zapatos

I love this thread.

I don't see where the issue is. If we had bombed them with conventional weapons we would have killed just as many Japanese and no one would be talking about it. I doubt they cared if they died from incendiary bombs, conventional explosives, bullets or nukes. All result in the same death. Using a nuke then was not the same as using a nuke now. There were only two at the time, and we really didn't know a whole lot about the broader impact of their use. The entire war all sides kept increasing the effectiveness of their weapons and they used them as soon as they got them. This was just a bigger bomb.

I just heard that a review of security cameras near the site of hitchBOT's untimely demise show a video of some guy in a Philadelphia Eagles jersey kicking hitchBOT to 'death'. Maybe people should stay clear of Philadelphia football fans too!

I doubt that anyone is claiming they were. I imagine once we dropped the first bomb that not many thought it was a fluke that could not be repeated. If you are in a bar fight and someone pulls out a gun that vaporizes your left hand, do you think "ah, he'll never be able to do that again!". Perhaps the fact that we were still at war with Japan was considered a legitimate reason to continue to press the attack against them.

I'm just trying to point out that you cannot draw conclusions from one data point. If you could, then no one would want to remain in Alabama. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/meteorite-strikes-alabama-woman

Same. I edited my last post before seeing this question.

Hiroshima was a military target: http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e12.html Same for Nagasaki: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp6.shtml

I guess I missed the data that shows Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures. Would you mind restating it? Or are you suggesting hitchBOT's travails are sufficient data?

But you did draw conclusions from the available data. You concluded that "Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures".

Really? Even more so than people from Chad or Paraguay?

A friend of my son's was a Golden Girl at the University of Missouri. They are the 'dance' squad at the football games, not the cheerleaders. When selected for the squad, she was told that she had the right 'look' for a Golden Girl; someone who appealed to a 50 year old man. I guess they want to keep donations coming from the alumni.

I've actually thought about cheerleaders quite a bit. It usually starts when I see them at a college football game and wonder why in the hell they are out there. It doesn't seem as if anyone really notices them. People don't seem to cheer more because they are there. So why bother? Maybe it's just tradition. Part of the college atmosphere. Then it strikes me that this is a microcosm of life; the males engaged in bloody sport trying to impress the females with their strength and speed. The cheerleaders trying to impress males with fancy displays, showing their fitness for reproduction. And finally I get to the point where I think girls probably cheer just because they like it. Either socially, athletically, romantically, whatever. Everyone has their own reason, and just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable or important to them. So if they want to call it a sport or join a cheer squad, then more power to the them!

While I really liked your post (+1) you seem to have failed to connect your logic from the top part ('where in the body of the Constitution... hence... the government has no power to restrict them') with your answer in the second part ('To change the constitution there are three methods. First, you can get the courts to set precedent.). The reason the government can restrict guns is in part due to precedent. You don't have to look any further than District of Columbia v Heller to see that.

Very nice! I really appreciate you sharing your music with us!

I read the article. Please correct me if I am wrong but based on this article you seem to be claiming that natural rights came from God. If you can now address my second request that you did not yet address; please provide some evidence that God bestowed those rights on us. I thought that we already covered this in the posts in the 140s. Can you tell me why you don't think the 'toys' were effective in Afghanistan, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Ireland, and France?

Probably because your argument thus far has been lacking. Easy enough to rectify though. Start by telling me where you think those rights come from and offer some sort of evidence to support your assertion.

Where does the second say you don't have to take a class? The person who is on the ground being attacked from the air needs a surface to air missile to defend his rights to life, liberty, or property. I hope I'm not a hypocrite. No, I'm not for waiting periods. Sorry, I was attempting to be facetious, trying to tie waiting periods to purchase guns back to waiting periods to have abortions. Yes My rights come from the Constitution, which came from those who wrote it, voted on it, and guaranteed it. Outside of the fact that nature is why I'm here, nature had nothing to do with my right to own my Glock 17.

The part that says you can't be required to take a class, or should be allowed to buy surface to air missiles, or shouldn't have to pay money for your gun, or taxes on the purchase, or that not being allowed to carry a gun into a Federal building is an infringement. No, I am against hypocrisy. Do you mean when you try to purchase another? If so, the purpose is to give you the opportunity to think about what you are doing and possibly turn away from such an affront to God. Haha. No, seriously.

I don't get the emphasis that you and others put on 'design'. You make it sound like it is inherently evil because it was designed to kill. In my mind it only matters if it is actually used to kill. I would venture to say that most guns sold in the US are never used to kill anyone. Using your line of reasoning I could say that thalidomide was inherently good because it was designed to decrease the suffering of pregnant women. (Not really quite right but you get my point.)

And just to rant a bit, I find it incredibly hypocritical for those who demand a 'waiting period' for women seeking abortion and that the women view photographs of fetuses or abortions, would balk at the idea of gun purchasers having to endure a waiting period or be required to view photographs of children who have been shot.

I have a .22 target pistol. Are you telling me that was designed to kill? A gun, or any inanimate object, does not have inherent evil in it. It is its use that matters. Some guns are used only to start races or avalanches. My car wasn't designed to kill people riding bikes, but if I chose to kill people riding bikes it would be ideal for that purpose.

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights. What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

No, it is not worth a life (at least not to me; maybe to others). On the other hand it is unlikely that my guns will kill anyone so I use them anyway. My car could also kill someone as I am on the way to work, and I have other non-lethal ways to get to work (my bicycle), but since the risk is low I drive to work. Life is a balancing act between risk and reward, and I am the kind of person who doesn't take much risk.

Just the purpose is different. My shotgun's purpose is shooting skeet. The purpose of my .22 is target shooting. In more general terms, the purpose of my guns is entertainment. By the same token, the purpose of my knives is not to injure or kill either, it is to prepare food. Just because some people purpose their guns for death does not mean all people do.

Yes, Rights can be taken away, but a certain threshold must be met to do so that is much higher than for a privilege. For example, if I am determined to be mentally ill, my right to own a gun is suspended. Even in the UK, what you define as rights can be taken away given the correct circumstances, even if they are fundamental to all. My guns do.