Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Snowball fight!
Why do you think you’ll get better answers now
“You’re right that they won’t be able to save the whole country, but at least they have a chance of protecting themselves.”
I dont follow, how would we be able to protect ourselves against tanks, drones and jets with AR 15’s?
and at any rate “How is this not contradictory to other statements that you’ve said.” I wasn’t making a statement. I’m asking a question, WHY don’t I have a right to own armed drones ? (or do I) (my question was not what is the point of owning AR-15’s if we dont own tanks, question is why can’t I own a tank)
Syag
I don’t think I put words in anyone’s mouth.
The op posted a very non controverstial psa from zaka.
While of course in theory in shouldn’t have to be said the reality is, as grey matter said, that we aren’t always careful.
So instead of thanking the op for An important reminder. Or just reading it to yourself and trying to improve. He dismisses it with a condescending tone ““The Monday night quarterbacks telling us post facto that the decision upstairs would have been ” and it isnt even true since the op did not say anything would have been different.(Truth is I would’ve ignored if not for your agreeing)
Grey
attitudes like yours are destructive. you downplay potentially life saving advice “We all also have menoras lit and fires usually don’t happen” “”As if we all haven’t gone swimming without life jackets” ” Of course we have! thats exactly why these messages are criticalAnd that is dangerous and can lead to terrible consequences. Normally people roll their eyes at that “new batteries for smoke detectors? sure maybe one day when I have time” When tragedies occur we should acknowledge OUR (not their) dangerous behavior, not just say “Oh well these decisions are made upstairs no need to rely on lifeguards”
“The Monday night quarterbacks telling us post facto that the decision upstairs would have been different had people followed their advice. ”
Are you posting on the correct thread? Who said that. Midwest explicitly said the opposite as did the OP (ok maybe the Mod stuck it in but its there )” Disagreement about taxes is very different than when the constitution is clearly been ignored”
Agree completely. but who decides? For example I believe my right to free speech includes burning the flag. Before 1989 most states had laws barring said burning . when Gregory Johnson was arrested in 1984 for burning the flag, would you have supported his right to open fire on the police officer arresting him. OF course in hindsight the supreme court ruled he was right and that the law he was violatign was unconstitutional.
My point is who decides? If your argument th that we should have guns is to protect ourselves from Nazi Germany, you’d need a system in place to identify when we are on that track.
you air bag analogy is faulty. Airbags dont always help, but sometimes they do and those people are alive thanks to them. no mililita armed with guns has any chance of standing up to a Nazi United States, its not like well some btimes the milita would win.
KY
“Why must I stop there?”
You dont must, you can say whatever you want, see the first amendment 🙂
“Why can’t I point out that my position, IMHO, is protected and enshrined by law.”
you can, but that isn’t what we are debating, it is a silly distraction. Yes your right to own a gun is protected by the second amendment as interpreted by the supreme court. I did not dispute that point, that is not the discussion.
“Why is that not germane to the discussion here?”
Because it is a distraction (and is designed to be one). You say “. They should have to go through the rigorous process of changing /deleting and amendment,” Yes I agreed to that over and over and over Yet we are still “debating” it. which is what makes it so frustrating .Yes you have the right to own guns, that was never debated. in this thread.
SHOULD you have that right? you say yes even though it results in deaths (like cars which we agree we should be allowed to own even though they result in deaths) becasue you like them, fine.but dont say “I should have the right to own BECAUSE of the second amendment” That is circular reasoning, and a distraction.
“I believe you should treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am, … But if I act upon it and get caught, it will cost me dearly. Because I have no legal standing.”
