Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 26, 2018

OTP 2018 March 26: He struck out at baseball, but made it big in politics. Now he’s returned to his first love

In 1937, a group of standouts from the Negro baseball league, as it was known, was lured to the Dominican Republic for a barnstorming tournament against the country’s home-grown talent. Soon enough, the sun-and-fun adventure became a life-and-death proposition; the competition, it turned out, was for the benefit of the homicidal dictator Rafael Trujillo. The instruction given the visiting all-stars was simple: “You better win.”


While baseball is at the heart of the book, “The Pitcher and the Dictator” — the pitcher being the legendary Satchel Paige — the story is about much more, including gunboat diplomacy, the blood-drenched history of the Dominican Republic and, not least, the prevalence of racism and repression in mid-20th century America.


“One of the great ironies,” Smith said in an interview, is the visiting black players were “coming from the land of the free, home of the brave, and they’re going into one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world. Yet in some sense they have more freedom in that repressive dictatorship than they do in the United States.”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:12 AM | 1703 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, negro leagues, off-topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 18 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5643167)
Until remarkably late in the day Charles I believed that the mobs in the streets of London, and the majority of the members of the House of Commons were loyal subjects who were just being duped by a small cadre of self-interested rabble-rousers, funded and backed by foreign Scottish agitators.

There was actually a paid Claque in classical music. Curse those filthy frogs!
   102. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5643168)
...flippity-ay.
   103. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:25 PM (#5643170)
Come on. You need to have some basic familiarity with the facts before you argue the law.
The Times says his mother bought the guns, which comports with my recollection:


Same analysis as to the mother.
   104. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:25 PM (#5643172)
There was actually a paid Claque in classical music. Curse those filthy frogs!
Such people were infiltrated into TV Studio audiences for quite a while.

Professional mourners are still a thing in some parts of the world.
   105. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5643173)

I don't understand what legal point you're arguing here.
Uh, neither does he.

The tobacco comparison is disingenuous. The tobacco companies were sued -- admittedly, frivolously -- on the grounds that the consumers who bought their products were deceived about the safety of the products. That would be equivalent to suing a gun because it blows up in your hand when you pull the trigger, or gives you carpal tunnel, or something. And that's all allowed under the PLCAA.

What you can't do is sue a firearms manufacturer/dealer because I bought a gun and shot you with it, any more than you can sue a tobacco company/retailer if I deliberately burned you with a cigarette. (You could sue a firearms dealer if I bought a gun and shot you with it after telling him, "I want this gun to murder this jerk on OTP," or if he knew I was a convicted felon and sold it to me anyway.)
   106. Jay Z Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5643175)
Unless you can convince your assailant that you might just be crazy enough to use it.


On 9/11, 19 people were crazy enough to use it.

In NRAtopia, everyone boards the plane with a bomb. The crazy one blows up the plane, and everyone dies. Over and over and over again, with a shrug of the shoulders, until you run out of citizenry.

NRAtopia may have prevented the towers from being hit, but 19 planes would have blown up. Because you only need one crazy bomber per plane.
   107. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5643177)
Come on. You need to have some basic familiarity with the facts before you argue the law.
The Times says his mother bought the guns, which comports with my recollection:

Same analysis as to the mother.


The analysis also fails with respect to the mother. Did she buy the guns so that her son could use them to kill her and then shoot up a school? No. Did they sell her the guns knowing that her son was going to use them to kill her and then shoot up a school? No.

   108. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5643178)
The tobacco comparison is disingenuous. The tobacco companies were sued -- admittedly, frivolously -- on the grounds that the consumers who bought their products were deceived about the safety of the products. That would be equivalent to suing a gun because it blows up in your hand when you pull the trigger, or gives you carpal tunnel, or something. And that's all allowed under the PLCAA.

What you can't do is sue a firearms manufacturer/dealer because I bought a gun and shot you with it, any more than you can sue a tobacco company/retailer if I deliberately burned you with a cigarette. (You could sue a firearms dealer if I bought a gun and shot you with it after telling him, "I want this gun to murder this jerk on OTP," or if he knew I was a convicted felon and sold it to me anyway.)


Agreed.
   109. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5643179)

I don't claim to be an expert, but I believe the law - an NRA brainchild - was in response to a spate of suits brought by cities, individuals, etc claiming that gun manufacturers were specifically marketing their products towards criminals. I think there were likewise protections put in place for sellers that were accused of being 'straw buyer' hotspots - limiting their liability as well.


Were these suits meritous? Frankly, I can't get enough of anti-SLAPP statutes, but eliminating the provisions that allow for SLAPPs in the first place is nice.
   110. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:36 PM (#5643181)
In NRAtopia, everyone boards the plane with a bomb. The crazy one blows up the plane, and everyone dies. Over and over and over again, with a shrug of the shoulders, until you run out of citizenry.

This also sounds a bit like Libertopia. The market for people not carrying bombs on planes will increase, thus placing Suicide Bomber Airlines out of business. Depending, of course, on the NRA lobbyists.
   111. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5643183)
The analysis also fails with respect to the mother. Did she buy the guns so that her son could use them to kill her and then shoot up a school? No. Did they sell her the guns knowing that her son was going to use them to kill her and then shoot up a school? No.


Not the mother's conduct, the gun manufacturer's conduct. It's the same as to the mother. They sold her an inherently dangerous product, just like tobacco is. The product is so dangerous as manufactured that the manufacture was negligent (akin to building a road without a guardrail at a very dangerous hairpin turn above a mountain.)

Etc, etc.
   112. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5643186)
Agreed.


He's lying again, Ray.(*) What he said is no more accurate than "materiality" was, or that you could lie to a judge when you get a warrant as long as the judge could find in the newspaper the fact you left out.

(*) Among other ways, in his lie that the only legal theory used against the tobacco companies was that they "were deceived about the safety of their products." There were many more theories used than that. And this:

on the grounds that the consumers who bought their products were deceived about the safety of the products. That would be equivalent to suing a gun because it blows up in your hand when you pull the trigger


... is trollishly and comically ignorant. A gun blowing up in your hand when you pull the trigger would be a defective product and the theory would have nothing to do with "deception" in marketing. They're two completely different theories.
   113. Traderdave Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5643191)
Except a gun has stated uses that are non-lethal. Tobacco, particularly cigarettes, are lethal when used as directed.

