1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

i didn't suggest that.  just asked what repugs would do different/better. 

Whataboutisms are not the answer. 

19 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Whataboutisms are not the answer. 

i know. that's why i asked a question. i'd love to hear/read some solutions other than "the dems have screwed up so what do they have to lose by voting repug". 

that's kind of how we got trump.

9 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

i know. that's why i asked a question. i'd love to hear/read some solutions other than "the dems have screwed up so what do they have to lose by voting repug". 

First I’d love to know what percentage of the homeless people are also ukn’ filthy crackheads.  Not to sound heartless, but more times than not people who are that far gone from an addiction are helpless.  They don’t want to be helped.

After weeding out those piles of ukn’ trash, I’d like to see what’s left.  Who are the people that have really fallen on hard times and has no family/friends to help.  Then we would have to come up with creative solutions to help those people get off the street, and find some type of job where they can sustain a life off of the streets.

8 minutes ago, bobeph said:

First I’d love to know what percentage of the homeless people are also ukn’ filthy crackheads.  Not to sound heartless, but more times than not people who are that far gone from an addiction are helpless.  They don’t want to be helped.

After weeding out those piles of ukn’ trash, I’d like to see what’s left.  Who are the people that have really fallen on hard times and has not family/friends to help.  Then we would have to come up with creative solutions to help those people get off the street, and find some type of job where they can sustain a life off of the streets.

What are you proposing the cities do with these "filthy crackheads"?  Put them in prison?  Pay for their 3 hots and a cot?

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

What are you proposing the cities do with these "filthy crackheads"?  Put them in prison?  Pay for their 3 hots and a cot?

Euthanasia 

10 minutes ago, bobeph said:

First I’d love to know what percentage of the homeless people are also ukn’ filthy crackheads.  Not to sound heartless, but more times than not people who are that far gone from an addiction are helpless.  They don’t want to be helped.

After weeding out those piles of ukn’ trash, I’d like to see what’s left.  Who are the people that have really fallen on hard times and has no family/friends to help.  Then we would have to come up with creative solutions to help those people get off the street, and find some type of job where they can sustain a life off of the streets.

Could just legalize drugs and cut out/down the black market trade.  Chicago is so bad because it's the main distribution hub for cartel businesses.  The easy money available for the young easily influenced kids dries up and maybe they seek legit means to make a living instead of blasting each other over territory every night.  Refocus resources used for the war on drugs to mental and addiction health programs.

8 minutes ago, bobeph said:

First I’d love to know what percentage of the homeless people are also ukn’ filthy crackheads.  Not to sound heartless, but more times than not people who are that far gone from an addiction are helpless.  They don’t want to be helped.

Yeah, this archaic thinking is part of the problem. How about we end the drug war and start treating people with addictions as patients instead of criminals? People do want to get help but we throw them in jail instead of trying to help them. 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

so there are zero restrictions to the right to free speech? you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or set up a projector on my private property that shows porn to the neighborhood at all hours of the day? I mean, any restriction on my right to free speech is wrong, after all. it's a clearly defined constitutional right.

if the governments sets limits on my right to stream porn in my front yard, it's just a slippery slope. 

We can’t yell fire in a crowded theater...  interesting that you would use that quote. Because it originated from one of the worst rulings in Supreme Court history. 

You see, in Schenck v. US, Schenck was a WWI pacifist who handed fliers to military aged men and urged them to resist the draft. He was arrested and charged with trying to obstruct the draft. The decision was such a poor one that SCOTUS later, doing something they rarely do, largely overturned the ruling in the 60s. 
 

That phrase, that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, was coined during that trial. 
 

There already are reasonable restrictions on firearms. They can’t be used unreasonably. Possession of any type of firearm is not unreasonable.

19 minutes ago, Bill said:

We can’t yell fire in a crowded theater...  interesting that you would use that quote. Because it originated from one of the worst rulings in Supreme Court history. 

You see, in Schenck v. US, Schenck was a WWI pacifist who handed fliers to military aged men and urged them to resist the draft. He was arrested and charged with trying to obstruct the draft. The decision was such a poor one that SCOTUS later, doing something they rarely do, largely overturned the ruling in the 60s. 
 

That phrase, that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, was coined during that trial. 
 

There already are reasonable restrictions on firearms. They can’t be used unreasonably. Possession of any type of firearm is not unreasonable.

yes, the phrase was also amended in the Brandenburg case to make it clear that what is not protected speech is to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. but the point is still that there are limits on speech.

there is a layer of interpretation then as to what "freedom of speech" applies to, and what it does not. "all" speech is not protected. 

the same concept for 2a could reasonably be applied then to mean that "people have the right to bear Arms, but which Arms are subject to debate". 

except for the most radical of folk who believe "Arms" as it relates to 2a goes all the way out to extremes - i.e. nuclear weapons, ICBMs - it's clear that there is a line at which the "right to bear Arms" ends. 

so where is it? should a private individual be able to purchase a M2 browning for home defense? maybe an anti-aircraft gun? reasonable people can disagree with where that line is.

I don't think it's unreasonable for many to believe in the right to bear arms, while simultaneously believing that semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 - a readily available rifle that can deliver a high volume of rounds in a short amount of time coupled with an incredibly high amount of kinetic energy inflicting highly lethal damage - don't fall within the spirit of 2a, which when written did not have to contend with considerations of public safety and gun ownership in the way modern society has to.

54 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

What are you proposing the cities do with these "filthy crackheads"?  Put them in prison?  Pay for their 3 hots and a cot?

Let them ukn’ eat drugs until they die.   Like I said, addicts that far gone do not want anyone’s help.  They live day to day figuring how to get their next fix.

