All bout america

Murder Mystery wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:Hey dudes, it's election day! Get your ass out and vote! (if you are a US citizen)

Voted. Took an hour outside, then an hour inside. Went to Subway afterwards and demolished a footlong tune sub.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the wait times in New York are horrendous?

Not in my area, but downstate i'd imagine so, especially after the hurricane. The only downside for me is that some states are hardcore red or blue (like mine), so despite it counting toward the popular vote, the electoral votes in my state are guaranteed to go one way regardless. Virginia is a swing state though, and the polls are tied there last I checked, so it will be close. Imagine if your candidate won the state vote by 1; although unlikely, I would feel pretty important in that my vote decided the race (even if it is true for everyone).


@Waffle - I didn't know Ventura was running?

Murder Mystery wrote:Watching election stuff here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/montana-election-results-2012-map_n_2047699.html

Have no idea how reliable Huffington Post is as a news source. Haven't really heard much about it. Anyway, if I'm to believe what they're saying, Romney can't win if he loses Florida, Ohio, or Virginia. As of now, he's projected to lose both Florida and Ohio.

So basically, I'm betting that his goose is cooked.

EDIT: Apparently, Obama is leading in Florida by about 50,000 votes, with 90 percent of the state reported in.

I don't use that site, for two reasons:

1. It is slightly outdated compared to the live map i'm using.
2. They are making projections too early (Wisconsin & Florida are still too close to call)

Use this one: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

As of December 6th, the purchase of marijuana by people 21 years or older from state-controlled stores will be legal in Washington.

Just thought I'd share :3

. ADestroyer360 wrote:As of December 6th, the purchase of marijuana by people 21 years or older from state-controlled stores will be legal in Washington.

Just thought I'd share :3

As far as I know, it already is in Colorado (1st state ever), as of today.

Looks like Nate Silver of 538 called the election precisely, INCLUDING the slight Obama victory in Florida (recount pending).

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

eaustinn36 wrote:

. ADestroyer360 wrote:As of December 6th, the purchase of marijuana by people 21 years or older from state-controlled stores will be legal in Washington.

Just thought I'd share :3

As far as I know, it already is in Colorado (1st state ever), as of today.

Those laws are illegal because they're unconstitutional. They circumvent federal law, under which, marijuana is still illegal. They can and probably will, be easily repealed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/dea-drug-czars-states-leg_n_1967363.html

It's pretty black and white. If anyone makes a deal out of this, those laws are gone. They should look to legalize it federally if they want progress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-idUSBRE8A602D20121107

Anyway, so how about that status quo election? It's interesting because for the longest time, Republicans in the House place blame on the Obama administration for stonewalling, while the Obama administration blames the House.

The Republicans gained seats in the House, but Obama kept his seat. Fairly interesting.

Also, like the 2000 election, the popular vote was damn close, which surprised me actually.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:

. ADestroyer360 wrote:As of December 6th, the purchase of marijuana by people 21 years or older from state-controlled stores will be legal in Washington.

Just thought I'd share :3

As far as I know, it already is in Colorado (1st state ever), as of today.

Those laws are illegal because they're unconstitutional. They circumvent federal law, under which, marijuana is still illegal. They can and probably will, be easily repealed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/dea-drug-czars-states-leg_n_1967363.html

It's pretty black and white. If anyone makes a deal out of this, those laws are gone. They should look to legalize it federally if they want progress.

The battle between state and federal law has historically been pretty sticky when regarding marijuana. For example, medicinal marijuana distributors in California were shut down after years of service this summer due to selling weed, which was legal in California medicinally but illegal federally.

The fact is that these things have a kind of status as "basically legal until..." where the qualifier is: "basically legal until the federal government says otherwise."

I think this is an indicator of progress, though.

So in other words...black and white.

I would argue against it being progress. Taking one step forward just to get knocked right back that one step is just a fruitless endeavor.

Taking one step forward and then knocked back is more progressive than standing still.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Those laws are illegal because they're unconstitutional. They circumvent federal law, under which, marijuana is still illegal. They can and probably will, be easily repealed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/dea-drug-czars-states-leg_n_1967363.html

It's pretty black and white. If anyone makes a deal out of this, those laws are gone. They should look to legalize it federally if they want progress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-idUSBRE8A602D20121107

True, federal law is higher than state law, but it all depends on whether the federal govt will step in and enforce federal law, or just let it slide. For argument sake let's say that you're right and it is "black and white", but at the minimum it is a symbolic victory, as it shows general progress in that more of America is calling for legalization. Even 5 years ago, legalization would have never passed even in the most liberal states on a popular vote.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The Republicans gained seats in the House, but Obama kept his seat. Fairly interesting.

Also, like the 2000 election, the popular vote was damn close, which surprised me actually.

