Kiyoat Husker

So this is happening....

21 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Did you know he interpreted the phrase "well-regulated" to mean "the imposition of proper discipline and training" rather than anything about guns? What a bunch of phooey.

I don't think that interpretation is a bunch of phooey.  The constitution's well-regulated militia is directly related to the Articles of Federation 's definition of the same, and it (the AOF) has a longer and more descriptive version.

basically it refers to State Militias (forerunners to the National Guard).  In the early days there were many issues with training, supplies, and deserters, because it was a part-time civilian force.  

Scalia's interpretation sounds more accurate to the original intent to me.  The question I have is the original intent of the second part.  It may have referred to militias too, but it sure doesn't read that way.  I wish the framers had added a sentence or two to clarify it all.

i think there is folly in thinking the constitution is perfect and not needing revisions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-supreme-court-map-congressional-districts-2018-elections-20180219.html

Quote

 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday released a new congressional district map to be used for the 2018 elections for U.S. House seats.

 

Its plan splits only 13 counties. Of those, four counties are split into three districts and nine are split into two districts. By contrast the most recent map, enacted in 2011, split 28 counties.

 

This is a good article from Politico today:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/19/why-the-nra-always-wins-217028

Why does the NRA always win, despite the repeated national traumas, and despite poll after poll showing a majority in favor of stronger gun control measures? It’s not the money. It’s because the NRA has built a movement that has convinced its followers that gun ownership is a way of life, central to one’s freedom and safety, that must be defended on a daily basis.

[...]

To beat the NRA at its own game, the gun control movement needs to better understand how the NRA has built an army of single-issue voters.

[...]

Gun control proponents don’t necessarily have to emulate the NRA and, say, launch a TV network. But they might consider ... emulating one of the most successful public service advertising campaigns in history: the anti-tobacco “truth” campaign.

[...]

edgy ads that turned teenage perception of what smoking represents from cool rebellion to corporate dishonesty. The ad campaign is not the sole reason, but it is widely credited for helping drive smoking levels among teens down from from 23 percent to 6 percent.

[...]

Like the tobacco industry, the NRA has been cultivating an image of guns as a source of freedom and cool, with the extra value of protection from grievous harm. A large-scale counter-campaign could help reverse that image, highlighting the damage guns do every day: the depressed never getting another chance for mental health services, the children dying from home accidents, the domestic abuse victims who never could escape. 

[...]

As heartwarming as it is to see high school students organize anti-gun marches, they are no more likely to be successful in busting the NRA narrative, or separating politicians from NRA money, than the parents of Columbine and Sandy Hook. The gun rights community is steeled against succumbing to sympathetic victims, as they have convinced themselves that they are above the politics of knee-jerk emotion.

I'm sure I'll get some backlash for this, but there have been some wild rumors about the shooter's political affilliations (both sides).  That's not surprising.  It seems to happen every time there is a shooting.  Snopes has weighed in on, and debunked, some of the rumors, but DID confirm something:

https://www.snopes.com/did-shooters-instagram-picture-maga-hat/

The now-deleted Instagram site with a red MAGA hat in the avatar, was confirmed to be the shooter's site by multiple sources, including FoxNews.  Here's a quote from one of his classmates:

Quote

 

Cruz always had his hair short and had a penchant for wearing patriotic shirts that “seemed really extreme, like hating on” Islam, Parodie said. The suspected gunman would also deride Muslims as “terrorists and bombers.”

“I’ve seen him wear a Trump hat,” the student said.

 

Also: 

Quote

on 15 February 2018, the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks and monitors hate groups, issued a press release stating that he may have been affiliated with Republic of Florida, a white supremacist group. However, local law enforcement says that as yet there is no indication of any ties between Cruz and any paramilitary groups, including ROF.

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I forgot I wanted to comment on this.

 

This sentence is really not true.

Yes, I agree.  It was a blanket statement, and not accurate.  Many chemicals are carcinogenic at some level of exposure, even some that people assume to be safe, and consume on a regular basis.  Many chemicals likely are carcinogenic,  but no causal relationship has yet been proven, so it is disingenuous to make that claim.

