Thursday Next Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 Aren't the states "government"? (Maybe showing a non-firm grasp of US political structure but I was under the impression senate was like our house of commons with each senator representing a state, as opposed to President that represents a party). Also adding tax on at the end does knock the prices up. I can't see Amazon choosing to swallow the tax. Guy goes into a chemist to buy some condoms. "that'll be £1 for the condom and 20 pence for the tax" the chemist says. "Tacks?!? I thought you rolled them on". Pretty sure that Ethan's point is that the prices they advertise on their site will stay the same so they won't be as pressured to reduce prices as in the UK where a VAT increases means that you have to increase the sticker price or eat the VAT yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 Aren't the states "government"? (Maybe showing a non-firm grasp of US political structure but I was under the impression senate was like our house of commons with each senator representing a state, as opposed to President that represents a party). Also adding tax on at the end does knock the prices up. I can't see Amazon choosing to swallow the tax. Guy goes into a chemist to buy some condoms. "that'll be £1 for the condom and 20 pence for the tax" the chemist says. "Tacks?!? I thought you rolled them on". Pretty sure that Ethan's point is that the prices they advertise on their site will stay the same so they won't be as pressured to reduce prices as in the UK where a VAT increases means that you have to increase the sticker price or eat the VAT yourself. Yeah, that. Also dean, you're right that the state governments are governments, but they're sovereign from the federal government. If you say "the US government" it refers to the federal government, because that's the government of the US. Each state has its own, independent government. You are correct that representatives are elected state by state, with each state getting Representatives in the House of Representatives based on the population of that state, and each state getting two Senators regardless of population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 So taking the clarified knowledge on board: Here the state representatives as part of the US gov't, is crossing a few of their Ts. It's wise to, the states they represent make extra money from it, especially as internet business is booming and it's not like companies like Amazon are going to pull out of America. They can knock their prices up at the checkout, point to the new law, and likely still out beat local physical business. Yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 http://www.myfoxal.com/story/22069254/16th-street-baptist-church-victims-awarded-congressional-gold-medal For those who don't know, during the Civil Rights Movement, a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. The people who died in the bombing were 4 little girls who were playing at the church. It sparked outrage within the community at the disgusting act. If you want to know more about it, there is a movie/documentary called 4 Little Girls, which tells the story of what happened from the viewpoint of friends and family of the girls who died. It's truly a good movie. Very moving. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/26/us-bulletproof-uniforms-gun-control?CMP=twt_fd Kevlar backpacks for the kiddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 A recent (mentioned Newtown) episode of Vice showed a private school with armed faculty and "trained" student body. Not quite sure what to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecha Posted April 27, 2013 Report Share Posted April 27, 2013 http://www.myfoxal.com/story/22069254/16th-street-baptist-church-victims-awarded-congressional-gold-medal For those who don't know, during the Civil Rights Movement, a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. The people who died in the bombing were 4 little girls who were playing at the church. It sparked outrage within the community at the disgusting act. If you want to know more about it, there is a movie/documentary called 4 Little Girls, which tells the story of what happened from the viewpoint of friends and family of the girls who died. It's truly a good movie. Very moving. Found it on youtube. Gonna add it to my must watch list! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGoP6TGa7ig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted April 27, 2013 Report Share Posted April 27, 2013 I could very well be missing something here (which is why I'm asking), but what exactly did they do to deserve the medal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 I am not sure, but most likely an election will be coming up soon. Gotta have the feel good things to pad the Congressional résumé. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-boy-accidental-fatal-shooting-sister-20130501,0,2768797.story Whhhyyy?? This wasn't even a "kid gets hold of parents gun" story, the kid shot and killed his own sister with his own gun that he got as a present. Why the fuck does a 5 year old have a proper fucking gun? The 2nd Amendment will consistently be something I'll likely never be able to wrap my head around still existing in this day and age and at the expense of so many children's lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 I don't consider that an accident - they left a shell in it and left the two children unattended with it - shouldn't the parent's be charged for negligence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 The constitution over here is regarded as highly as the bible by a lot of people. Making any changes to it is a real bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 I understand how it is regarded. I will just never be able to wrap my head around the 2nd amendment part specifically, and its current existence within modern society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 To help put it in perspective, I know you've said before that it's an Amendment, and so it can obviously be amended, but in the whole history of the US there's only ever been one amendment repealed, and that was the one banning alcohol (coincidentally also the only amendment to take away rights rather than grant them). As far as this incident yeah, it's pretty fucking ridiculous. I definitely think the parents should be charged with some form of neglect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 On that note, I don't believe the constitution should be amended to take away rights, even guns, but I do believe that the amendment as it stands does not mean George Washington would approve of a guy owning an AR-15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 There is a distinction though between amending it to say "people can't own guns" and amending it to just take out the 2nd Amendment. The first would actually be taking away the right, whereas the second would just be removing the protection of the right and they would still have to pass laws to actually take it away. As for the second point, I actually kind of disagree (putting aside the fact that I don't really care "what the Founders intended")*. I think the only sensible reading of the second amendment is that individuals have the right to own weapons such as would allow them to form a meaningful combat unit. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to me pretty clearly means that people have the right to own weapons, and any other reading requires rather extreme logical gymnastics, and then the justification part, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" pretty explicitly shows we're talking about military defense. Put those two together and the people must be given the right to possess such weapons as would be useful in military actions, and a formation of dudes with flintlocks would be less than useless in modern combat. *I want to clarify what I said here: I don't care what the founders' specific intentions were, but I do care what they were generally trying to get at. My approach to constitutional interpretation is to try and determine the underlying idea they were trying to get at and apply that to modern situations without worrying about what they might have thought about the specific situation. Another example would be the equal protection clause, which was passed immediately following the civil war and they were obviously thinking about race at the time, but the idea they were putting into it is that everyone should be treated equally under the law, so even though they may not have been thinking about or applied it to women or Jews or LGBT or whatever we should still interpret it so that it does apply in those instances as well. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 i.e. spirit of the law over letter of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 I think we can all agree that Ms/Mr Irresponsible with the crazy son/daughter should not have a gun in the house that is easily accessible. Or at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 You read the article at all W&S? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 You expect me to know an article was being referenced with no change in attitude? And I just skimmed through it. Do I have to actually read through it completely or am I getting the basic idea that kids shouldn't be allowed near guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 I think he's referring to the part where the coroner says it was just a tragic accident and no charges are being filed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Does anyone know what this is about? Seems to be annoying people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jodi-arias-death-is-the-ultimate-freedom_n_3241432.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.