Err, no. The house seats haven't been fully settled yet; currently, it looks like the dems actually picked up a few seats, but not enough to take away GOP majority. House results so far here: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/House/2012/

As for the senate, the Dems picked up 2 more seats now (and the senate seats have all been settled), as shown here: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/Senate/2012/

Third, the popular vote isn't even fully in yet, but as of right now, Obama is about 3 million votes ahead (~60.3m vs ~57.5m). In 2008, there was about a 10 million vote gap, so while I agree it is closer, 3 million isn't that close. In addition, that 3 million gap is expected to slightly grow as the final popular votes are still counted (mostly in major Blue states). For perspective, the 2000 election had a ~500,000 vote gap, in which favored Gore, in which was far closer.

All these white people ruining my country

Even if weed was legal and they sold it at stores and shit, who'd buy it? You already know they'd tax the fuck out of it like they do with cigarettes. Nothing would change, people would still buy dubs off there buddies and smoke by themselves or with friends. Legal or not, nothing would change. Except maybe the faggot hippy motherfuckers would quit bitching about how a plant that has so many "medicinal" qualities is illegal. Shits not medicinal, just makes you wanna max on some good ass food and go to sleep.


and people need to shut the fuck up about the election, neither one of them can possibly fuck this country up anymore then it already is unless they fucking nuke canada or some shit. FUCK

shit



i have no idea what i just said


and sgt your signature is gay as fuck, what the fuck is wrong with you. MLP is the gayest thing since fucking hoola hoops... I mean the one in the middle has a fucking tramp stamp for fucks sake..

alright im just gonna stop now..

So I got bored today and decided to watch some propaganda err I mean Fox News. Check out today's main headlines:

Spoiler:

LOL.

steveeeee wrote:

and sgt your signature is gay as fuck, what the fuck is wrong with you. MLP is the gayest thing since fucking hoola hoops... I mean the one in the middle has a fucking tramp stamp for fucks sake..

alright im just gonna stop now..

Ha
Also, steve are you implying hoola hoops are gay? What is wrong with you



@Erik I wish I was smart enough to understand any of that

Saw this, felt like sharing.

http://survivinglifeinsweden.blogspot.ca/2012/12/swedish-gun-laws-yes-there-are-many.html

maybe this could work

KZ Powned wrote:http://survivinglifeinsweden.blogspot.ca/2012/12/swedish-gun-laws-yes-there-are-many.html

maybe this could work

Ideally that would be a good solution, but many just wouldn't buy it. Using guns for hunting is fine, as i'm sure most agree, but, you don't need a military grade semi-auto assault weapon, or 30 round clip, to take down a deer. The only purpose they serve is to kill other humans, hence the "military style" to be used by the military in combat, fighting other people, not animals. Of course, try telling that to a gun-loving conservative though, as they will just deny the facts, and hold the weapon a little tighter.

Adopting a swedish law version would only spark riots sadly...

eaustinn36 wrote:

KZ Powned wrote:http://survivinglifeinsweden.blogspot.ca/2012/12/swedish-gun-laws-yes-there-are-many.html

maybe this could work

Ideally that would be a good solution, but many just wouldn't buy it. Using guns for hunting is fine, as i'm sure most agree, but, you don't need a military grade semi-auto assault weapon, or 30 round clip, to take down a deer. The only purpose they serve is to kill other humans, hence the "military style" to be used by the military in combat, fighting other people, not animals. Of course, try telling that to a gun-loving conservative though, as they will just deny the facts, and hold the weapon a little tighter.

Adopting a swedish law version would only spark riots sadly...

That's a good point. Hunting, I've never had to use more than a single shot 30-06. Although going hunting using an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump fire stock would be fun, it'd be crazy overkill.

Well, unless you're hunting moose.

. ADestroyer360 wrote:That's a good point. Hunting, I've never had to use more than a single shot 30-06. Although going hunting using an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump fire stock would be fun, it'd be crazy overkill.

Well of course it would probably be "fun", danger translates to fun for many. I'm sure hunting deer with chemical weapons and missiles from an attack helicopter would be fun too (or miniature nukes?), but if you tried doing that the NSA and etc would be on your ass. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that is where the "purpose" comes into play. A regular hunting rifle serves it's purpose, and anything beyond that would not enhance the purpose. Even some of the most pro-weapon guys draw the line somewhere; otherwise, everyone would/could own ICBM's for recreational use; I'm sure that would be fun (for the owner only). A hunting rifle serves it's purpose, so therefore, unless you need a military weapon for a different purpose (like killing people, which proves my point), then there is no need for a human-killing machine to go into civilian hands.

. ADestroyer360 wrote:Well, unless you're hunting moose.

