Posted on February 15 at 7:40 a.m.

@italiansurg, @passagerider

The author even specifically writes: "This has nothing to do with free speech, or personal beliefs and values. People making that argument are missing the point; Santa Barbara dollars are now directly helping to finance anti-gay organizations."

The opinion of the CEO of CFA brought scrutiny to the company, but the issue itself is not one about him expressing his personal views on gay lifestyles. It's about the corporate policy of CFA, and the *actions* taken, donating money to groups/issues that take part in actively seeking to harm people who are gay.

On Opposition to Chick-fil-A

Posted on February 15 at 7:10 a.m.

@spacey

It's "precedent". And, I feel that playing Spelling Police on this one is okay, since the joke hinges on the homophonics....

On A Lesson from Hurricane Sandy

Posted on January 22 at 2:05 p.m.

@JAnderton

"How will limiting the types of guns or capacity of magazines prevent mentally ill or criminally evil people from doing horrible things?"

Taking you literally--such limits would not stop anyone from "doing horrible things" (assuming them to be gun-related). However, the idea is to mitigate the damage possible, by limiting the "types of guns or capacity of magazines". It's simple logic: the limits are based on the design of the firearms, in relation to power and capacity/cycle rate.

I think you are also overlooking the idea that you as an idividual may be a "responsible gun owner", but as you have mentioned, there are "mentally ill" and "criminally evil people" who may not be. In such, you would be affected by any firearms law which would restrict those people--short of a world where the mentally ill and criminally evil would simply shy away from gun ownership! [Laws have a tendency to be of the type that punish a non-guilty majority, due to the actions of a minority of outlaws, because they are reactive.]

Sidebar, the WW1 rifle, the .30-06 semi-auto M1 Garand--an early "assault weapon", if you will--only had an 8 round capacity. Furthermore, it replaced a bolt-action model. [I'm mentioning this just to illustrate that while deadlier weapons are desirable in a war zone, I believe that a compromise must be made when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and the "home front".]

Btw, if a legal, semi-automatic weapon has the capacity/ability to kill a group of people as large or larger than an rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), then why is one legal but the other isn't? When comparing the damage possible *per projectile*, the RPG would be on top. However, considering the slow cycle rate, and likely limited carryable ammo, one might be able to argue that it's actuall *safer* than a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle with a few hundred rounds? (Note: This is mostly a joke--an RPG is proably considered an explosive device, and as such would not be available to the general public.)

On On Guns and Safety

Posted on January 15 at 11:30 a.m.

@JohnLocke

Thanks, for the reply--Was muzzle caliber never considered at all? I think I could understand why it might be overlooked, specifically, but I'm guessing that it might also be possible that an *air-powered* rifle is not counted as a *fire*arm, and so the pellet rifle would not be included in a ban.

"Gun safety or HIPAA?"---Unfortunately, that's a good example of a prickly issue, weighing "Private Rights" vs. "Public Safety". It's even more complicated, when considering that we might curtail the rights of the "mentally ill", but then what do we do if they are "cureable" (or at least manageable)?--Sorry, that's a tangent....

I agree with the LA Times article (and I assume your point, by proxy) that more laws are not (necessarily) the answer--especially in light of what is/isn't already being enforced.

Overall, I think a large problem is that "stupid lawmaking" is done by "lawmakers", and not experts in anything else. Even allowing for the consultation of experts, I doubt reason ever truly prevails!

On On Guns and Safety

Posted on January 15 at 11:19 a.m.

@DrDan

"And Bill is correct, many gun owners are not wild-eyed rednecks, I know that, many of my friends own guns responsibly."

Actually, what billclausen provided were links to show that women and jews may also be rednecks!

(Just a joke....I know some "responsible" gun owners--One is a former police officer and current criminal lawyer, another is a piercer at a tattoo parlor who had a college scholarship for trap shooting, and another is actually a reformed felon, who has completed the necessary steps to have his rights reinstates--including ownership of firearms. Actually, I also have a co-worker that is a Computer Science major/programmer, who actually *is* a 'redneck', although not a complete stereotype!)

On Gun Control

Posted on January 15 at 10:59 a.m.

@billclausen

"...they like to throw in unsupported charges of white racism...."

That's *your* focus on the "racism". No, the added descriptor of "African-American" is not necessarily relative to her infraction, but I also don't read it into an implication of racism.

Do you think the use of the adjective "young", constitutes an "unsupported charge" of ageism?

On French Fry Girl

Posted on January 15 at 10:32 a.m.

@italiansurg

I'd bet you're not a fan of Michael Moore, but have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? It's very slanted, even considering Moore's political leanings, but he somewhat addresses this idea in the "documentary".

In one part, he takes some military applications with him to give to--I think they were congressmen--to have their children sign up. He pretty much got blown off, I think his point was parallel to yours--with the elimination of the draft, the children of those "in power" were protected from going to any war/conflict/police action.

On Not Feeling These Wars

Posted on January 15 at 7:06 a.m.

@JohnS, @JohnLocke

There is no way that a .177 pellet and a .22 caliber are in the same class, in regards to lethality.

I understand, that JL is trying to say that the "assault weapon" description would be incorrectly applied to the pellet rifle, but I would also like to know which criteria is being applied to do so.

---

Regarding, "...'assault' is simply a deliberately provocative and pejorative term that does absolutely nothing to further classify 'weapon.'....This is semantically true, but the idea of such classifications is to allow for the utilitarian classifications (hunting, sport shooting, animal control, even home defense to a degree) be based on the abilities of the weapon, as opposed to the use--in which case any firearm could be called an "assault weapon". If you can't appreciate the difference in a rifle used for killing game, as opposed to one used for mass shooting of humans, then you are ignorant (which is my opinion, so while I welcome a reply, please don't get hung up on the word "ignorant").

---

Aside, I'm curious about the laws that were "passed under GEORGE BUSH". Assuming these are real (no reference included), do they override HIPAA laws, regarding sharing health information?

On On Guns and Safety

Posted on January 4 at 11:40 a.m.

@dionysiuspetros

"OBTW: in none of the incidents referenced (...Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Arizona, and Aurora, Colorado, couldn’t do, Newtown, Connecticut...) was an AR-15 used."

The Sandy Hook shooting in CT used a "Bushmaster" version of the AR-15, but I get what you're trying to say. However, I don't think the Poodle meant to directly tie the other incidents to the weapon, as much as the deed (of a shooting/massacre).

On Dog Got Your Tongue?

Posted on January 3 at 10:41 a.m.

@Ken_Volok

Have you googled "Flat Earth Society"?

On Facing Climate Change