Comments on: The Seedier Side to the Legislative Process http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/ An exploration of skepticism, science, atheism, humor, and feces. Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:28:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Amy http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1732 Amy Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:35:49 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1732 I love you! Thanks for having a brain, using it and amusing me all at the same time. A I love you! Thanks for having a brain, using it and amusing me all at the same time.
A

]]> By: God http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1728 God Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:12:48 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1728 sorry to highjack the agenda, riders are stupid, one issue one vote should be the norm sorry to highjack the agenda, riders are stupid, one issue one vote should be the norm

]]> By: God http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1727 God Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:10:56 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1727 Okay, I apologize for my failed attempt at humour, I never meant to equate rape with concealed weapons. I only meant to convey the apparent randomness of your argument (to me) in a humourous fashion. The fact that you would worry about having to get out of your truck to stow your gun would be overly annoying is slightly humourous to me. I'm from Canada, and unless you live in Toronto or Vancouver, there is not a high degree of necessity for concealed weapons. If anything I am actually a hoplophile, I just have a problem with EVERYONE having the right to own firearms. I honestly think the US safeguards in place regarding ownership are inadequate. Think about it, owning a gun does give you an advantage to protect your family, but do you really want every gun loving nut to have one? Some of them are disturbed, and as far as I know the NRA and the law makes very little distinction, unless they actually did something wrong. Okay, I apologize for my failed attempt at humour, I never meant to equate rape with concealed weapons. I only meant to convey the apparent randomness of your argument (to me) in a humourous fashion. The fact that you would worry about having to get out of your truck to stow your gun would be overly annoying is slightly humourous to me. I’m from Canada, and unless you live in Toronto or Vancouver, there is not a high degree of necessity for concealed weapons.
If anything I am actually a hoplophile, I just have a problem with EVERYONE having the right to own firearms. I honestly think the US safeguards in place regarding ownership are inadequate. Think about it, owning a gun does give you an advantage to protect your family, but do you really want every gun loving nut to have one? Some of them are disturbed, and as far as I know the NRA and the law makes very little distinction, unless they actually did something wrong.

]]> By: Engineer-Poet http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1726 Engineer-Poet Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:20:17 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1726 SG:  You just noticed this?  The use of "riders" has a long and tawdry history in the US Congress.  Michigan has prohibited them, by a Constitutional provision requiring bills to deal with one subject.  That said, a lot of nasty laws which harass gun dealers and owners were passed as riders (because they could not make it as a one-subject bill), so revoking this useless provision of the law through a rider strikes me as poetic justice. I'm sure there are "NRA gun nuts" (nice neutral label there—no value judgements or prejudice implied! <g>) who don't think much of the way you rely on the First Amendment.  I happen to stand for the entire Bill of Rights, though I do have a quibble with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and would like to see that changed. SG:  You just noticed this?  The use of “riders” has a long and tawdry history in the US Congress.  Michigan has prohibited them, by a Constitutional provision requiring bills to deal with one subject.  That said, a lot of nasty laws which harass gun dealers and owners were passed as riders (because they could not make it as a one-subject bill), so revoking this useless provision of the law through a rider strikes me as poetic justice.

I’m sure there are “NRA gun nuts” (nice neutral label there—no value judgements or prejudice implied! <g>) who don’t think much of the way you rely on the First Amendment.  I happen to stand for the entire Bill of Rights, though I do have a quibble with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and would like to see that changed.

]]> By: Saint Gasoline http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1721 Saint Gasoline Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:36:33 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1721 David Ellis-- I just wanted to say I saw you using the 10,000 blastocyst or 1 child thought experiment in the comments of that blog entry, and I was quite amused to see the commenter refuse to answer the question and dodge it by saying he'd rescue both. It just goes to show how well the thought experiment works that they go to such lengths to avoid thinking about it. David Ellis–

I just wanted to say I saw you using the 10,000 blastocyst or 1 child thought experiment in the comments of that blog entry, and I was quite amused to see the commenter refuse to answer the question and dodge it by saying he’d rescue both. It just goes to show how well the thought experiment works that they go to such lengths to avoid thinking about it.