Great example! now, lets compare it to our discussion, If I were to argue and say “no we shouldn’t treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am,* because the law doesn’t allow that”
would you accept my argument “Ok I guess we shouldn’t”
Of course not ! (correct me if I’m wrong)
you would correctly, retort, “so change the law! ”
On the other hand if I argued ” At night it is dark it is hard to see cars, NYC is ‘the city that never sleeps’ even at night its busy etc etc etc” or “No , It is a good way to keep the populace nice and obedient a citizenry that sits idly at a red light at 2 AM when it is clearly safe to drive out of fear of what big brother can do to them, is one that is less likely to rise up (especially if we disarm them)” then THAT is my argument on your proposal. It would be empty filler to add “plus the law doesn’t allow it”(* In reality I agree with you completely)
Just me
“There is also the importance of defending ourselves from the government in situations like Venezuela or nazi Germany”I have heard this argument before, I have a few questions for you
1) we aren’t going to be able to stop the government with AR-15 s. We will need automatic weapons, tanks armed drones here etc. Do you support my right to own those? Keep in mind the 2nd amendment says “arms” it isn’t limited to guns. So why are these arms ok but not these, particularly if the rational is to stop a tyranical government?
2) how does this work. Who decides if the government is tyranical. If I think paying taxes is tyranical do I have a right to protect my property from the IRS? Who decides?
Health
“You didn’t complain about Obama (Imbecile from Kenya).”when was Malik Obama presdient? was your supreme court case during his administration.
Look wehther or not you think these are problems is not the point. surely you agree there are some problems in America.
Just becasue a solution solves one problem and not another doesnt make it a bad solutionThis is a variant of the mistake you made in the op where you indicated that if it doesn’t stop something completely it isnt worth doing at all.
This position of yours is one of the most baffling ones you’ve had.
The collector I told your first argument too didnt buy it, “Look my 5 dollars wont help you out of poverty, so why bother” I’m going to try your new argument “look giving you tzedaka wont solve the shiduch crises so why bother”KY
“My position, which is that I like the idea of a citizenry with access to arms”Yes. nailed it period end your position there.
The rest is just filler, and is irrelevant to your position, since your position is not changed by the amendment “Correct I didn’t for my opinion because of the amendment”Say we dig up the annotated version of the bill of rights signed by Madison himself. and there he says specifically that he is limiting the 2nd amendment specifically to militias, and not to others. He specifies that it must be well regulated with all guns being registered, extensive background checks, waiting periods etc etc etc.
would your view change?Based on what youve written, I assume it would not (correct me if I’m wrong)
Becasue as you said “My position, which is that I like the idea of a citizenry with access to arms” period. It has nothing to do with the second amendment.Health
“If you listen to the Media & the Lib politicans, you’d think that the US doesn’t have a Murder Prob; only with Mass Shootings.”I listen to the Media and I dont think that. the US has many problems
– a murder problem
– lack of guaranteed healthcare problem
– mass shooting problem
– drug problem
– a president who is an imbecilefixing any of these is a good thing even , if if it doesn’t fix all our problems
Health
“Gun control doesn’t stop Murders. Except in the Liberal Mind”
and In Europe and Israel (though again, of course doesn’t stop, it limits)RY
“It has nothing to do with interpreting the Second Amendment as written.”
I’m the one arguing to interpret the second amendment as written .KY
“However I believe that currently I have the constitutional right to purchase any weaponry I want.”
Of course you do, The supreme court said so. I don’t follow when was that point disputed?“My position is not formed because of the amendment rather it’s allowed to exist because of it.”
But that isnt true (and thus dishonest) . you position exists regardless of the 2nd amendment. As you yourself said “Personally I would vote as you guessed.” your position isnt predicated on the second amendment. If the second amendment didn’t exist you would still support gun rightsMy Obergfell argument went up separate
would love to hear your reply“Ubiq I call it sidestepping because until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”
no of course not. The only law ii’m advocated for in this thread is universal background checks which already exist in sa few states. These are not considered unconstitutional (though of course that can change) .
and Of course the government shouldn’t ignore the 2nd amendment . I agree compleltly with this line of yours “A government must follow. The laws it operates under. That is imperative.” My reply though, was “Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.”
“Some say it allows armed individuals others say not. I don’t believe in today’s day and climate you will ever get a public consensus on that.”
We dont need a “public consensus” when Heller was decided 4/9 interpreted correctly. We just need it to come up again when have less activist judges on the bench trying to legislate from the bench.“So you can’t convince those against gun control, that it’s not in the amendment. ”
Of course not, I’m not tryin g too. I’m trying to convince you that saying there is nothing that we can do because of the second amendment is wrong .“Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.”