We don't get too many of those down here.

Reading bits and pieces here and there it sounds like some people here are anti gun and to them i say if someone wants to collect guns then they should have every right to it's not a matter of practicality its as simple as "I want this even if i don't have a use for it other than shooting it into a target"

Beep boop wrote:Reading bits and pieces here and there it sounds like some people here are anti gun

Not many people I know are completely anti-gun or "anti-2nd amendment". To my knowledge, no developed nation in the world has completely banned guns, just restricted them. If you want one to hunt, for other non-criminal uses, or even for self-defense, a hunting rifle or pistol will do that fine.

Some argue "it is my right to own any gun I want"; well, that right has its limits, and the 2nd amendment is open to interpretation. For one, when it was written, they had muskets. Do you know how long they take to reload? Let me assure you if a "shooting" were to happen then, they'd only get one shot off and it would be over. The founding fathers didn't have semi-autos in mind.

To further that point, take this second one: if we want to say that the previous point is false, then that means that we need to take the amendment as is: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed; it doesn't say guns, it says arms. This means, I have to right to ALL arms, including nuclear arms. Therefore, it is my constitutional right to possess nuclear weapons in my basement. Now, of course this is ridiculous, and i'm not serious, but it does effectively prove the point that the first point is correct, and the 2nd amendment has limits, and you don't hold the right to own any arm you want.

Beep boop wrote:if someone wants to collect guns then they should have every right to it's not a matter of practicality its as simple as "I want this even if i don't have a use for it other than shooting it into a target"

Collecting guns is fine, but military style murder weapons doesn't really make sense. These shootings kill many innocent people, and I don't know about you, but I value my life more than a collection hobby. For developed nations, the US has the loosest gun laws (not just in terms of allowing semi-auto assault weapons, but background checks and etc), and has by far the highest gun murder rate. Last year, the US lost more than 11,000 lives in domestic gun violence. In stricter nations, like the UK, that number under 50 in a year. In the strictest nations, like Japan, that number is under 5. The difference is huge. A life is a life, and I personally find it pretty hypocritical that we were willing to invade and kill other nations and take major action over 3,000 deaths in 9/11 (one event), and refuse to take action, or don't care, about the thousands of lives lost every year, that could easily be prevented.

Beep boop wrote:other than shooting it into a target

This brings up another semi-related point i've been reflecting on recently. The only defense people have for keeping semi-auto assault weapons is for recreational use at shooting ranges (no one uses them to hunt...). They claim that this is more important than the fact they were meant to kill other humans in combat. Well, for the longest time, I thought these ranges (never went to one, never will) used a traditional circular target system..

Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't many "targets" used look like this?:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/files/2012/02/target.jpg

Looks like a person / human target to me. The way I see it this just proves my point further that they have no purpose other than murder.

eaustinn36 wrote:The way I see it this just proves my point further that they have no purpose other than murder.

That's the entire point of the second amendment. The founding fathers didn't have semi-autos in mind, but they also didn't have hunting and recreational shooting in mind. For whatever reason, most people (on both sides) seem to ignore this and talk about hunting and crime statistics. Might be because most people don't want to come across as a crazy, anti-government militia nut. Although I wouldn't really fault anyone for being like that, not when dashcams have a tendency to turn themselves off.

The people who do bring this argument up will usually say something like "AC-130's (or whatever), har har you're fucked". But I don't think the idea is to confront the government in some sort of open war. I think what they have in mind is, for example, seeing some cop or soldier in their authoritarian future and shooting them from a distant rooftop. Guerrilla warfare type stuff. Seems fairly far fetched, but it's not like revolutions never happen these days.

I'd personally prefer "revolution" via legislation, i.e. not allowing history books to be re-written to give it a slant so that the next generation won't be a bunch of whackjobs. But I can understand why some people wouldn't believe that anything good could ever happen. They're probably right as long as Supreme Court justices hold their positions for life.

Desert Sleepy wrote:That's the entire point of the second amendment. The founding fathers didn't have semi-autos in mind, but they also didn't have hunting and recreational shooting in mind. For whatever reason, most people (on both sides) seem to ignore this and talk about hunting and crime statistics.

Well, not exactly, I was just focusing on the role of semi-autos for other uses. Personal defense i'm sure the fathers had in mind, but you don't need an AR, a weapon designed to mow down hundreds of people in a matter of seconds, to fend someone off. Also, recreational shooting maybe, but i'm pretty sure they hunted back then (more so for food than sport).

It's unconstitutional and against my rights as an 'murican to not be allowed to go derr huntin' in new yerk with my good ol' m60

ztron wrote:It's unconstitutional and against my rights as an 'murican to not be allowed to go derr huntin' in new yerk with my good ol' m60

Seems legit.