The news thread

[Toy Revolver]

It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of gun rights.

i've emailed gun control lobbies and told them the only serious approach is an amendment

you're right that is very unlikely but it's also the only play

[SGR]

Light beer, to be fair, is kinda meh.

It's like sex in a canoe.

Fun and outdoorsy.

Great description. I love beer. And I'm not much for watery light domestic beers, but in the right context (hot summer day, after a hike or something - or at a barbecue with friends), it hits the spot. Also, sex in a canoe sounds like a blast assuming I owned a canoe and there were no imminent waterfalls.

[Jwb]

It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of gun rights.

i've emailed gun control lobbies and told them the only serious approach is an amendment

you're right that is very unlikely but it's also the only play

i would stick with the assertion that it's not just unlikely,  it's not going to happen. Period. Maybe I'm just black pilled on this but yeah.  I honestly find the idea of overthrowing the government and starting from scratch more plausible than peacefully disarming the most armed and amped up population in the world.

[Toy Revolver]

It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of gun rights.

i've emailed gun control lobbies and told them the only serious approach is an amendment

you're right that is very unlikely but it's also the only play

i would stick with the assertion that it's not just unlikely,  it's not going to happen. Period. Maybe I'm just black pilled on this but yeah.  I honestly find the idea of overthrowing the government and starting from scratch more plausible than peacefully disarming the most armed and amped up population in the world.

i agree ... i think repealing the second amendment is has a .000000001% chance of happening

but if your goal is gun control in america that's the play

[Jwb]

I agree to an extent.  In principle theres no doubt to me that it worked for certain countries like England etc.

But it only works if you actually ban guns in general. Not just the scary ones.  And that only works if you can enforce it.  Which i also doubt our ability to do.

But like i said in the edit to my post from earlier, i think if we are talking gun control in this country,  a properly enforced registry is probably the best play. It could make it harder to get illegal guns,  which are used in the vast majority of gang killings etc.  Which represents a much bigger part of the homicide pie chart than mass shootings,  which are still a very fringe and uncommon circumstance for a shooting,  as often as they seem to happen.

[Guybrush]

Why not just change the constitution? They're documents from a bygone era. Parts of them are downright corny.

I think parts of the Norwegian constitution either just got changed or are about to be, parts that have to do with royalty and how the constitution gives them no religious freedom (they have to be christian).

If it's out if touch with current reality and does more damage than good, then the goal should be to change it. Why act as if they're set in stone and are nigh impossible to change? They can be, but only if people decide it. You're a democracy. You're supposed to be able to change things.

[Psy-Fi]

It's like sex in a canoe.

Fun and outdoorsy.

It's an old joke, so I imagine you know the punchline but just in case you haven't heard it...

Spoiler

Fucking near water

[close]

[Trollheart]

I don't get it...

[Toy Revolver]

Why not just change the constitution? They're documents from a bygone era. Parts of them are downright corny.

there's a process to add an amendment

but the thought of allowing our current cohort of elected buffoons trying for a new constitutional convention- no way

you're right that the language is archaic and sometimes not especially useful but the system of checks and balances and the process for change are still gold

we need a new economic justice bill of rights and a no first strike military amendment and an environmental bill of responsibilities but who knows - once we die off today's youth might get fix this dumpster fire

[Psy-Fi]

I don't get it...

The beer is so watered down that it's nearly water.

[Janszoon]

It's like sex in a canoe.

Fun and outdoorsy.

It's an old joke, so I imagine you know the punchline but just in case you haven't heard it...

Spoiler

Fucking near water

[close]

Haha, I do know it. I first heard it from Eric Idle in that Australian skit.

[jimmy jazz]

@Jwb no I know, but if the vast majority agree there is a problem then it is a good place to start. I expected way more to be in denial and deny there is a problem.

I don't know if you've said before but in a nutshell are you pro gun or anti gun?

If you could peacefully ban guns in the USA tomorrow and be in the same position the UK is, would you do it?

[jadis]

I'm not trying to sound condescending here but most Europeans and brits really don't understand how firmly entrenched guns are in our society.

After Columbine, the NYT ran a lead editorial that read "the cultural fragments out of which Mr. Harris and Mr. Klebold invented themselves, and their deaths, are now ubiquitous in every community, urban, suburban, and rural."

Which is such a brilliant way of putting it. US media really fell off in the past quarter of a century 

[Toy Revolver]

https://pitchfork.com/news/aerosmiths-steven-tyler-issues-denial-over-1970s-sexual-abuse-allegations/

steven tyler is being sued for having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old 50 years ago when he was 25

from what i can gather they had sex in states where the age of consent was 18 and he bragged about the relationship in his memoir

not sure if he's covered by statute of limitations or if it applies in a lawsuit

the language being used is "sexual assault" and "rape"

the girl's mother turned guardianship over to tyler when she was 16

[Trollheart]

Am I missing something? How can he be claiming that the fact he was her guardian gave him the right to sleep with her? Surely, if anything, morally if not legally, it gave him the exact opposite? If someone is entrusted into your care you don't have the right to abuse that trust and then say "oh well I was their guardian". Am I wrong here?