51 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Yeah, this archaic thinking is part of the problem. How about we end the drug war and start treating people with addictions as patients instead of criminals? People do want to get help but we throw them in jail instead of trying to help them. 

You don’t get it, they don’t want anyone’s help.  They want to live out the remainder of their sorry a** life binging on whatever drug they desire.

54 minutes ago, rambo said:

Could just legalize drugs and cut out/down the black market trade.  Chicago is so bad because it's the main distribution hub for cartel businesses.  The easy money available for the young easily influenced kids dries up and maybe they seek legit means to make a living instead of blasting each other over territory every night.  Refocus resources used for the war on drugs to mental and addiction health programs.

I’m cool with ending the war on drugs.  What are the drug dealers going to do then?  I see a lot of legal distribution centers being the target of robberies and murders.

8 minutes ago, bobeph said:

Let them ukn’ eat drugs until they die.   Like I said, addicts that far gone do not want anyone’s help.  They live day to day figuring how to get their next fix.

How is that a solution to the crime problem?

1 minute ago, bobeph said:

I’m cool with ending the war on drugs.  What are the drug dealers going to do then?  I see a lot of legal distribution centers being the target of robberies and murders.

Your face!

9 minutes ago, bobeph said:

Let them ukn’ eat drugs until they die.   Like I said, addicts that far gone do not want anyone’s help.  They live day to day figuring how to get their next fix.

 

7 minutes ago, bobeph said:

You don’t get it, they don’t want anyone’s help.  They want to live out the remainder of their sorry a** life binging on whatever drug they desire.

This is true.  In Denver they were literally refusing to use the homeless center on lairimer st and instead set up a huge tent camp across the street from them.  Plenty of warm dry cots, but they would rather sleep in the cold because the shelter drug tested.  

5 minutes ago, bobeph said:

I’m cool with ending the war on drugs.  What are the drug dealers going to do then?  I see a lot of legal distribution centers being the target of robberies and murders.

they'll probably find some other way to make money illegally. 

pharmacies have procedures for handling things like opioids and other products that might make them robbery targets. securing the supply chain from criminal activity is a much better problem to have and solve than those the drug war created.

1 minute ago, paco said:

 

This is true.  In Denver they were literally refusing to use the homeless center on lairimer st and instead set up a huge tent camp across the street from them.  Plenty of warm dry cots, but they would rather sleep in the cold because the shelter drug tested.  

Unfortunately, we can’t fix everyone’s drug/alcohol problems.  There comes a point in time that people are just to far into their addiction.  They want to get high/drunk and welcome the day that they die and can rest easy.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

they'll probably find some other way to make money illegally. 

pharmacies have procedures for handling things like opioids and other products that might make them robbery targets. securing the supply chain from criminal activity is a much better problem to have and solve than those the drug war created.

Possibly, but where there’s criminal activity there is violence.  No getting around that.

1 minute ago, bobeph said:

Possibly, but where’s there’s criminal activity there is violence.  No getting around that.

"if you don't make something a crime, you won't have any criminals"

9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

yes, the phrase was also amended in the Brandenburg case to make it clear that what is not protected speech is to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. but the point is still that there are limits on speech.

there is a layer of interpretation then as to what "freedom of speech" applies to, and what it does not. "all" speech is not protected. 

the same concept for 2a could reasonably be applied then to mean that "people have the right to bear Arms, but which Arms are subject to debate". 

except for the most radical of folk who believe "Arms" as it relates to 2a goes all the way out to extremes - i.e. nuclear weapons, ICBMs - it's clear that there is a line at which the "right to bear Arms" ends. 

so where is it? should a private individual be able to purchase a M2 browning for home defense? maybe an anti-aircraft gun? reasonable people can disagree with where that line is.

I don't think it's unreasonable for many to believe in the right to bear arms, while simultaneously believing that semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 - a readily available rifle that can deliver a high volume of rounds in a short amount of time coupled with an incredibly high amount of kinetic energy inflicting highly lethal damage - don't fall within the spirit of 2a, which when written did not have to contend with considerations of public safety and gun ownership in the way modern society has to.

It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know about guns when you refer to an AR15 having a high amount of kinetic energy. The 5.56x45mm round is not heavy.  You get more kinetic energy from a hunting rifle. Also you talk about the volume of fire, which isn’t what an AR15 does. That’s what a machine gun does. Semi auto rifles exist for precision, not volume. 
 

But if someone wants to own an M2, they should be able to do so. In the history of the United States only one legally owned machine gun was used to commit a murder, and the murderer was a police officer. As a matter of fact you can legally own an automatic weapon, just not one made after 1986. There are civilian owned mini guns floating around. 
 

The second amendment exists as a backup in case the government is too oppressive, which for many Americans it is. If you want to argue that the second amendment doesn’t matter because weaponry is much more advanced, then the fourth doesn’t matter either because the founders never envisioned someone having electronic devices that could store an incredible amount of information.

Want to know something else? There are modern artillery pieces that are owned by civilians. 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

"if you don't make something a crime, you won't have any criminals"

Did the end of prohibition stop organized crime? 
 

18 minutes ago, bobeph said:

You don’t get it, they don’t want anyone’s help.  They want to live out the remainder of their sorry a** life binging on whatever drug they desire.

If this is what you think, I’m not the one not getting it. 

4 minutes ago, bobeph said:

Did the end of prohibition stop organized crime? 
 

No, they just found some other black market that stupidly existed. 

2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

If this is what you think, I’m not the one not getting it. 

So you believe that the majority of addicts actually do want to be sober?

Just now, Bill said:

No, they just found some other black market that stupidly existed. 

So making everything in the world non-criminal would fix the problem?  Like even say... Murder?