Beseder. So stand up and say that. don’t blame the second amendment.
Lets put it another way,
Scenario 1) if John roberts calls you and says , “Hey KY there is a case coming up tomorrow regarding expanding gun control, I’m just not sure how to vote what should I do?”scenario 2) 2/3 of both chambers decide to limit the second amendment ot a “well regulated militia” wait that doesn’t work, they decide to get rid of it completely. 37 states voted to ratify it the tie breaking vote in the 38’th ( making 3/4 of the states) vote is yours. Would you vote to repeal?
Based on your answer “Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.” I imagine you would vote not to change it.
thus it is dishonest for you to blame the second amendment. since even without it you still support gun deaths, I mean “rights” and given the option to amend it you wouldn’t.
I feel like I’m repeating myself more than usual. do you understand my point ? I’m concerned that your not since “until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”
KY
Let me try another approach
As you may know the supreme court ruled in Obergefell that the constitution guarantees same -gender marriage .Now imagine we are arguing whether restrictions should be placed on same-gender marriage.
Lets assume for arguments sake, that you oppose it.
and you make some impassioned argument about decline of family structure, leading to more crime , increases suicide rate etc etc. or whatever argument you make.And I reply ” oh well the supreme court ruled that it is constitutional so there is nothing we can do about it”
Would you accept that argument?
Health
“WHAT’S “WEASIER”?”Its “easier” with a W in front (W is right next to the E on a standard qwerty keyboard )
” is making it harder for Law-abiding guys to get guns!”
what percentage of mass shootings were done by people who were “Law-abiding” until they started shooting .
And again (and this was my question from the start of the thread):“Guns for criminals will be sold on the street like abused Drugs.”
Isn’t that better than just walking into your corner bodega and buying a gun no questions asked. We dont say people buy abused drugs in the streets so lets top regulating them (or is that what you are saying?), why is that an argument you (and others) make for guns.?PS thanks for satisfying ubiquitin’s law of the internet
“You keep sidestepping that”
i’m not side stepping anything“1700’s I don’t believe the right to own slaves is enshrined in the constitution”
Well it didnt say there was a right to own slaves per se (neither does it says there is right ot own guns) but yes the constitution made references to slaves (3/5th compromise in Article 1), thus allowing their existence
IT took a constitutional amendment to change it“As to your contention that the amendment reefers to a militia and not individuals, that is a debate among constitutional “scholars ” so it’s certainly not going to be a winning argument.”
i’m not sure what you mean. You grant that it is a debate. It isnt just scholars of course justices of the supreme court are divided as well. Warren Byrger a conservative called the idea that 2nd amendment applies to an indivdual a “fraud” The supreme court can theoretically overrule hellerI’m not sure what argument you think I’m trying to win.
The bottom line is the 2nd amendment is changeable (which you agree) or reinterpret-able (which you agree with too “debate among constitutional “scholars ”” )
So arguing that we cant do anything because of the second amendment is wrong.
Again if arguing that you don’t want to do anything because you think the gun deaths are worth it for the right to carry guns DOES make sense, and earlier you indicated that, but you keep jumping back to this silly point and I’m not quite sure why it is giving you so much trouble.
“That’s correct. That’s why I keep saying change the amendment and then I would not argue.”
Ah but I need you there with me at my side Uibiquitin and KY just like in the good old days, I can’t do it alone.
So are you in?And if your not in, thats ok! but dont keep blaming the second amendment, It is dishonest t o say which is what you are saying (though not verbatim) “We cant do anything about guns because of the second amendment and lets not do anything about the second amendment because reasons”
Avi
while not addressed to me, I like this topic“do you really believe that gun control will stop criminals and domestic terrorists from obtaining weapons?”
Of course not, but no reason to make it weasier for them
” How about instead of gun control having an armed citizenry as per the Second Amendment? ”
becasue it isnt working
“How about education – in particular bringing Gd and the Ten Commandments back into the classroom?”
