Topix Chitown Regulars

[RedheadwGlasses]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I watched a documentary about that a few years ago. It was very covert and interesting.
They actually used a huge claw to go way down to the bottom of the ocean. The ship was specially built to be very stable and not move because any relative movement between the ship and the claw, which was very long could put too much stress on it and break it.
If I remember correctly, they only recovered part of the sub as part of it broke in half as they were retrieving it.

Well, that's the govt's STORY -- turns out, they had more than they claimed (like, they claim they lsot the part that has the bell on it, but then after the cold war ended, we gave Russia the bell). So many secrets on both sides.

But yeah, fascinating stuff.

[squishymama]

RACE wrote:

Showing id does not require any cash layout.

I know I had to pay a fee to get my DL. And if you need a copy of your birth certificate to get that state ID, you'll have to pay for that too.

It's not a ton of money, but it some cash layout.

[PEllen]

RACE wrote:

So throw you your auto policy because its a privlege and your left with showing id to vote. Showing id does not require any cash layout. You also have to show id to purchase a weapon, so the same reasonable standard is applied. Thank you for making my point.
And NO, there is no reason to adjust things just in the self serving attempt to deny another person their right to bear arms.
Stay outta my gun locker and I will stay out of your vay-jay.
<quoted text>

The question is whether it would be unduly burdensome and I don't think insurance would be. Your rates would go up for each violation (each time you shot someone that wasn't in self defense, for example.

Rights are not unfetterd, Race. With rights come obligations.
I don't want to bother your gun locker. I just want to focus on teh security of the lock on that locker so that if someone unintended gets hurt I don't have to pay his bills.

[Ferrerman]

The way I see it, you get a tattoo when you join a motorcycle gang, right? So, why not a tattoo on your arm to designate which camp you belong in and who you are now? Is that so wrong?

[loose cannon]

Ferrerman.
Your wild suggestion is reminecent of concentration camps and Gestapo tactics.
Basically, all you're offering is band-aid solutions to a much broader societal problem, namely sustance abuse, in particular alcohol.
Yes, believe it or not, many if not most incidents of violence have alcohol abuse at its core.
loose, out.

[RACE]

but your paying for the privilege of having a drivers license, not identification. You can get id's for free. That free id is all you need to vote, and is also acceptable for purchasing a firearm.

squishymama wrote:

<quoted text>
I know I had to pay a fee to get my DL. And if you need a copy of your birth certificate to get that state ID, you'll have to pay for that too.
It's not a ton of money, but it some cash layout.

[RACE]

But it WOULD become unduly burdensome...Since there is no regulation on how much insurance would cost, the price of getting insurance for your weapon would deny you the right to have one. If it came to pass that you needed insurance, some vote seeking idiot would propose that the liability be so high that nobody could afford it, so again, only the criminals would have guns.

You don't honestly think it would be set at a reasonable rate do you? And who decides reasonable?

Again, don't worry about my locks and I won't worry about whether your on the pill to make sure you don't push out rug rats that I have to pay for.

Rights are not unfetterd, PEllen. With rights come obligations.

PEllen wrote:

<quoted text>The question is whether it would be unduly burdensome and I don't think insurance would be. Your rates would go up for each violation (each time you shot someone that wasn't in self defense, for example.
Rights are not unfetterd, Race. With rights come obligations.
I don't want to bother your gun locker. I just want to focus on teh security of the lock on that locker so that if someone unintended gets hurt I don't have to pay his bills.

[squishymama]

RACE wrote:

but your paying for the privilege of having a drivers license, not identification. You can get id's for free. That free id is all you need to vote, and is also acceptable for purchasing a firearm.
<quoted text>

Were can you get an ID for free?

Here in IL, you can only get a free ID if you're homeless or over 65. And if you need that birth certificate to obtain that ID, you're still gonna have to pay for that.

Maybe it's different in FL...

[Toj]

How about a ban on all assault rifles. That'd be a start.

Or do you need an assault rifle to protect your home?

[PEllen]

RACE wrote:

But it WOULD become unduly burdensome...Since there is no regulation on how much insurance would cost, the price of getting insurance for your weapon would deny you the right to have one. If it came to pass that you needed insurance, some vote seeking idiot would propose that the liability be so high that nobody could afford it, so again, only the criminals would have guns.
You don't honestly think it would be set at a reasonable rate do you? And who decides reasonable?
Again, don't worry about my locks and I won't worry about whether your on the pill to make sure you don't push out rug rats that I have to pay for.
Rights are not unfetterd, PEllen. With rights come obligations.
<quoted text>

You are arguing to an absurd end point.Scalia is catching heat for doing that by equating gay marriage with canibalism and murder. Mandatory car insurance did not stop people from driving. My notion is that it would be an inexpensive medical only policy because that is the cost which is passed on to the general public.