From a purely logical perspective that argument has its flaws, but the when-used-as-directed line was a major part of the states' cases against tobacco firms.
   114. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:47 PM (#5643192)
Except a gun has stated uses that are non-lethal.


A good pistol-whipping can accomplish many of the same purposes as actually firing the thing.
   115. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5643193)
Tobacco, particularly cigarettes, are lethal when used as directed.


No, you could throw them at a target and keep score at who's best. You could bet with them and use them as currency. Etc.

Did Lanza not use his gun as directed? How so? Were there any warning labels at all saying, "Don't shoot in a classroom of six-year-olds?" Honestly curious. Isn't one of the primary potential uses of buying a gun shooting it at another human being, thereby causing potentially lethal injury? Sure seems like it when you read the writings and postings of gun owners.

   116. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5643194)
Were these suits meritous? Frankly, I can't get enough of anti-SLAPP statutes, but eliminating the provisions that allow for SLAPPs in the first place is nice.


I suppose it depends on the suit - and again, I'm not an expert - but my understanding is that the PLCAA raised the bar significantly... The wikipedia entry on the law states that two cases managed to get past the bar; in one instance - damages were awarded when video evidence showed the clerk basically helped a straw buyer buy the gun for another guy who was standing with him and clearly was the intended recipient of the gun. In the other, the gun shop settled when the family proved that they had warned the shop not to sell to a mentally ill woman who killed her father after being sold a gun despite the warnings.

I vaguely recall that city of Chicago was suing some gun shops outside of Cook County that were shown to be the 'favorites' of straw buyers and claimed to have evidence that they were attempting to market towards such purchases when the passage of the law stopped the suits, as I believe the claims were less cut-and-dry.

In any case, I imagine some are and some are not...
   117. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5643195)
Not the mother's conduct, the gun manufacturer's conduct. It's the same as to the mother. They sold her an inherently dangerous product, just like tobacco is. The product is so dangerous as manufactured that the manufacture was negligent (akin to building a road without a guardrail at a very dangerous hairpin turn above a mountain.)


Under this theory all guns would be banned. (And can openers and hammers and high heeled shoes of the kind that Steven Weber took through the eye socket in Single White Female.)

But somehow people don't push this legal theory for knives and cars. Only for guns. Which again gives the game away. You want to ban all guns.
   118. Traderdave Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5643196)

No, you could throw them at a target and keep score at who's best. You could bet with them and use them as currency. Etc.


Stated, intended uses, used as directed. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but that idea was central to the class action cases, as all lawyers know...
   119. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5643199)
Under this theory all guns would be banned.


Why do you say all guns? Not all guns are AR-15s, with effectively no safety features. A combination of lower lethality and higher safety mechanisms would clearly not be negligent or inherently dangerous.
   120. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5643202)
Stated, intended uses, used as directed. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but that idea was central to the class action cases, as all lawyers know...


I addressed that in the part of 115 you didn't quote. Lanza used the gun as directed and it worked as the manufacturer intended. He pulled the trigger as the manufacturer intended, and the bullets came out as the manufacturer intended. (I believe that's factually accurate -- i.e., that he didn't modify the gun with like a bump stock or something -- but if it's not accurate w/r/t Lanza, it's accurate as to hundreds of similar episodes.)
   121. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5643206)
Why do you say all guns? Not all guns are AR-15s, with effectively no safety features. A combination of lower lethality and higher safety mechanisms would clearly not be negligent or inherently dangerous.


It clearly would be because you're using those words in a wholly capricious fashion.

I don't know why you're hung up on "safety features." Presumably there were some on the guns Lanza was using, and he switched them off. What his guns didn't have was a safety feature that said "Oh, you're going to use me to shoot up a school? I'm making myself inoperable." Yet that seems to be the standard of "safety feature" you're using.

You're arguing completely fantastically here.
   122. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5643207)
I addressed that in the part of 115 you didn't quote. Lanza used the gun as directed and it worked as the manufacturer intended.


The manufacturer didn't intend for Lanza to shoot up a school, which is what you seem to also be considering "intended use."
   123. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5643208)
Some people in favor of more gun control legislation want to ban all guns, most do not. And many of the people who want to ban all guns realize that's politically and legally impossible. The Second Amendment discussions here over the last couple of days are pretty irrelevant, you can have much more rigorous gun control without banning handguns, as many jurisdictions already do. If there was a serious push to ban the AR-15 and similar weapons the Second Amendment might be relevant (it would likely go to the Supreme Court, which given the stolen seat has a conservative majority).

I was not particularly in favor of pushing for gun control given that mass shootings are rare, crime is way down over the last 20 years, and it's not clear if gun control is that effective at reducing regular crime. But the mass shootings seem to be getting more common and that does become a problem even though the chances that you personally will be affected are so low. It's like terrorism: we shouldn't obsess over the risks but we should work to combat it and lower the risks in various ways.
   124. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:08 PM (#5643209)
I don't know why you're hung up on "safety features."


Because safety is part of negligent manufacture. Again -- mountain road with hairpin curves, guardrails. Road with guardrails, not negligent. Road without guardrails, negligent.
   125. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5643210)
But somehow people don't push this legal theory for knives and cars. Only for guns. Which again gives the game away. You want to ban all guns.


???

There are a whole host of regulations around catalytic converters on cars -- and newer vehicles using OBD II actually require the system to incorporate O2 sensors and error code storage to prevent people from using snap-on/snap-off kits... i.e., it's relatively easy mechanically to either bypass or remove a catalytic converter (and, in fact, increases engine performance) and when emissions testing time comes, simply snap the convert back on. The new(er) - they're not THAT new - requirements prevent this, at least, as easily as it would have previously been, by creating and storing error codes that would get discovered by the diagnostics of emissions testing.

It's an instance where the law requires additional tamper-proofing protocols to prevent someone from easily getting around a legal requirement for the car.

Conversely, I think the PLCAA also protects gun manufacturers from being sued for implementing designs that make it easier to do something like, say, modify a semi-auto for full auto fire.
   126. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5643211)
The manufacturer didn't intend for Lanza to shoot up a school, which is what you seem to also be considering "intended use."