We all know how religious people starting with the crusades up until modern day islamic fundamentalists never kill in the name of their Gd.RY
nope 🙁
and at any rate, Im surprised you’d discriminate between those who live near and far from shul“And perhaps their stricter gun laws keep them safer”.
Yes!
“That’s why I keep falling back on the stupid answer of the second amendment.”
Yes, but don’t fall back on stupid answers.
The Constitution once protected slavery, it once banned alcohol. It did all sorts of silly things.Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”
They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.
Though in this case we don’t even have to change it just revert to the original understand ing which applied to a “militia” oops I mean a “regulated militia”
Nopey bad I mean a “well regulated militia”I’m not sure why hunting should be a constitutional right. But assuming it should perhaps something along the lines of:
Unregulated Hunting being a fun way to pass time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This way the amendment won’t be about a “militia” and wont call for gun “regulation”
since of course you are correct, the the second amendment as written, (and interpreted until Heller in 2008) does NOT support huntersKY
“People who spend the majority of their time watching videos that glorify murder and mayhem”thats a convenient scapegoat, but I dont think it makes sense. Do European countries have less violent video games?
“Remember law enforcement needs to get it right 100% for these to be no mass murders. ”
Again, even if we have half the mass murders that would be progress“Will it stop some? Sure.”
I love when we agree!Rebyid
“they make it impossible for people to get around without a car by having exclusive use of the roads.”Totally true I spent all day yesterday staring out my window trying to figure out how I could possibly get to shul without a car.
AZ
” I would like stricter background checks and enforced red flag laws. ”
That i precisely my argument” I don’t have solutions, just some common sense recommendations that have been made by others before me”
whats striking is that even a majority of gun owners support many of those recommendations. but the NRA wont have it so we are stuckKollelman
“Where are you getting this from? States with stricter gun laws don’t always have fewer gun deaths,”See State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series
BMJ 2019;364:l542(Though of course not “always” it is a trend)
“unless you are counting suicides by gun. Most honest people will agree that the “national discussion” is not about suicide”
The article I cited was about “mass shootings” not sucidie. Though I’m not quite sure why “most honest people” don’t care about suicide, but in an effort to be honest I’ll srt aside my concern for suicides and cite an article that isnt about suicides.
“Additionally, comparing against other western countries is not a fair comparison, as none have a 2A, nor the deeply entrenched gun culture. ”
The 2a has been addressed several times in this thread. Other ccountires didnt have a constitution spporting slavery nor a deeply entrenched slave cuture. That doesnt mean nothing shoudlve been done regarding slavery.
If you think slavery is just, say so. dont blame the constitution nor slave culture.
If you think gun ownership is worth the price we pay, say so, dont blame the Constitution or gun culture“There are over 300 million guns owned by US Citizens, 1.2 guns per legal citizen (wikipedia). No other country in the world comes close”
Ummmmm yeah thats kind of my point!
“If legal gun owners were the problem, you’d know about it.”
again, um yeah.
(though to be fair, Im not arguing to take away guns)RY
“Good guys with guns don’t hurt anybody”Except that sadly, that isnt true, but not really the point
““Good guys” with cars make it virtually impossible to get around without a car.”
I’m sorry I’m not sure what you are trying to say.whasak
you remind me of my patient who was taking colace and Imodium. He explained while few months ago I was constipated so I started taking colace then I became loose so I added Imodium.Ky
“Guns don’t kill”
Neither do bombs.“I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights”
Fair enough Kudos to you for your honesty . So stick to that. thats a respectable position, dont repeat silly talking points like “guns don’t killl people” when of course they do study after study after study shows more guns = more death.“If we outlaw cars nobody would die in car accidents.”
Yes! I said that earlier that is precisely MY point. I love it when we agree.“Like I said change the amendment and it’s OK.”
