On Jun 27, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 04:12 pm
posted by kizer permanente


Would you say that’s a good thing though? If your constitution was detrimental to survival? At what point would you change it? I get we can’t empirically say it is as it’s nuanced. But just as a hypothetical. Would you be open to abandoning certain rights? 

Since this is a 2A thread, I'll answer your question for that one with a resounding "OH HELL NO". I can't imagine a yes for any of the BOR.

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 02:38 pm
posted by kizer permanente

I mean... thats kinda counter productive to every tenet of a functioning society and evolution in general, no?

Perhaps, but the point of the BOR is that those rights aren't ours to give or deny. They come from a higher power (and no, it doesn't matter what one's specific belief is as to what that higher power is).

queencitybuckeye replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 10:26 am

Unborn baby is an oxymoron, you're half of that.

On Jun 25, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 07:05 am
posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.

It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

On Jun 24, 2022:

queencitybuckeye repped a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:33 pm
posted by majorspark

Are you one of those guys upset you can no longer impose your views on this issue on 300+ million people or just Ohio?

Sounds like you are trying to impose your views on people. I’m all for individuals deciding for themselves. What the fuck are you talking about?

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 12:47 pm
posted by gut

Well, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun.  If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.

Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others.  But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?

"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 08:12 am
posted by Laley23

That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.

Sad that something so obviously correct per the constitution is an outlier.

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 07:24 am

posted by gut

It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.

That actually does make sense.  But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves.  I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons.  But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed.  And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.

Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative.  IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative.  And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.

I get all the arguments.  What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.

The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.

On Jun 23, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 12:04 pm
posted by Fletch

Looks like the leftist judges are on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment again.

That the ruling may have negative consequences is an extremely weak argument for a "no" vote.

On Jun 16, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "2022 PGA Thread" at 11:27 am
posted by iclfan2

I do think it’s funny that they can still do three of the majors. I get the Saudi stuff, but if I’m DJ and they give me 150m, I get it. Set you and your grandchildren for life. Not that he needed it.

How do you turn that down?

At some point doesn't it just become a number? I believe I saw an estimated net worth of $50 million for him prior to the LIV deal. The question would seem to be what does he want to do that he couldn't have done at that level of wealth?

On Jun 15, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "What would you say....you do here?" at 02:43 pm

Own a small software development company. Concentrate on the hospitality industry, but will chase opportunities in other types of business, usually proving that I never learn.

On Jun 11, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "Covid-19 discussion, continued..." at 06:32 am
posted by Fletch

Went to a Dr yesterday and told them there is  no way I am wearing a mask.  They didn’t ask again

They should have told you to get GTFO.

On Jun 10, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "2022 Dead Pool" at 10:42 am

Terrible loss, especially so young. Condolences.

On Jun 9, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:34 pm

Would be nice if someone on the committee could reconcile the following:

"You'd need nukes and fighter jets to overthrow the government."

"Boomers who trespassed at the Capitol almost overthrew the government."

Same people.

On Jun 8, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:26 pm
posted by kizer permanente

Maybe you’re who Fletch meant  

$70 or $70 Billion - same thing more or less.

queencitybuckeye replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:48 pm
posted by kizer permanente

No one owns Berkshire Hathaway. But I’d assume you mean Buffett since he’s a majority shareholder. 

Not to brag, but I'm a proud owner of .000148 shares.

On Jun 7, 2022:

queencitybuckeye replied to "Gas prices thread" at 03:53 pm
posted by gut

It definitely takes at least a few years.  His policy reversals won't start to have an impact for at least another year.

Although it's also true that producers think the current price pressure is transient, and so they aren't bringing wells on line that become unprofitable when oil goes back to $60.

Also, I'm not sure the grid can handle millions of more EV's.  Numbers I've seen floated are $2T to modernize that infrastructure.

Can't they just print the money needed? What's the worst that can happen?

queencitybuckeye replied to "Browns season 2021" at 12:09 pm
posted by BR1986FB

This 24th accuser is a wild card. This wasn't a part of the initial group so, if he gets indicted, the Browns could end up cutting bait.

Even if things went from civil to criminal, aren't the Browns on the hook for the guaranteed part of the contract?

queencitybuckeye replied to "Guns and Mass Shootings" at 11:22 am
posted by geeblock

But as I’ve stated several times I would support all efforts to increase security, I just don’t think it should be the only thing that gets done. 

I appreciate this comment. There simply is not a single solution, and certainly no effective ones that don't involve increased security at the place these events happen. It's absurd to even pretend otherwise.



Already have an account? Login