That has nothing to do with use of the product. Cigarettes are intended to be lit up and inhaled by mouth. Guns are intended to have the trigger pulled, causing bullets to come out really fast. That's what they're manufactured to do.

There was nothing preventing Lanza's gun from undergoing that mechanism just because he happened to pull the trigger around six-year-olds. That's kind of ... you know ... one of the problems with the product.
   127. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:17 PM (#5643212)
The problem with rare things is that it's hard to figure out what causes them, and thus what's worth doing to reduce the risk.

As far as school massacres, if there is information, I can't find it (but perhaps that's not surprising, given that we know the "solutions" pushed by conservatives, and the "solutions" pushed by liberals, aren't helpful). Just more people opining and ignoring what we do know.
   128. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:17 PM (#5643213)
If you want to argue that schools aren't much more dangerous now than they were in selected previous years, that's one thing. Obviously in any given year there'll be blips in both directions. But the idea that "schools are much safer now than they used to be" is simply an assertion.

This kind of shitty fling-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-hope-some-sticks "counterargument" makes it pretty clear you're only interested in ideology and not facts, and why you're avoiding trying to find facts that would support your position, because it's clear if you find any facts, they'll crush the nonsense you're peddling.


I'm not avoiding anything, but if you were as sure of your case as you seem to be, you'd think you'd be able to find statistics that were a bit more up to date.

Of course any data is going to be at least slightly out of date. But "Sure, students have experienced continuously less violence for the last two decades, but maybe that's changed radically in the last two years!" is nonsense. Of course, it's possible, but absent any evidence, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

And goalpost moving - the original claim was schools were safer than they've ever been, but you responded to data showing they're safer that it didn't specifically concern katana attacks (or whatever the bugbear was). Well, the claim is that students at school are safer than they've ever been, and that's what every piece of data shows. And, of course, for students who do get killed, I doubt they much care whether it's with a katana or a woodchipper.


The only one of those links you provided with any concrete numbers on school murders was the one from CDC called Trends in School-Associated Violent Deaths—1992-2010. And if you look at the chart, you'll see that the numbers rise and fall on a periodic basis during those years. The greatest number of deaths during that time span in any given year was 63 in 2006, and we've already had 27 school deaths in the first 3 months of this year.

Again, you can deal all you want in personal insults and strawmen, but schools today are NOT "much safer than they used to be", unless the word "much" has no meaning. If all David had written was that "schools are actually somewhat safer today than they've been in some past years", then I would've let it slide, but the way he phrased made it clear that his own ideology was driving his conclusion. I have no idea what your own ideology vis-a-vis guns and gun control may be, but right now you're coming off as little more than some Dershy-style professional contrarian. The kids who marched all over the country on Saturday exhibited a lot more collective wisdom about what this debate is about than the two of you put together, and I'm glad to see that the emotional level on the gun control side might finally be catching up to the emotional level of the thugs who run those scare ads on NRAtv.

P. S. Having just now scanned this last page of comments, I'll only add that I agree with David about the frivolity of lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
   129. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5643214)
More on PLCAA - specific in this case, towards lawsuits brought against the "bumpstock" manufacturer...

In this case, the question would seem to hinge on whether the "bumpstock" is a a "qualified accessory" under PLCAA or not... if it is, then as I understand it, the bumpstock manufacturer would be exempted from the civil suit.
   130. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5643215)
People are getting their panties in an uproar over the student-led gun protests, and as a result are saying stupider and stupider shit, hoping to diminish the momentum. It brings to mind the old shampoo commercial: the tingle means it's working.
   131. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:30 PM (#5643216)
Second Breakfast happens at eight o'clock in the morning. It follows on from Early Breakfast at six o'clock, and is likely to be succeeded in normal circumstances by some sort of mid-morning snack, maybe even an early elevenses, at ten o'clock. In fact, coffee, tea, and biscuits are circulated on a specially reinforced heavy-duty tea-trolley at eleven-thirty in the morning, a fact of supreme importance to wizards engaged in endless or pointless faculty meetings. The text of Unseen Academicals also suggests the previous meal is over and done with by nine, leaving an intolerable two and an half hour gulf before the tea trolley appears. This inexplicable gap was filled then by third breakfast, discovered by Archancellor Flacker whose statue stands in the UU grounds and was used as a goal post in Unseen Academicals.
   132. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:30 PM (#5643217)
I am kind of sorry the "definition of breakfast" discussion didn't continue.
Did we ever come to a consensus on whether a maple bar is officially a doughnut?
   133. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5643218)
“They don't go in for the fancy or exotic, but stick to conventional food like flightless bird embryos, minced organs in intestine skins, slices of hog flesh and burnt ground grass seeds dipped in animal fats; or, as it is known in their patois, egg, sausage, bacon and a fried slice of toast.”
   134. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:33 PM (#5643221)
The manufacturer didn't intend for Lanza to shoot up a school, which is what you seem to also be considering "intended use."


I actually missed the first part of this in my 126; the response, of course, is that intent isn't necessary for tort liability to obtain. Negligence is enough.
   135. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5643222)
Last month I discovered Tip-Top donuts. A simple affair with donuts coming in under $1. Somehow they manage to make fried donuts taste light and fluffy. They don't go all in for the crazy toppings and their selection isn't gigantic but what they do they do well and the community responds well to their business. A couple years back Dunkin Donuts attempted to open a store next to them and it didn't last long before the Dunkin went out of business. I have a nasty habit of eating 8 or 9 of their donuts within a 24 hour period.
   136. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5643223)
McConnell bill would legalize hemp as agricultural product

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced a new bill on Monday that would legalize hemp as an agricultural product.

The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 would legalize hemp, removing it from the federal list of controlled substances and allowing it to be sold as an agricultural commodity, according to WKYT.

"Hemp has played a foundational role in Kentucky's agriculture heritage, and I believe that it can be an important part of our future," McConnell said in a statement.

If approved, the act would allow states to control their own hemp regulations by removing federal restrictions. WKYT also reported it would give hemp researchers the ability to apply for grants through the Department of Agriculture.
   137. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5643225)
The only one of those links you provided with any concrete numbers on school murders was the one from CDC called Trends in School-Associated Violent Deaths—1992-2010. And if you look at the chart, you'll see that the numbers rise and fall on a periodic basis during those years. The greatest number of deaths during that time span in any given year was 63 in 2006, and we've already had 27 school deaths in the first 3 months of this year.