Yes you said that, and as I explained iit was stupid becasue . 1) Ok so lets change it are you with me? 2) we dont need to change it , we just need to interpret it the way it was interpreted for the first 230 years or so of its existence“”I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights””
Stick to this argument. Your other arguments “guns dont kill people” or our hands are tied by the 2nd amendment make are foolishRY
whatsak compared cars to guns “Right, there are limits, but just like we have the basic right to own knife, even though ppl can do terror with it, or a car, but we still have the right to own it, ” I called it an “absurd comparison to cars”
though I’m still not sure what you are saying “But guns are nothing like cars, because someone else’s right to own a gun does not in any way impact your right not to own one.” How is that different than a car? some people choose to exercise their “right” to own one, and that in no way impacts someone’s right not to own one.
I did compare gun regulation to driving regulains. I am an expert driver, I can perfectly time my way through a busy intersection. howver I give up this “right” for the greater good.
Again, as Ive pointed out if you think the “right” to own guns is worth the price of more dead people. thats fine. but be up front and say so “Yes we have more gun deaths than any other western country but thats the price we pay for the right to bear arms” I disagree with that weighing of values, but reasonable people can disagree.
what bugs me are the silly dishonest arguments, that we have to hear over and over
Ben L
“But if it is more illegal to buy guns then they will refrain from breaking the law ”
no of course not, but it would make it harder.should I be allowed to sell unregulated bombs in my shop bombs-r-us? After all murder is already illegal Yet that does not seem to deter people with bombs from bombing others.
But if it is more illegal to buy bombs then they will refrain from breaking the law since they were law abiding citizens in the first place.“and that has really worked in Chicago, Baltimore”
no its not perfect, and even the strictest regulation will not prevent all gun deaths. but at the end of the day wehther you look at states or (western) countries those whit h stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths
whatsatome
“I think there should be strong background checks on all guns sold,”great, then you like me, are in favor of stricter gun regulation
RY
I assume your comment is on the wrong thread, I don’t understand what you are trying to say or its relevance here“Why isn’t a simple smartphone ”
I’m sorry a what?
whats
“Right, there are limits, but just like we have the basic right to own knife, even though ppl can do terror with it, or a car, but we still have the right to own it, ”says who? what gives you a right to own a knife?
do I have a right to own atomic weapons? if not why not?“obviously u have to have proper background checks etc”
you keep saying this, but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)
note I’m not arguing to ban all guns , but we do need stricter regulation., which it seems like you agree.
KY
I neglected to put in the source of the statistics in my last comment :rin Grinshteyn, David Hemenway,
Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010,
The American Journal of Medicine,
Volume 129, Issue 3,
2016,
Pages 266-273,RY
thats what I say when I’m waiting at a red light. no reason for me to stop because some light says so I have a right to drive! and even if people die as I hurtle through the light sacrificing their lives on the alter of freedom is a noble cause and they should be honored to do so“However you accidentally neglected to enlighten us on the proper definition of stopping the problem”
Easy my friend.
Health and I were having a discussion you barged in, misinterpreted his post and responded with something tangentialy related .now make no mistake this is an open forum and it is ok for you to join our conversation, but you didn’t ask me for any ” proper definition of stopping the problem” so I’m not sure how I can accidentally neglect to enlighten you on something I would have no way of knowing you were wondering about.
That said, I am of course more than happy to enlighten you (as always) Our firearm death rate is 10.2 per 100,000 ppl. The next highest among high income countries is Finland with 3.6 If we can get ourselves down to Finland’s level and no longer be #1 (USA! USA! USA!) that would be a resounding success.
“I was not trying to claim that what I am saying is what health said…. ”
It sure sounded that way “While I don’t agree with everything health wrote I think his argument is this….”
“Call it my own if that makes it easier to respond to it.””
Yep like this I can address response to specific poster.“and if they want to eliminate it, go right ahead. There is clear guidance as to how to do that legally.”
Exactly! See my clarification which went up laterKY
to clarify what I meant by “Falling back on the bill of rights, is silly”If you are arguing that “guns are fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man ,or whatever and although as a result of that need for fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man -guns we have one of the highest rates of gun deaths, but that is a price I’m willing to pay for my fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man- gun” so much so that I’m glad its enshrined in the bill of rights making it difficult to regulate. ”
I would hear that argument. I disagree, but we can agree to disagree (except for the vital to our freedom argument that one is real nonsense) .
