Pre-Columbine?Jay wrote:
I'm trying to remember back to middle school and I just remember security guards that were around to break up fights and stuff. I don't remember them having guns. I went to private school for high school and there weren't any guards. There weren't any fights either
Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2012-12-18 15:22:29)
Don't bother unless it's well thought through and effective. If it's a half-assed plan it's not going to do anything. Everything proposed thus far is unfeasible or completely ineffective.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Difficult... so don't bother.Jay wrote:
See? It's really difficult to come up with something effective.
Yeah, Columbine happened during my senior year.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Pre-Columbine?Jay wrote:
I'm trying to remember back to middle school and I just remember security guards that were around to break up fights and stuff. I don't remember them having guns. I went to private school for high school and there weren't any guards. There weren't any fights either
Is that a real question. Obviously this kind of thing will happen again. Does anyone here actually believe it won't? By the way, I'm not reacting to this being an "elementary" school shooting, I'm reacting to it being a "school shooting". And yes, now that it has happened at an elementary school I foresee it happening again at one at some point. People always trying to one up each other and all.Jay wrote:
Are you expecting this style of attack to happen again and be normal? It's the first time in history it's happened. Reacting to a single event is silly.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Since when was there a school on every street corner? Last time I checked it was Starbucks that had the street corner monopoly.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree then.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Is that a real question. Obviously this kind of thing will happen again. Does anyone here actually believe it won't? By the way, I'm not reacting to this being an "elementary" school shooting, I'm reacting to it being a "school shooting". And yes, now that it has happened at an elementary school I foresee it happening again at one at some point. People always trying to one up each other and all.Jay wrote:
Are you expecting this style of attack to happen again and be normal? It's the first time in history it's happened. Reacting to a single event is silly.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Since when was there a school on every street corner? Last time I checked it was Starbucks that had the street corner monopoly.
Jay wrote:
We're gonna have to agree to disagree then.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Is that a real question. Obviously this kind of thing will happen again. Does anyone here actually believe it won't? By the way, I'm not reacting to this being an "elementary" school shooting, I'm reacting to it being a "school shooting". And yes, now that it has happened at an elementary school I foresee it happening again at one at some point. People always trying to one up each other and all.Jay wrote:
Are you expecting this style of attack to happen again and be normal? It's the first time in history it's happened. Reacting to a single event is silly.
is it? I don't think the answer should ever be "it's too hard to enforce, so we won't". Where there is a will, there's a way. You have a point though, there are plenty of laws that set regulatory measures that are ignored or enforcement is lacking. Again, the answer should not be to remove the regulations and relax the enforcement...it should be to hold the government more accountable to follow those regulations and actually enforce the current laws. Maybe that's all it takes?Jay wrote:
It's much easier to enforce someones use of a car than their use of a gun, and they aren't even very good at that even. There are millions of people on the road every day without licenses or insurance.
I simply prefer simpler laws that are easy to enforce and obvious to the person asked to abide by them. If a law has to be complex to work, it's a bad law imo.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
is it? I don't think the answer should ever be "it's too hard to enforce, so we won't". Where there is a will, there's a way. You have a point though, there are plenty of laws that set regulatory measures that are ignored or enforcement is lacking. Again, the answer should not be to remove the regulations and relax the enforcement...it should be to hold the government more accountable to follow those regulations and actually enforce the current laws. Maybe that's all it takes?Jay wrote:
It's much easier to enforce someones use of a car than their use of a gun, and they aren't even very good at that even. There are millions of people on the road every day without licenses or insurance.
I'm not sure why I'd bother looking. Even if you were lying about deleted posts, you'd just say I'm a stupidhead or something equally inane.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
newbie can verify - the search includes all deleted posts. The first deletion is from 4 years ago - guess what - my views have changed since then.Jay wrote:
I'm not imagining things. You have indeed argued in favor of banning assault weapons, and it was only a few weeks ago. Maybe it was among the posts you said you delete.
We don't prosecute people that cost us trillions of dollars, we hand them more money so they can pay themselves nice bonuses.
It would certainly stop the excessive risk taking if we pulled away their safety net. The same goes for prosecuting the most at fault. The problem is most of the top bankers wear the same tie pins as the people we elect to Congress, and they fund their election campaigns. They're not going to eat their own.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think iceland did the right thing, but I don't know if that would work in the US. I do think the financial bailout was the absolute worst thing we could do.
Whole thing is worth reading: http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id … s_viewed=1If you've ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you've ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or "drug paraphernalia" in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me.
Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.
The banks' laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."
This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the "legitimate" banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank's teller windows. Tony Montana's henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional "American City Bank" in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain's most storied financial institutions.