No, if you look at the data, you'll see that there's a little noise, but that schools are significantly safer in the 2000s than they were in the 90s. Even the "bump" in 2006 (when 32 students) only brought the number of students deaths up to where it was in 90s, but because the rate had gone down so much, it looked like an outlier in the 2000s. Which you would've known if you'd looked at the numbers and asked what they showed, rather than started with your conclusion and asked how you can abuse the numbers to make it look like they might support it.

But, of course, David didn't make an assertion about shootings, but schools being much safer. Mass shootings are such a small component of violence in general, and murders specifically, that they don't make a measurable dent in safety.

I have no idea what your own ideology vis-a-vis guns and gun control may be, but right now you're coming off as little more than some Dershy-style professional contrarian.


I'm a scientist irritated we live in such an unscientific age. I have no interest in guns - I've never owned one, fired one, held one. I have no real interest in gun control either - the data is pretty clear that it doesn't affect the outcomes (at least, as far as murder goes - it may be different for suicide). I'm coming off as a contrarian to you because interested in the facts.

The kids who marched all over the country on Saturday exhibited a lot more collective wisdom about what this debate is about than the two of you put together, and I'm glad to see that the emotional level on the gun control side might finally be catching up to the emotional level of the thugs who run those scare ads on NRAtv.


The thugs who run scare ads on NRAtv are uneducated morons with no interest in improving their lot - it'd be better if the gun control side didn't emulate that.
   138. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5643227)
People are getting their panties in an uproar over the student-led gun protests, and as a result are saying stupider and stupider ####, hoping to diminish the momentum. It brings to mind the old shampoo commercial: the tingle means it's working.


I think we've blown right past "panties in an uproar" and are now firmly in "hair on fire" territory... lots of the freakouts are full-blow whatsamatter you phase?
   139. DavidFoss Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5643228)
A couple years back Dunkin Donuts attempted to open a store next to them and it didn't last long before the Dunkin went out of business. I have a nasty habit of eating 8 or 9 of their donuts within a 24 hour period.

The last half-dozen times I was at Dunkin, the donut rack was less than half full and all the donuts looked cold and sad. They're basically a coffee shop now.
   140. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5643229)
But, of course, David didn't make an assertion about shootings, but schools being much safer.


Apples, meet tangerines. Kids are better behaved and, more importantly, better policed in school today. And there are fewer drug dealers in and around schools.

What that has to do with mass shootings in schools with military weaponry is anyone's guess.
   141. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5643231)
Are there any objections to gun restraining orders? Or banning bump stocks? Or limiting magazine sizes? Or banning sales of AR-15s and similar weapons? Just throwing out a few ideas, I imagine the AR-15 one would be the most controversial. Gun restraining orders seem promising for mass shootings, domestic violence, and suicides.
   142. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5643233)
They're basically a coffee shop now.

They are failing at that as well. Dunkin is just about the worst you can get out of the national chains. The only coffee products worse are their espresso based drinks along McDonald's espresso based drinks as well.


The last half-dozen times I was at Dunkin, the donut rack was less than half full and all the donuts looked cold and sad



This is the other amazing thing about Tip-Top donuts. They stay fresh for a very long time. You can eat them out of the box 9 hours later and they still taste fresh. Throw them in tupperware and they taste good the next day as well.
   143. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5643234)
I'm a scientist irritated we live in such an unscientific age. I have no interest in guns - I've never owned one, fired one, held one. I have no real interest in gun control either - the data is pretty clear that it doesn't affect the outcomes (at least, as far as murder goes - it may be different for suicide). I'm coming off as a contrarian to you because interested in the facts.


I still go back to the point on firearm types, though... and specifically, that if a better version of 94 assault weapons ban came to pass - where better is a limitation on action types/clip size related to specific muzzle velocities - you'd see higher survivability rates.

   144. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5643236)
The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 would legalize hemp

Does hemp have much commercial promise at the moment? My impression, based on desultory reading, is that hemp is no longer very practical for sailcloth or rope: it used to be the standard, but newer materials are better. Hemp clothing feels very nice, but is as expensive as hell – maybe greater supply would reduce the price. I once had a box of hemp milk that I poured over cereal. It was okay.
   145. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5643237)
It's fair to seperate mass shootings from regular crimes and suicide, as they are much rarer and of a different class. Still, given the psychological effect of having so many mass shootings, it's worth trying to address with policies we have reason to think will work (BrianBrianson, I wouldn't just assume that various proposals will have no impact on mass shootings; it seems like a hard subject to study and get firm evidence ether way of what works and doesn't work, but that doesn't mean you have to just throw up your hands and say we should do nothing).
   146. DavidFoss Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:50 PM (#5643238)
They are failing at that as well. Dunkin is just about the worst you can get out of the national chains. The only coffee products worse are their espresso based drinks along McDonald's espresso based drinks as well.


Somehow, they are every other block in Manhattan. There's almost as many Dunkin's as Duane Reade's. I guess in the summer, they have Baskin Robbins but that's a past-its-prime brand as well.
   147. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5643239)


I still go back to the point on firearm types, though... and specifically, that if a better version of 94 assault weapons ban came to pass - where better is a limitation on action types/clip size related to specific muzzle velocities - you'd see higher survivability rates.


Saying it for awhile now. No issues with people owning a gun. I don't wish to own one. I've fired one before. It doesn't appeal to me. But if you want one then get one and be responsible with it. But there is no need for anything really above a revolver, a bolt action, and a double barrel shotgun.

My GF asked me if she thought we should get a gun for our home. I asked her how she planned on storing it and what she thought she would need it for. Turns out the two aren't really compatible. Then throw in the possibility of having kids and those breaking in better be sloths or else she hasn't got a prayer of getting to her gun in time.
   148. SandyRiver Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5643240)
We've discussed it before, but there's a distinct and undeniable difference between the damage done to a body from bullets out of a semi-auto rifle with a muzzle velocity of 3000 to 3500 fps and a handgun with muzzle velocities of half or 1/3 of that.


And my .30-06 deer rifle sends out a 170-grain bullet at 25-2600 fps that has twice the muzzle energy of the 55-grain AR at 3000 (and 50% more than the 3500 fps AR), with the difference only getting greater downrange.