People bring up the absurd comparison to cars / knives, obviously a country with no cars has less car deaths, but we agree (I assume ) that the price of deaths related to cars is worth the benefits cars provide. We of course regulate cars heavily (far more than guns) but the benefit outweighs the price.
So be clear, on your position: mass shootings are a price you are willing to pay for the unrestricted right to have some fun at the range/feel like a man etc.but the argument that “Well yeah its pretty crazy that we have such lax gun laws which of course result in our high gun crime rate, but “like it or not the bill of rights gives the right to bear arms” ” is just bonkers, isn’t true nor logical.
whatsok
“there is no point of legalizing heroin since legalizing it dosent help anyone, ”
says you! I think it helps me relax after a busy day at work.
” should we make knives illegal?
no. should we make grenades legal?“Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws and they have one of the highest shootings, the reason is because most of it us gang crime which don’t get they’re guns legally”
that doesnt mean we should make it easier for them. Chicago is a short drive from Indiana which has very lax gun laws (and as you should expect a higher rate of gun deaths than Illinois with their stricter gun laws)
“America would be safer with guns legal for ppl who went through the proper background checks ”
fine ill settle for universal background checksKY
“If we outlaw many types of guns, will that solve the problem?
Well drugs are a problem, and outlawing them didn’t really stop the scourge”The mistake he (and you) are making
is defining “solve the problem” as “stop the scourge”No, restricting guns will not stop mass shootings, and making drugs illegal did not stop the problem of drugs.
but that is not a reason not to try to limit shootings.“No. You are forgetting. The starting point is that the bill of rights gives you the right, whether you like that or not.
You want to negate that, you need to show probable benefit”No, Im not forgetting. this is a discussion Ive had many times, and the same silly arguments are brought up over and over. Health did not mention the bill of rights, though I’m happy to discuss your new argument:
Though worth noting )again) that I’m not defining “probable benefit” as ending ALL shootings or even all mass shootings. – This is the critical mistake you are making in your post.
Falling back on the bill of rights, is silly (and is really reading a lot into health’s argument that isnt there) . The 2nd amendment isnt Torah misinai. It is man made, if it is stupid, we can (and should) get rid of it. (the idea that we are stuck with it “whether you like it or not” is not factual, look at slavery, prohibition). Furthermore the actual amendment’s meaning is debatable as It can (and has been) reinterpreted over the years thanks to the NRA lobbying hard for their more expansive interpretation which was not how it was historicly understood, and likely not how it was intended .
Moreover all agree that there are limits on the 2nd amendment. Do I have a right to buy a bomb? The 2nd amendment isnt limited to “guns” (arms are defined as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” In johnsohn’;s dictionary in 1755) Should bombs be regulated? that didnt stop the boston marathon bombing, 2016 NY pipe bombs, etc… So why limit the 2nd amendment if bomb attacks have occurred anyway?whatsak
“By legalizing guns u give the good guys a chance to fight back, and it creates a deterrent to shooters if they know everyone carries”If that were true, states and counties with a higher rate of gun ownership would have a lower rate of gun crimes, yet the reverse is true.
Health,
“You can’t get it. Legality doesn’t make any difference.”So I have you right. You believe heroin, drunk driving and murder should be legal. correct?
Health
“What people, mainly Libs, fail to understand, that making something illegal doesn’t Stop it’s usage.”
While of course true that is an absurd reason to legalize itI ask you again, should unrestricted heroin be legal?
for that matter should drunk driving? murder?RY
+1
well saidrebyid
“Ubiquitin, it’s not comparable ”
1) correct, the comparison is absurd. I’m not comparing the two.Health was arguing (implying) that just like making heroin illegal doesnt stop its abuse, so to restricting guns wont stop their abuse .
to which I was pointing out, that the comparison makes no sense , that isnt a reason not to restrict them.2) If you want to interpret my comment as comparing gun control to drug regulation, don’t get too caught up in heroin. A better comparison would be to opiates, which do serve a legitimate purpose, and we regulate them. Of course people go around the law, but nobody I know has argued People abuse oxycontin anyway lets stop regulating it.
