Kind of like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. At least the acting is better than football (soccer) players acting like they were shot by a canon when someone brushes up agains their arm.

You said you didn't recall an incident. I gave you one. Simple as that. You should always concede what is obvious to all, otherwise people begin to question your motives.

Unfortunately it did happen. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/03/norman-leboon-accused-of-threating/

Well, no, not really. You may wish they satisfied the mind, but they are under no obligation to do so. Some things will probably just remain unsatisfying forever.

'Zero' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.

'Singularity' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.

You are welcome.

No, that is not correct. You should Google Dark Matter. Citation? No, that is not correct. You should Google The Big Bang.

The moderators here have shown themselves to be intelligent and experienced, as well as patient. They enforce the rules in a consistent manner and do not make rash decisions. It is not possible for them to make decisions that exactly match the decisions each of us would make as we are all somewhat different. Since it is their job to moderate and they are moderating in a way that is generally consistent with the rules and our expectations, I don't see the point in criticizing a decision they made just because in my opinion they should have steered two degrees to port instead of to starboard. In my experience I really hate having someone looking over my shoulder and trying to fine tune my actions. If I've made a big mistake then fine, but otherwise you do your job and let me do mine. I think the moderators deserve the same level of respect that we expect when doing our own jobs.

In response to your only question; it is okay to ask him if he can build a small scale demonstration.

Agreed. And in my mind would be next to impossible. Hence my argument against the proposal suggested earlier for discussion:

Bad assumption. Why should a Native American accept that American Citizen A gets compensated but not American Citizen B when they were screwed over by the same people in the same general area, but one was screwed over in 1775 and the other in 1776? It is an arbitrary line. Some Native Americans who lost land will be compensated, but not others. It has to have been land taken based on a specific date, but that date will change depending on your location and whether the white people around at the time were from France or England, or if the people from England had a President or a Monarch. You'll get the land if you are a certain percentage of Native American, and you will (or will not) be able to double dip if you have Native American heritage from more than one tribe. If you are Lakota Sioux we'll have to figure out if your ancestors were part of the tribe that agreed to give up land or opposed giving up land and fought. The line we draw on who will get land will also be subject to whether or not the courts allow us to take from someone else and give it to you, which may depend on how it is used now (are we going to take away then give away downtown Phoenix?) and how you are going to use it (private vs. public use). What about the rights of Native Americans who were kicked out of Mexican territory by Americans before the Americans stole the land from Mexico? Do the Native Americans who are not American citizens get land in the United States or must the be a citizen to claim the land? Will you get the land back if it has a building on it? Does the recipient have to pay for the building or can they demand it be removed? How many thousands of lines must be drawn in the sand on how the land swap will occur? How can you claim that the answers to exactly how to implement this policy will be anything but arbitrary? I cannot imagine the shit storm that would follow a decision to claim huge amounts of privately (or publicly) help real property to be given to the ancestors of those it was taken from. The proposal is a non-starter.