Guns are like tobacco, only even more dangerous when used as intended. How is that difficult to parse?


Is there any way that tobacco can be used as intended without being dangerous? To make the same claim for firearms would assume that all uses (as intended) of firearms are dangerous, including but not limited to hunting and Olympic events with firearms, and thus should be hit with lawsuits. I doubt that would be your intent.

I would like to see private ownership restricted to bolt action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. If that can be done within the bounds of the 2A, fine. If that requires a repeal of the 2A, then fine as well.


In addition to depriving me of the pump-action deer rifle noted above, this would likely involve over 50 million weapons, maybe 100 million since semi-auto handguns would be included. That would require many gigabucks in buybacks, unless confiscation w/o compensation were mandated. Would that be the best use of funds in the name of public safety?

As a non-member of NRA, I could support limits on clip/magazine capacity, say at 5 for most centerfire rifles and 7 for the venerable Winchester and Marlin lever actions, usually in .30-.30 or similar hunting cartridge. These have tubular internal magazines that would probably be very difficult to modify. For rimfire .22s, I'd recommend 10 as the limit, for the millions of 10-.22 rifles out there. Nearly all shotguns available to the general public have at most 5-shot capacity, and waterfowl hunters are limited to 3. The above firearms are rarely the weapons of choice for criminals or loonies.

Not being very knowledgeable about handguns, I'll remain silent to hopefully avoid being overly stupid due to that ignorance.
   149. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5643241)
It's fair to seperate mass shootings from regular crimes and suicide, as they are much rarer and of a different class. Still, given the psychological effect of having so many mass shootings, it's worth trying to address with policies we have reason to think will work


The psychology of one shooting of 30 kids in one school is entirely different than one kid getting killed at 30 different schools randomly throughout the calendar year. Even more importantly, it's easier to prevent the one shooting of 30 kids, and more realistic to think it can be prevented.

   150. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5643243)
Twitter after the Storm:

Jeff Tiedrich:
White House staff doesn't want Trump watching Stormy Daniels coverage this morning so two of them have dressed up as gorillas and are fighting each other in Trump's bedroom


Amee Vanderpool:
I'm waiting for Trump supporters to start blaming Melania for Stormy Daniels...you know, like they continue to blame Hillary for everything.


Craig Rozniecki:
Trumpsters: "Stormy Daniels was caught lying 3 times in her life! She can't be trusted!"


BallsOut:
So NOW all the Trump supporters are keen BS detectors?!?

Where was this spider sense when we needed it?


The Hoarse Whisperer:
This [Kansas-Duke] overtime has taken significantly longer than the sexual encounter #StormyDaniels is about to describe.


Kaitlan Collins:
Michael Avenatti, who is representing Stormy Daniels, won't say if they have been contacted by Robert Mueller's team.

CBS: Have you been contacted by federal investigators or the special counsel?
Avenatti: "I’m not going to answer that question."


Judd Legum:
One way you know Stormy Daniels is a serious threat to Trump: He has never once tweeted her name
   151. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:56 PM (#5643247)
Somehow, they are every other block in Manhattan. There's almost as many Dunkin's as Duane Reade's. I guess in the summer, they have Baskin Robbins but that's a past-its-prime brand as well.

Low build out costs, operating costs, and franchise fees. The Baskin-Robbins part is their attempt to try and extend their business traffic to other day parts than just breakfast.
   152. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5643250)
Saying it for awhile now. No issues with people owning a gun. I don't wish to own one. I've fired one before. It doesn't appeal to me. But if you want one then get one and be responsible with it. But there is no need for anything really above a revolver, a bolt action, and a double barrel shotgun.


This is like arguing "No issues with people having kids, but there is no need for more than two."

"No issues with women having abortions, but there is no need for more than two."

"No issues with people traveling, but there is no need to travel more than twice in a year."

"No issues with same-sex marriage, but there is no need for anyone to have more than two same-sex marriages."
   153. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5643252)
Re 148- if you were banning certain types of guns you could ban manufacture of new units instead of confiscating or buying back.
   154. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5643253)
In addition to depriving me of the pump-action deer rifle noted above, this would likely involve over 50 million weapons, maybe 100 million since semi-auto handguns would be included. That would require many gigabucks in buybacks, unless confiscation w/o compensation were mandated. Would that be the best use of funds in the name of public safety?

The government has never had a problem outlawing something that which was legal before. I don't recall the government buying back liquor after the Volstead act.

You want to keep your gun that will now be illegal? Fine, make it permanently inoperable otherwise dispose of it.
   155. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5643254)
I'm not saying we should throw up our hands and do nothing. I'm saying we should ask "What solutions to this problem are effective?" rather than spend our time arguing over solutions we already know are ineffective.

Yeah, it's hard to work out (due to the small number of mass shooters, and the smaller number of mass shooters who survive), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If we're serious, we can give it a try. But neither "camp" seems to have the slightest interest in effectiveness, which is why I'm so irritable.

For solutions we don't know the effectiveness of? Maybe, especially if they're otherwise worthwhile or whatnot. Maybe social approaches - more money for afterschool programs? Teacher training for early intervention?

When my son was born, the NHS sends around a midwife a week later to do a checkup, answer questions - but also surreptitiously check for signs of child abuse and such (gotta get the boy naked to weigh him). Approaches like that, that can address X but also have clear value of Y and Z make sense on their own.
   156. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5643255)
I was about to ask if Duane Reade existed anywhere outside NYC and then I looked it up and see they are owned by Walgreens.
   157. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5643257)

This is like arguing "No issues with people having kids, but there is no need for more than two."


Ownership isn't the issue. To go back to other points is it absurd to say I have no issue with people wishing to be armed but they shouldn't be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?
   158. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:03 PM (#5643259)
Re 148- if you were banning certain types of guns you could ban manufacture of new units instead of confiscating or buying back.

Wouldn't work. People are still finding rifles and guns from the 19th century being used by criminals, terrorists, and in war zones. Heck, ISIS is apparently digging up WWII landmines in Egypt.