3) Who decides what is legitimate? I enjoy getting high after a long day at work who is to say that isn’t legitimate, It doesn’t affect you
“do we really need it?”
Again who is “we”
You don’t need it apparently. Mazel tov
Others do, work on farginning others.
Health
So are you arguing that because people abuse heroin anyway, we should make it regularly available no questions asked?
If not your comparison makes no sense
Who decides what is a “needless” chasuna expense.
Everything more than a minyan some wine and an item worth a shava peruta is needless.
You dont want to do it, great your a big boy dont do it.
Others want to do it, why does that bother you? work on your own farginning others before coming up with silly takanos“The way to annul gezeiros is through yeshiva, tefilah, & tzedaka, not through politics.”
Thats your way. Yaakov avinu taught us the way to fight antisemites is with “doron , tefila, and milchama”
Nu Joseph
what are you waiting for?Best case scenario you get killed Al Kiddush Hashem which (you claim) is another one of your dreams
Rebyid
“Regulated by the state?”that would be unconstitutional. the constitution calls for it to e “well regulated” just some minor gun regulations are not enough.
Millhouse
“And the US militia consists…”you mean “consisted of” I assure you I’m not part of any militia.
And just so I have your position correct, you are saying that there is no constitutional right to bear arms for 1) disabled 2) women and 3) those over 45 or under 17. correct?KY
“I understand their position fully”
Fantastic! then my work here is doneReb yid then its a cake
CTL potato starch counts as “flour” in a pinch. A cheescake that is just cheese in a round dish is not a cake
“What about a cake of soap?” Exactly! an ice cream smothered in frosting is as much a cake as a cake of soap is
At last a contention worthy of debate
No it is not a cake. A Cake has to have some flour . If you crush cookies on it then it would be a cake but ice cream covered in frosting is not a cake.
(I’d also like to discuss if a hotdog is a sandwich)
KY
“Before the government gets free with my money by upping my workers salary so that he has more money in his pocket”
but thats not their claim, they claim the point is so that he has more money to spend and buy the ice cream that he produces.so you sell more ice cream making more profit, he buys more ice cream going to sleep happy and everybody wins!
Again, and I cant stress this enough, you can disagree with the above as many do, but understand the position correctly thats all
“You have a mega wealthy entity (government)”
I agree that the government shouldn’t be wealthy, I dont know enough (and I d think that should be readily available), where every tax dollar is spent. I was not aware that the government just hordes wealth, if they do I agree with you whole heartedly that that is wrong.“BTW why would I be against WIC Food stamps et al …?:
In my experience, (no data to back this up) those who oppose minimum wage also oppose govt relief for the poor. All out of concern for their well being of courseNC
” Comment’s like Avi’s just further prove that you guys only start these threads because of the inferiority complexes you MO folks all seem to have.”
I do agree about Avi’s strange inferiority complex, but your comments only serve to worsen it, as it is built on a blatant dishonesty. You say “For example, relying on heter mechirah is not something surprising and/or out-of-line for the OU to do.” Yet a quick google search shows “Though many great Rabbis advocated in favor of this sale (known as the Heter Mechira), other great Rabbis stood in strong opposition, and the OU sides with the stringent opinion when endorsing Israeli produce. ” From the OU’s website.
Thus if your answer to the question “Why do some Americans not eat the OU hechsher in E”Y?” is because they rely on the heter mechira. then its fair to conclude your opposition isnt grounded in fact.
I
KY
I am by no means a “brilliant economists” but I’ll try to explain the other side. You say “Nobody is forcing anyone to buy overpriced ice cream.” Now that is obviously true, but it is NOT true that “Nobody is forcing anyone to get a job”
If you overcharge for ice cream, then people don’t buy ice cream no problem.
If you underpay for work people still need to work so they work for less pay then they are worth.Of course for most jobs this isnt an issue you only want ot pay 100K and I want 101K ? So I decide either I settle for your 100K or look elsewhere. But by definition, at the lowest pay job there is no “elsewhere” If say, Mcdonalds doesnt pay me $7, burger King wont either So I’ll be stuck taking that $6 job which of course turns int o$5 … $4 unless someone comes in and caps that minimum amount.