]]> By: Saint Gasoline http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1720 Saint Gasoline Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:53:32 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1720 Engineer-Poet, I didn't write this post to criticize concealed weapons laws, as I am rather ambivalent about them. Rather, I just think it is absurd that they tack crap like this onto totally irrelevant legislation as a way to either kill the original bill or sneak the added bill in. I did, however, criticize NRA gun nuts; they're just crazy. Because it strikes me as one of the silliest things to be so passionate about. Engineer-Poet, I didn’t write this post to criticize concealed weapons laws, as I am rather ambivalent about them. Rather, I just think it is absurd that they tack crap like this onto totally irrelevant legislation as a way to either kill the original bill or sneak the added bill in.

I did, however, criticize NRA gun nuts; they’re just crazy. Because it strikes me as one of the silliest things to be so passionate about.

]]> By: Engineer-Poet http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1717 Engineer-Poet Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:50:13 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1717 Comparing licensed carry of a concealed weapon to rape is a textbook example of the raving hoplophobia I was talking about.  Reason goes right out the window (I hope it didn't hit anyone). Incidentally, some national parks are getting rather dangerous because drug dealers are using them to grow certain prohibited herbs.  We can debate the wisdom of this prohibition, but mandating that hikers have to be defenseless against armed criminals on the federal side of the park border (which may not be marked) but can lawfully use a firearm to repel an attack on state land a few feet away is lunacy. Comparing licensed carry of a concealed weapon to rape is a textbook example of the raving hoplophobia I was talking about.  Reason goes right out the window (I hope it didn’t hit anyone).

Incidentally, some national parks are getting rather dangerous because drug dealers are using them to grow certain prohibited herbs.  We can debate the wisdom of this prohibition, but mandating that hikers have to be defenseless against armed criminals on the federal side of the park border (which may not be marked) but can lawfully use a firearm to repel an attack on state land a few feet away is lunacy.

]]> By: david ellis http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1713 david ellis Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:57:15 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1713 I completely agree that its disgraceful that our legislative system allows congressmen to tack completely unrelated provisions onto a bill. But I also have no problem, despite being highly liberal, with conceal and carry permits extended to national parks. Guns are the one issue on which I seem to be substantially at odds with other liberals. I completely agree that its disgraceful that our legislative system allows congressmen to tack completely unrelated provisions onto a bill.

But I also have no problem, despite being highly liberal, with conceal and carry permits extended to national parks. Guns are the one issue on which I seem to be substantially at odds with other liberals.

]]> By: God http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1712 God Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:03:55 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1712 I have never understood the nature of this process, it does indeed smack of the highest order of assholishness. Sorry E-P, I don't mean to disrespect you, as most of your responses are quite well thought out. I guess we just fall on different sides of this issue, because your argument sounds to me a lot like "if rape is legal on side A of the park and on side B, do I really need to put my pants on while driving through" I have never understood the nature of this process, it does indeed smack of the highest order of assholishness.
Sorry E-P, I don’t mean to disrespect you, as most of your responses are quite well thought out. I guess we just fall on different sides of this issue, because your argument sounds to me a lot like “if rape is legal on side A of the park and on side B, do I really need to put my pants on while driving through”

]]> By: Engineer-Poet http://saintgasoline.com/2009/06/07/the-seedier-side-to-the-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-1711 Engineer-Poet Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:47:14 +0000 http://saintgasoline.com/?p=221#comment-1711 Or in this case, they are paying attention. Like, they aren't raving hoplophobes and don't want to have to deal with being branded a criminal if they happen to drive from one place where carry is legal to another where carry is legal, but happening to go through a national park without doing the get out/unload weapon/lock in box routine and the reverse at the other border.  A major route happens to go through Great Smoky Mountains National Park, for example. Or in this case, they are paying attention.

Like, they aren’t raving hoplophobes and don’t want to have to deal with being branded a criminal if they happen to drive from one place where carry is legal to another where carry is legal, but happening to go through a national park without doing the get out/unload weapon/lock in box routine and the reverse at the other border.  A major route happens to go through Great Smoky Mountains National Park, for example.

]]>