Gun manufacturers and owners have flooded the market with extremely powerful weapons. Simply banning future weapons would still force us to deal with what we currently have for decades and possibly centuries.
   159. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5643260)
Has anyone against the weekend's marches or calling the kids names actually said where they DO draw the 2nd amendment line? Nowhere? Or is it solely market-driven? Whatever they can afford or afford to build?
   160. SteveF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5643262)
You want to keep your gun that will now be illegal? Fine, make it permanently inoperable otherwise dispose of it.

Presumably the point of the buyback would be to give people greater incentive to turn in their now illegal firearms. It's simply a way to get greater compliance with the law. Carrot and stick. It's not a question of morality, but of pragmatism.
   161. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:06 PM (#5643264)
152

This is like arguing "No issues with people having kids, but there is no need for more than two."

"No issues with women having abortions, but there is no need for more than two."

"No issues with people traveling, but there is no need to travel more than twice in a year."

"No issues with same-sex marriage, but there is no need for anyone to have more than two same-sex marriages."


No, I don't think it's like that at all.
   162. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:07 PM (#5643265)
As a child I knew of one fellow students who brought a gun to school. She felt she was being bullied and she wanted to put the fear of god in the person that was bullying her. She brought a revolver and a bullet to school. She never got caught and she almost accidentally fired it into the back of a student on the bus. I've always remembered that because I've struggled from that point on about why I didn't say anything. Anyway, the point I was making is that in my day I lived in a society in which the population had gone through a period of heavy regulation of gun ownership. Thus the weapons at the disposal of the angry, disturbed, and or unstable were relatively mild as compared to what people can get their hands on nowadays. Perhaps these guns were always out there and could be purchased but it sure seems ownership of these weapons was a lot lower 25 years ago.

So this idea that gun control won't work rings hollow to me.
   163. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5643266)
re: #159 Dan did mention a few things.
   164. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5643268)
Presumably the point of the buyback would be to give people greater incentive to turn in their now illegal firearms. It's simply a way to get greater compliance with the law. Carrot and stick. It's not a question of morality, but of pragmatism.

Would you like to go to jail? If not comply. Seems to have worked for governments since the very beginning. The vast majority of people will comply as they always do. A small percentage will not, as they always do.
   165. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5643271)
Banning manufacture of new units would leave millions available but would reduce future stock, raise prices for existing weapons, and therefore make those guns more difficult to acquire. It would be a compromise of sorts (I can only imagine this being remotely possible with AR-15 type weapons).
   166. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5643272)
Haven't they greatly simplified the CPR instructions that they give to the general public? I think that you're no longer supposed to do mouth-to-mouth breathing, and no counting. You just pump on the person's lifeless chest until professionals arrive. I suppose I could confirm this with a quick googling, but nah.
We did a class a couple months ago pre-child birth. It's 30 compressions at about 2 per second, then two breaths, then back to compressions.
   167. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5643276)
Banning manufacture of new units would leave millions available but would reduce future stock, raise prices for existing weapons, and therefore make those guns more difficult to acquire. It would be a compromise of sorts (I can only imagine this being remotely possible with AR-15 type weapons).

Banning all of them outright would reduce future stocks greatly and raise the prices for existing weapons astronomically which would make getting those guns even more difficult than just stopping production.
   168. SandyRiver Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5643277)
That has nothing to do with use of the product. Cigarettes are intended to be lit up and inhaled by mouth. Guns are intended to have the trigger pulled, causing bullets to come out really fast. That's what they're manufactured to do.


Continued false equivalence, IMO. Every time one inhales that smoke, some damage is added to the accumulation from previous puffs (if any.) Claiming the same for every bullet that exits guns' muzzles in ludicrous; probably most only damage paper.
   169. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5643278)
You want to keep your gun that will now be illegal? Fine, make it permanently inoperable otherwise dispose of it.

McCoy's so kind, allowing one to retain use of the civil liberties stripped away by him so long as you cannot possibly use said civil liberty.

If the Republicans ever somehow overturn Roe v. Wade and they ban abortion federally, I'm sure McCoy will be quelled if Republicans announce that women who agree to have their tubes tied can continue to have abortions.
   170. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5643279)
In the latest class I took a few years back the instructor told us not to bother with the breathing part because most people don't do it right, it stops you from pumping on the heart, and the whole sucking on a mouth thing makes people reluctant to give CPR. According to the instructor giving mouth to mouth can help slightly but the most important thing is attempting to pump blood through body via chest compressions.
   171. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5643280)
As a child I knew of one fellow students who brought a gun to school. She felt she was being bullied and she wanted to put the fear of god in the person that was bullying her. She brought a revolver and a bullet to school. She never got caught and she almost accidentally fired it into the back of a student on the bus. I've always remembered that because I've struggled from that point on about why I didn't say anything.

Tell me, exactly what did you say about the bullying?
   172. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5643281)

McCoy's so kind, allowing one to retain use of the civil liberties stripped away by him so long as you cannot possibly use said civil liberty.

If the Republicans ever somehow overturn Roe v. Wade and they ban abortion federally, I'm sure McCoy will be quelled if Republicans announce that women who agree to have their tubes tied can continue to have abortions.


Not sure I follow. Owning a machine gun and firing it is not an unalienable right. Owning a nuclear missile and firing it is not an unalienable right. I'm for regulating what arms you can have. I'm not for removing all arms.
   173. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5643282)
The last half-dozen times I was at Dunkin, the donut rack was less than half full and all the donuts looked cold and sad. They're basically a coffee shop now.
There's a Dunkin here in the lobby of the hospital that we've been in for nearly five weeks. The coffee isn't terrible, but the donuts are not that great.* They're certainly never something I would specifically crave. Like I know that a Big Mac is not a fine example of a hamburger (fast food or otherwise), but sometimes you just get a craving for a Big Mac. You know it's bad, but you just want it anyway. Burger King's classic chicken sandwich is like that for me as well. But I would never say to myself "I know it's not a good version of an apple fritter, but I just really crave a Dunkin Donuts apple fritter". Dunkin's value proposition is its ubiquity and convenience. That's about it.

*Not that we get donuts particularly often. I do get a cup of coffee from Dunkin every day now, since we can have coffee in the NICU of this hospital, where the previous hospital just allowed water. Interestingly, they share the same entry way, and are totally connected. There is a premium donut shop around the corner that I want to try (Do-Rite), but haven't made it over there yet. There's also a Stan's, which looks like a higher end chain, also have not tried them yet.
   174. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5643283)
McCoy's so kind, allowing one to retain use of the civil liberties stripped away by him so long as you cannot possibly use said civil liberty.