Hope that helps, again as to the consequences of the above, there is some debate, as IVe said but hopefully you can understand where those who support minimum wage are coming from. As to what that wage shuld be that is a separate albeit related topic
I dont really understand your comment about the Government “Maybe they should pay their fair share to the poor” They do! food stamps, wellfare, Im surprised you too support all that
“However, the main avodah of Tisha B’Av is aveilus.”
csr1
Why will you take a break from aveilus during mincha to read Dirshu Hashem What does that have to do with aveilus?
Avi K
“The fact that unemployment did not go down when the minimum wage goes up means nothing. ”Of course it means nothing. Youre mind is made up and no amount of data that points the opposite direction will change it.
I still remember your bizarre assertion that the Torah supports pure free market capitalism, ignoring the fact that the torah opposes many many pure free market ideas (eg charging interest, permanently selling property (in most cases), price gouging – ona’ah, long term loans (all loans become dissolved at shemita according to the Torah), unregulated competition – hasagas gvul, undercutting someone else – ani hamehapech bechararah etc)
now while not directly related to his topic, I bring it up because in spite of all these indisputable facts, you still cling to your bonkers notion.
As to the actual topic at hand, I am not arguing You mention “See also (online) No, Krueger Didn’t ‘Prov[e] that Raising the Minimum Wage Doesn’t Increase Unemployment’ by Thomas Firey/”
Yes, as I said I saw that, as I said: “Of course don’t be so confident in your find since as I mentioned there are economists and data that disagree.”and of course unlike you I read the article you cite here are some choice quotes: “So, are Card and Krueger’s conclusions certainly wrong? No,” … “However, even if minimum wage increases contribute to disemployment, that doesn’t decide whether a minimum wage increase is good policy. That decision is a matter of values, not economics. Reasonable and honorable arguments can be made both for a low minimum wage (or none at all) that promotes a large number of low-paying jobs to complement the many higher-paying jobs in the economy, and for a higher minimum wage that forces a shift to higher-paying, albeit fewer, jobs.”
Or as I put it ” My position was that it is not so simple, leading economists are divided on the issue.” .
Many economists disagree with him, and even the expert you cite who does oppose minumum wage concedes that there is room for disagreement (though not from an economics view per se in this case)CA
I didnt search for the article but I do remember the discussion. My position was that it is not so simple, leading economists are divided on the issue. thank you for supplying more support for my position, but it really isnt neccesary, Ive read both sides and looked at both side’s data to see that it isnt at all starightforward notr black and white.
The article you quoted shows exactly that ” Both numbers [ie unemployment nationally and at the state level] have remained relatively steady during the past year.” This in spite of the fact that “New York City’s minimum wage has increased three times for employers with at least 11 employees in the past three years. At the end of 2016, the hourly rate rose to $11 from $9 an hour. In 2018, the minimum wage jumped to $13 from $11 an hour.”
So the article YOU cited shows that raising minimal wage does NOT lead to greater unemployment. This of course supports the research of Card and Krueger in their classic 1992 study comparing employment in fast food chains in PA and NJ (ie same geographic location) when NJ raised their minumum wage.Of course don’t be so confident in your find since as I mentioned there are economists and data that disagree.
Fantastic news csr1, I’m here to answer your questions!
quick disclaimer,: I havent seen the video you mention, but I’m assuming its some sort of kiruv promoting stuff
” But what does this have to do with Tisha B’Av. ”
1) Chazal tell us that the beis hamikdash was destroyed because of sinas chinam. What better way to rectify that than by promoting love among klal yisorel, and what better way to show love for klal yisorel than to bring them closer to Hashem
2) how sad that on Tissha baav so many don’t know what we once had, sadder still they don’t know what we have today and could have tomorrow if enough of us want it. The onl yway they will know about the churban, is for us to be mekarev them
3) As a result of this galus we have lost many to assimilation etc. There lack of observence is only as a result of the churbanhope those help!
Anything else I can help you with?