Though this was not stated explicitly, the government's rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a "systemically important institution" in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:
Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC's Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties, according to a Senate investigation), it doesn't protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most "reputable" banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can't be repeated often enough) murderers and terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department's response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way.
And not only did they sell out to drug dealers, they sold out cheap. You'll hear bragging this week by the Obama administration that they wrested a record penalty from HSBC, but it's a joke. Some of the penalties involved will literally make you laugh out loud. This is from Breuer's announcement:
As a result of the government's investigation, HSBC has . . . "clawed back" deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.
Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment? The government's negotiators couldn't hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them "partially" wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department's opening offer – asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?
So you might ask, what's the appropriate financial penalty for a bank in HSBC's position? Exactly how much money should one extract from a firm that has been shamelessly profiting from business with criminals for years and years? Remember, we're talking about a company that has admitted to a smorgasbord of serious banking crimes. If you're the prosecutor, you've got this bank by the balls. So how much money should you take?
How about all of it? How about every last dollar the bank has made since it started its illegal activity? How about you dive into every bank account of every single executive involved in this mess and take every last bonus dollar they've ever earned? Then take their houses, their cars, the paintings they bought at Sotheby's auctions, the clothes in their closets, the loose change in the jars on their kitchen counters, every last freaking thing. Take it all and don't think twice. And then throw them in jail.
You have an astounding lack of tact. Check a couple pages ago if you want a couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, why should I waste much time one someone who resorts to the stupid card and fouled up karma messages? If there was some profound point buried somewhere in your garbage, you should've cleaned up your posts.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
your lack of understanding what I was trying to explain frightens me. I'm saying you're being stupid for dismissing MOABs statement without offering up evidence, a contrary opinion, anything - instead you dismiss MOABs statement because he's not from the US. Never did I say your opinion was dumb or wrong (how could I, you didn't offer up anything to argue against?). And then pulling a lazy card saying you're too tired to offer up anything. Stop acting like a little girl, dude.
Well, including detachable magazines as thats the key feature which first identifies the category:Jay wrote:
forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor." Please tell me why a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher and a flash suppressor have to do with the function of the weapon? Nothing. It's all cosmetic stuff. It means nothing.
Who said any law has to be complex?I simply prefer simpler laws that are easy to enforce and obvious to the person asked to abide by them. If a law has to be complex to work, it's a bad law imo.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-19 00:59:27)
If I knew I had problems, you couldn't get me to keep a gun in the house.Dilbert_X wrote:
Mental health isn't going to work either, no-one will pay for it and no-one is going to sign up for voluntary treatment if it means they can't then buy a gun.
But difficult to enforce until a gun's already been stolen."Lock up your guns when you're not home" - Isn't too complex.
haha you're such a baby. Fouled up karma messages. Dismissing someone who's taken the time to write out a thoughtful argument (regardless of the position) with a one sentence response is ignorant - and I will call people out on it any time. You STILL don't get the point - you think you need to respond to me - you need to respond to MOAB - or don't respond, that's fine too. My issue is that you dismiss his argument with one line. I don't want you to waste time on me, I want you to waste time on MOAB - at least give him the benefit of a well-reasoned response. The fact I've needed to spell that out time and time again leads me to believe extra medium was right when he said I write like a third grader sniffing glue, because apparently you still think I'm calling you stupid for a opinion you never expressed. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over and I'm failing to make myself clear. Oh well, I guess I fail at explanations because you're clearly not understanding.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You have an astounding lack of tact. Check a couple pages ago if you want a couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, why should I waste much time one someone who resorts to the stupid card and fouled up karma messages? If there was some profound point buried somewhere in your garbage, you should've cleaned up your posts.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
your lack of understanding what I was trying to explain frightens me. I'm saying you're being stupid for dismissing MOABs statement without offering up evidence, a contrary opinion, anything - instead you dismiss MOABs statement because he's not from the US. Never did I say your opinion was dumb or wrong (how could I, you didn't offer up anything to argue against?). And then pulling a lazy card saying you're too tired to offer up anything. Stop acting like a little girl, dude.
Yes, the Police aren't going to be standing in your house making sure you lock up your guns every time you go out, just as they don't sit next to you in the bar counting your drinks for you before you get in your car......unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Stripper clips can go straight to hell.If I knew I had problems, you couldn't get me to keep a gun in the house.Dilbert_X wrote:
Mental health isn't going to work either, no-one will pay for it and no-one is going to sign up for voluntary treatment if it means they can't then buy a gun.But difficult to enforce until a gun's already been stolen."Lock up your guns when you're not home" - Isn't too complex.