Does the "civil liberty" cover private ownership of nuclear arms? If not, why not? They're arms, and one can keep and bear them. Moreover, they would be very advantageous in warding off tyranny, if the time came.
   175. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:22 PM (#5643284)
and the whole sucking on a mouth thing makes people reluctant to give CPR

Hard to understand how Santorum even suggested it.
   176. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5643285)
Tell me, exactly what did you say about the bullying?

Nothing, I was a 14 year old. A few weeks later she disappeared from school. A year or two later she was back and giving a talk in our health class. Apparently during the time she brought a gun to school she was pregnant and probably having a nervous breakdown.
   177. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5643286)
Not sure I follow. Owning a machine gun and firing it is not an unalienable right. Owning a nuclear missile and firing it is not an unalienable right. I'm for regulating what arms you can have. I'm not for removing all arms.

Just less effective ones than the ones you choose to protect yourselves from.

McCoy's all for free speech! Just so long as it's not too loud and no more than, say, 300 people are able to access it.

McCoy's for fourth amendment protections! Well, unless you did something, like SUPER bad, not just regular bad.

McCoy's for freedom to practice religion. Unless it's like too silly with snakes or something or calling wine blood.
   178. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5643287)
Like I know that a Big Mac is not a fine example of a hamburger (fast food or otherwise), but sometimes you just get a craving for a Big Mac. You know it's bad, but you just want it anyway.

This is a wise statement.
   179. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5643288)
Does the "civil liberty" cover private ownership of nuclear arms? If not, why not? They're arms, and one can keep and bear them.

Ah, one of those "gotcha" questions like telling someone against a zoning law that they can totally open their store on the moon. There are exactly zero situations in the history of the world when a gun control law has prevented someone from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that otherwise would have been able to do so, so it's hardly a moral question we have to figure out right now.

"Oh, you're against abortion. But what if you had a time machine and went ahead and saw that the baby was going to be Hitler. Not so pro-life now are you? And if you're still against the abortion WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS?!?!?!"
   180. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5643289)
Dunkin uses contract baking nowadays so it can be a real hit or miss and freshness is lost if you go at the wrong time of day.
   181. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:26 PM (#5643291)
Maybe I take that back about Dan in #163. Re: #177, is there a line in your opinion for what type of arms one can or can't have as per 2A, Dan?


Ah, one of those "gotcha" questions like telling someone against a zoning law that they can totally open their store on the moon

Where is the line for examples for it not to be a gotcha question?
   182. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5643292)
Ah, one of those "gotcha" questions like telling someone against a zoning law that they can totally open their store on the moon.


It's only a gotcha question if it actually gets you.

If the civil liberty doesn't cover nuclear arms -- and it's hard to see how it wouldn't using the typical logic, particularly the need to be ready and capable of fighting tyranny (*) -- then how do you distinguish, say, an AR-15 which is purportedly obviously part of the liberty?

(*) Why would the government be allowed to deprive the people of weaponry that might actually matter in a fight against a tyrannical USG?
   183. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5643293)

McCoy's all for free speech! Just so long as it's not too loud and no more than, say, 300 people are able to access it.

McCoy's for fourth amendment protections! Well, unless you did something, like SUPER bad, not just regular bad.

McCoy's for freedom to practice religion. Unless it's like too silly with snakes or something or calling wine blood.


I'm all for free speech just so long as you don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

I'm all for your home is your castle but if somebody is screaming for help within your house I have no problem with the cops busting your door down and investigating.

I'm all for you worshiping whomever you want but if it involves pedophilia or slavery I'm going to be against it.
   184. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5643294)
Where is the line for examples for it not to be a gotcha question?

A remotely feasible scenario for one.

So, are you for or against killing five-year-old Hitler with a time machine? And if so WHY ARE YOU SOFT ON CHILD MURDER? And if you're not for killing child Hitler, why do you hate Jews?

I'll let you pick your poison, are you a child murderer advocate or an anti-Semite? Gotta choose one.

And you, SBB, don't you have an imaginary law class to teach?
   185. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5643299)
So, are you for or against killing five-year-old Hitler with a time machine? And if so WHY ARE YOU SOFT ON CHILD MURDER? And if you're not for killing child Hitler, why do you hate Jews?


Jeez, put on a yarmulke and give him a wheelbarrow full of candy, so we're not forced to make that kind of choice.
   186. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5643300)
A remotely feasible scenario for one.

So, are you for or against killing five-year-old Hitler with a time machine? And if so WHY ARE YOU SOFT ON CHILD MURDER?


If you have a time machine there is no need to commit child murder. You could kill Hitler during WWI as part of a battle when it would be completely legal. You could travel back in time and simply buy Adolf's father a few more rounds of schnapps on the night little Adolf gets conceived thus preventing his conception or hell if you really want to be extra careful you could get a prostitute to remove the sperm from Adolf's father that night. Simply killing a child Adolf is just plain lazy.
   187. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5643302)
Where is the line for examples for it not to be a gotcha question?
A remotely feasible scenario for one.


Well, my initial question was serious as it gave no examples. Is there a line for you as to what type of weapon can or cannot be privately owned as per 2A?
   188. SandyRiver Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5643304)
The government has never had a problem outlawing something that which was legal before. I don't recall the government buying back liquor after the Volstead act.

And that worked out really well, too! (Disclosure - I don't drink and have seen close at hand the damage that alcoholism can do. I wish that recreational consumption of alcohol had never become a thing, but recognize that the ship has irrevocably sailed.) If one wishes to experience prohibition plus, severe limits on firearms might have that result. (That's a prediction NOT based on what I would do.)

You want to keep your gun that will now be illegal? Fine, make it permanently inoperable otherwise dispose of it.


Actually, I'd prefer to continue using it, as it drops deer in their tracks. (And thus provides lots of low-cholesterol and very flavorful eating.) I'd add that someone who burns a lot more powder than I do can cycle rounds thru a bolt action as fast as I can work my pump gun.