Instead of just saying No, come back to me with something that addresses the fact that bullets which come out of guns cause medical expenses and physical inability to do the same things as before the bullet met the person.

[PEllen]

BTW Abby today is a total rehash of what to do with baby teeth colected by teh tooth fairy. Amy is 50% re-hash

[RedheadwGlasses]

RACE wrote:

but your paying for the privilege of having a drivers license, not identification. You can get id's for free. That free id is all you need to vote, and is also acceptable for purchasing a firearm.
<quoted text>

Where do you get free state IDs? Not in the states I've lived in. You have to pay for them.

[RedheadwGlasses]

And I just checked. It costs $25 in Florida to get a non-DL state ID.

[edogxxx]

Toj wrote:

How about a ban on all assault rifles. That'd be a start.

A start to what? Banning all firearms? Don't worry about what I need to protect my home. You don't want to own a gun, that's your business. Or do you want to force you're beliefs on everyone else?

[RedheadwGlasses]

No one needs an assault rifle. So I'll agree with that. But a simple deer rifle can do more damage than an ak-47 (shot for shot), and you will NEVER get deer rifles banned.

[Sublime1]

PEllen wrote:

<quoted text> You are arguing to an absurd end point.Scalia is catching heat for doing that by equating gay marriage with canibalism and murder.

Scalia is an originalist. He believes the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been interpreted at the time it was written. I cannot say I disagree with him. A living constitution is simply a way for folks to change the constitution to be what they want it to be, rather than what it originally was. You may agree with this practice, but you know this, and I know this … a living constitution merely circumvents the manner by which the constitution was intended to be changed. That would be dangerous in its own right, but it’s even more dangerous when you have unelected officials, such as justices deciding to amend our constitution to make it what they wish it would be. Presto!

Given this understanding, Scalia has taken the position that the constitution has always allowed the legislation of morality. That was the point of his arguments. I can’t say he is incorrect, given that for hundreds of years, including at its inception, it was interpreted to allow all sorts of morality legislation.

Do I agree that we should be legislating morality where consenting parties are involved and no harm is done to 3rd parties; no, but I don’t agree that the way to go about ensuring this does not occur is via a living constitution notion.

Were I a justice on the S.C., I, unlike many liberal SC justices, would be like Roberts in the Obamacare decision and cast aside my personal opinions and beliefs in favor of the proper legal conclusion. As much as I find Obamacare to be a bain for our country and future generations who will be saddled with 20+ trillion dollars in debt to feed an ever increasing desire of the current generation of liberals to provide handouts to the current generation of welfare kings and queens, I agreed with Robert’s reasoning and conclusion.

[Sublime1]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

No one needs an assault rifle. So I'll agree with that.

Oh, so we are going to look to need, when deciding what rights folks should have. Okay how about this:

Absent where the mother's life is at risk, almost no one needs an abortion.

Yet women can still get them, EVEN THOUGH there is nothing in the constitution expressly saying women have the right to an abortion.

How can it be that women can have unfettered access to a non-constitutionally guaranteed act even when there is no need, but a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is only applicable where there is a need for that right?

Given this, certainly need cannot be the standard that determines what folk's rights are. Try again Toj and Angela.

[Toj]

Most of the posts from the Regs have been crazy lately. Is there something in the water? If you bring something up it seems most posters (not all) like to take the all or nothing approach and not discuss.

Put downs are abundant. It's tiring. It really is.

[Toj]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
A start to what? Banning all firearms? Don't worry about what I need to protect my home. You don't want to own a gun, that's your business. Or do you want to force you're beliefs on everyone else?

Right. Right. That's what I said. You do like to over-state things, don't you?

I personally said to start with the assault rifles. My next thing would be to go to enforcement of the present rules and review the present rules.

Unfortunately, everyone is so darn frickin afraid you'll take THEIR gun, discussion is non-existent.

What are people so afraid of on a forum? It's maddening.

[Sublime1]

Boy did Apple f' up big time, when they booted google maps. Now google has a new map app you can download for the iphone and it gives you voice navigation, which we previously didn't have on teh old google maps for iphone.

If apple had done it right, gotten their own mapping software that was reliable and given you voice navigation, few folks would have gone back to google maps even if they came out with a new app for it, with navigation.

As it stands now, everyone will use the google maps app (including me ... I'm downloading it right now) and never go back to apple maps.

What a monumental f' up from a business standpoint. I would question the judgment of any company who hires the guy who was fired from apple and who orchestrated it.