A Well Regulated Militia . . .

[ad hoc]

I honestly don't get why you're not making the same distinction with the Parkland survivors.

And I honestly don't see where the confusion lies

[ad hoc]

Parkland survivors are victims of gun massares
Holocaust survivors are victims of nazism
Survivors of Hiroshima are victims of nuclear weapons
Palestinians are victims of the occupation

People who have been victims of crime committed by immigrants are not victims of immigration (they're victims of crime)

Does that help?

[Tubby Isaacs]

If I've understood correctly, you denigrated broader expertise than being a victim.

[ad hoc]

No I haven't. I've argued that victims "expertise" is valid and real expertise. Not that it's necessarily greater than other forms of expertise. I'm responding to the argument that their pov has no validity.

[ad hoc]

You changed your post after I replied, no?

Just before. While I was typing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You said

What kind of expertise do you need to have at "horror"? The people who have lived through horror are the only real experts as to what it means (that's Silverstein's point, and mine). For Parkland what other expertise is valid?

Criminology is valid.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You changed your post after I replied, no?

Just before. While I was typing.

I did, but I hadn't seen your response.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Change your response if you want.

[ad hoc]

You said



Criminology is valid.

Yes alright. I did go slightly over the top then. But I was still trying to argue that their experience was an expertise that no amount of studying criminology could give one. But yes criminology is a genuine expertise and complements the expertise of these victims

[ad hoc]

Change your response if you want.

No it's OK. I was responding to what came across as a much more aggressive post than the edited version so it may read slightly more annoyed than it should but the content would still be the same

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yes alright. I did go slightly over the top then. But I was still trying to argue that their experience was an expertise that no amount of studying criminology could give one. But yes criminology is a genuine expertise and complements the expertise of these victims

It was just that bit I was thinking of, and I was being a bit literal.

[Tubby Isaacs]

No it's OK. I was responding to what came across as a much more aggressive post than the edited version so it may read slightly more annoyed than it should but the content would still be the same

Apologies for the deleted post's tone.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Bloody hell.

John R. Lott Jr., the controversial economist whose work is celebrated by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups, will take part in the second meeting of President Donald Trump’s “election integrity” commission.

Lott will appear as the final witness in the first panel during Tuesday’s meeting, on the subject of “Historical Election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence,” according to a report by Talking Points Memo.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://twitter.com/learyreports/status/966061854303965191

[Tubby Isaacs]

On the plus side, the aide has been fired.

[ursus arctos]

Bruno, there's also the option of voting the bastards out of office.

[ad hoc]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-debate-217032

[Hot Pepsi]

Bloody hell.

This guy is coming to speak here. He was invited by the Federalist Club at Penn State’s Law School. It’s not a very highly ranked law school. He’s going to talk about how the real problem is gun free zones even though his claims have been debunked.

Not much PSU can do. Unless they can show he’s definitely fomenting violence, public universities can’t pick and chose who they rent space to based on content, especially if students invite them. As it is, they’ve banned Richard Spencer and are being sued over that, but would rather take an L in court than let that shitshow come town.

We’ll see how this goes. I suspect it won’t be a big deal.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Is Trump seriously proposing this, arming the teachers, or is it a way to appease the NRA and deflect?

As my Year 9 students have said where will the gun be kept? On the teacher in a holster? In a locked cabinet in the class? What happens if a teacher gets really angry with a kid? What happens if a kid gets hold of the key to the cabinet? If a 13 year old can see some fundamental flaws to this I think we're in trouble.

[Uncle Ethan]

Of course he is. It means more gun sales. if the NRA weren't such a bunch of cunts you'd have to admire them for the sheer fucking nerve of it all. Run a lobby for the gun makers, buy politicians lock, stock and barrel (sorry), then claim it is about the people's right to bear arms and consistently massage massacres as a way to increase gun sales.

[Gerontophile]

Someone (ursus?) linked to an article about the history of the NRA, and how they went from gun control until the mid to late 70's, to full-on mentalists thereafter, including somehow getting the Supreme Court to make a ruling which thoroughly hammered in the Second Amendment to where it probably will never be rescinded.

*Apologies, it might have been elsewhere, there is just so much to sift through. (Thank HunkyGayJesus** for having to go to work.)

**Funny Twitter thing. Don't worry about it.

[wiblflibl]

Via Friendly Atheist -

The Florida House — the same lawmakers who rejected a ban on assault weapons while declaring porn a health risk — has finally figured out a way to prevent more gun violence.

They’re going to put the words “In God We Trust” in every classroom.

[ursus arctos]

A good piece on the radicalisation of the NRA

”Before Cincinnati, you had a bunch of people who wanted to turn the NRA into a sports publishing organization and get rid of guns,” recalls one of the rebels, John D. Aquilino, speaking by phone from the border city of Brownsville, Tex.

What unfolded that hot night in Cincinnati forever reoriented the NRA. And this was an event with broader national reverberations. The NRA didn’t get swept up in the culture wars of the past century so much as it helped invent them — and kept inflaming them. In the process, the NRA overcame tremendous internal tumult and existential crises, developed an astonishing grass-roots operation and became closely aligned with the Republican Party.

Today it is arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital and certainly one of the most feared. There is no single secret to its success, but what liberals loathe about the NRA is a key part of its power. These are the people who say no.

They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn’t a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This guy is coming to speak here. He was invited by the Federalist Club at Penn State’s Law School. It’s not a very highly ranked law school. He’s going to talk about how the real problem is gun free zones even though his claims have been debunked.

Not much PSU can do. Unless they can show he’s definitely fomenting violence, public universities can’t pick and chose who they rent space to based on content, especially if students invite them. As it is, they’ve banned Richard Spencer and are being sued over that, but would rather take an L in court than let that shitshow come town.

We’ll see how this goes. I suspect it won’t be a big deal.

Somebody like Lott wouldn't attract protests here, don't know about there. Federalist basically means loon in America, right? Here it means somebody supportive of EU integration, very different. One of those words like "Republican".

I'm always intrigued by people with far right opinions on stuff who seem to have academic cred. I wrote to another academic I'd seen Lott mention, John Donohue, and he said that the Lott thing was extremely dubious all along, but what's really done for it is the data that's come in since on RTC. Funnily enough, the thing Lott said about Donohue that caught my eye as dubious in the first place was actually correct.

[Ginger Yellow]

. Federalist basically means loon in America, right? Here it means somebody supportive of EU integration, very different. One of those words like "Republican".

I guess, but it's kind of a different etymology. A Federalist in the US is someone into (a particular reading of) the Federalist Papers and/or is a member of the Federalist Society, not just someone who espouses federalism.