Interesting that respondents have picked away at parts of my post they don't like but not commented on the clip/magazine limits I've proposed. I guess those have no merit.
   189. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5643307)
As far as school massacres, if there is information, I can't find it


That's because the NRA paid their flunkies in Congress to make it illegal to *study* the question.
   190. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5643308)
There was actually a paid Claque in classical music. Curse those filthy frogs!

They did have something like that in elections. They were quite often held in a field somewhere and the guy who got the loudest cheer won.* As there was usually a festive atmosphere it sometimes attracted groups of people who weren't eligible voters. So there were constant complaints that one side was padding out its volume with non-voting voices**. Luckily there was a foolproof way to deal with a shouting match with a disputed winner. Each group would form up, and march past the sheriff. He'd take a stab at guessing the bigger group and you'd have your winner.


*Usually you'd just chant the name of your man, which in the case of Sir Robert Pye created a funny episode. His supporters yelled "A Pye!, A Pye!" To which his opponents responded: "A pudding! A pudding!"

**There were also complaints from the "better sort" that elections were unfair because poor people were naturally louder and more rambunctious. As anyone could see this was the exact opposite of justice...obviously rich people's votes were the ones that ought to count for more.
   191. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5643309)

That's because the NRA paid their flunkies in Congress to make it illegal to *study* the question.


Of course, a) that's not actually true, and b) it's largely irrelevant, because you don't need to be American to study the question either.
   192. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5643312)
And that worked out really well, too! (Disclosure - I don't drink and have seen close at hand the damage that alcoholism can do. I wish that recreational consumption of alcohol had never become a thing, but recognize that the ship has irrevocably sailed.) If one wishes to experience prohibition plus, severe limits on firearms might have that result. (That's a prediction NOT based on what I would do.)

It would be virtually impossible to covertly produce banned arms in the United States whereas it is insanely easy to make alcohol.


Interesting that respondents have picked away at parts of my post they don't like but not commented on the clip/magazine limits I've proposed. I guess those have no merit.


Completely for limiting the amount and type of ammunition one would be allowed to have.
   193. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5643314)
A remotely feasible scenario for one.


It's entirely feasible for a private group to own and store a nuclear weapon. Obviously it's going to be tough for an individual to keep it in his house, but that isn't the applicable criteria. It's "the people's" right to keep and bear arms that is outlined in the 2A.
   194. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5643315)
190

Luckily there was a foolproof way to deal with a shouting match with a disputed winner. Each group would form up, and march past the sheriff. He'd take a stab at guessing the bigger group and you'd have your winner.


So Trump & Spicer are Medieval sheriffs?
   195. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5643316)
Well, my initial question was serious as it gave no examples. Is there a line for you as to what type of weapon can or cannot be privately owned as per 2A?

I'm flexible and pragmatic. Anything that can be used effectively in the context of the legal uses of deadly force, seems a reasonable line to me. As I said, I'd even agree, for practical reasons, on universal background checks and required training, so long as the basic rights were explicitly protected from Heller/McDonald overturns somehow. That exact form, you'd have to ask a lawyer; while I'm under the belief that Congress would have issues doing this nationally outside of Commerce Clause fiddledeedee and would practically need a constitutional amendment, I don't play fake lawyer and don't know the exact mechanism that would be required to make the civil right unassailable from statists.
   196. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5643318)
It's entirely feasible for a private group to own and store a nuclear weapon.

And since progressive nuclear arms control involves sending a whole bunch of money to nuke seekers if they pinky swear not to use them, it's a moot point anyway.
   197. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5643320)
Completely for limiting the amount and type of ammunition one would be allowed to have.


And ammunition can be heavily taxed. Heavy regulation/taxation of ammunition is the practical way you'd go about enforcing a ban on certain weapons.
   198. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5643321)

If you have a time machine there is no need to commit child murder. You could kill Hitler during WWI as part of a battle when it would be completely legal.


Now you're talking about an ominpresent time machine, which is just silly.
   199. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5643322)
I'm flexible and pragmatic. Anything that can be used effectively in the context of the legal uses of deadly force, seems a reasonable line to me. As I said, I'd even agree, for practical reasons, on universal background checks and required training, so long as the basic rights were explicitly protected from Heller/McDonald overturns somehow. That exact form, you'd have to ask a lawyer; while I'm under the belief that Congress would have issues doing this nationally outside of Commerce Clause fiddledeedee and would practically need a constitutional amendment, I don't play fake lawyer and don't know the exact mechanism that would be required to make the civil right unassailable from statists.

Such as?

There seems to be no answer in there.

I mean, if "I don't know" or "no line, especially against public school teachers" is your answer, that's fine; but this isn't particularly useful.
   200. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5643323)
Anything that can be used effectively in the context of the legal uses of deadly force, seems a reasonable line to me.


So you don't care about fighting tyranny?
Page 2 of 18 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogChristian Yelich makes baseball history with second cycle of season
(4 - 11:04am, Sep 18)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogOT - August/September 2018 College Football thread
(234 - 11:04am, Sep 18)
Last: CFBF Rides The Zombie Ice Dragon

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(539 - 11:04am, Sep 18)
Last: dlf

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(13 - 11:03am, Sep 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-18-2018
(12 - 11:02am, Sep 18)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogHow to fix baseball? Two ways MLB can improve its product without changing the game on the field
(13 - 11:02am, Sep 18)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(60 - 11:00am, Sep 18)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogSabrblog: What a Drag it is Getting Old
(17 - 10:54am, Sep 18)
Last: dlf

NewsblogWho’s in and who’s out of the MLB postseason?
(3 - 10:51am, Sep 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogSherman - Statistical Revolution Is Killing The Next Generation Of MLB Fans
(19 - 10:41am, Sep 18)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogHeard the song of a poet who died in the OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 17, 2018
(118 - 10:17am, Sep 18)
Last: puck

NewsblogMinor league baseball players exploring union as they continue to battle low wages
(6 - 9:56am, Sep 18)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogReport: MLB looking into umpire's bizarre interference in Mets celebration
(59 - 8:55am, Sep 18)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogUmpire Laz Diaz Picks A Fight With Bryce Harper Out Of Sheer Ego
(26 - 8:49am, Sep 18)
Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s

NewsblogBuehler, Dodgers blank Cards to draw even in wild-card race
(24 - 8:09am, Sep 18)
Last: perros

Page rendered in 0.7291 seconds
48 querie(s) executed