I think the statement that all pesticides are TOXIC would be more accurate.  If they weren't toxic, they wouldn't be effective as a pesticide, since the purpose is to kill stuff (insects, plants, fungi, rodents, etc.).  The level of toxicity to humans for different pesticides is the question, I guess.  Chronic exposure to any pesticide is something that should be avoided or limited if possible, IMO.

Yes, I know that pesticides have to go through rigorous testing before they are allowed to be used in this country, but I'll still buy organic strawberries lettuce and celery for my kids, just in case. (and thoroughly wash apples).

15 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

It's because the NRA wanted it that way. They've spent decades and countless millions aiding the movement to push those four words out of the modern interpretation.

 

This should be required reading to understand how the 2A got to where it is today & how any real change to it will have to be done.

 

 

It's also worth noting that the original power for the states to maintain militia actually comes from the pre-constitution Articles of Federation(1777), which the Constitution modified somewhat.  Here is the more-descriptive version from the AOF:

Quote

... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

The "well-regulated" line in both documents can be interpreted as a response to the recurring problems they had with poorly trained, poorly equipped civilian militias, and the lack of resolve from some of those groups.  This Wikipedia article is a great overview, if you care to read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

13 minutes ago, commando said:

i reread the 2nd amendment and realized something.   why do the first 4 words get left out of all the discussion about gun control?  "A Well regulated militia".  it seems that it wasn't meant to be an unregulated free for all to me.

Exactly.  Someone in this thread (not going to look for it) mentioned the possibility that State-level National Guard units could fit the definition of "well-regulated militia".  I mean, State-level military has been referred to as "militia" in the past...

http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

Quote

We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.

49 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Time to be blunt.

Here's the article.....

He will be a man, or maybe still a boy.

He will have a semiautomatic rifle — an AR-15, or something like it — and several high-capacity magazines filled with ammunition.

The weapon will have been purchased legally, the background check no obstacle.

He will walk into a school, or a concert, or an office building.

And he will open fire into a crowd of innocents.

Even as he’s still firing — crack crack crack — word will begin to spread. Survivors huddled in closets or behind bandstands will send pictures, text messages, and videos into a world that is again aghast.

Televisions will play the videos recorded amid the carnage, the sound somehow worse than the images. The fear in the victims’ voices will be familiar, yet too potent — a sound outside the boundaries of our own empathy.

We will hear about the heroes: Teachers who barricaded their classrooms or threw themselves between their students and the gunfire; concertgoers who shielded strangers as bullets plowed into their backs.

And we will hear about him: He was strange and troubled and cruel to animals; he’d shown signs of mental illness; he lost his job; he beat his wife.

A chorus will rise to ask why anybody should own such a weapon, much less someone so obviously troubled; another chorus will accuse the first of politicizing tragedy. Some will point to the Second Amendment, and blame a lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

Politicians, and then the president, will emerge. Some will plead for new laws. More will ask only for thoughts and prayers. Some will not mention guns at all.

Any promises will be broken. Beyond the shattered orbit of the school or church or concert that became a shooting gallery, the whole thing will recede too soon into memory.

8 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Aren't species essentially just made up human labels of categorization? 

Sure, but you could say that about almost anything in science.  Like math.  

Besides, it's not just an arbitrary definition.  Typically species breed with each other under natural conditions, and separate species either don't (geographic/physical/behavioral separation) or can't produce viable offspring.  There is some grey area there, of course.  Scientists are continually argue about whether certain populations should be considered races of the same species, or just closely related, but separate species.

Hybridization is the breeding of two closely-related but separate species.  Some hybrids are sterile, like Mules.  Some are viable, like wolf/coyote/dog hybrids.  This brings in to question whether wolves coyotes and dogs should be considered races of one species instead of separate species.  The argument with Canids is that they don't hybridize regularly in the wild, under normal conditions.  The problem with that argument is that they have shown some hybridization in the wild, although one could argue that this only happens regularly in the atypical environments we humans have created. (see the Northeast US Coy-Wolf)

Wait, What were we talking about, again?  I think I just confused myself....

5 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I'm kind of in the middle on the whole "natural organic farming" vs mass produced food spectrum.

 

I think food in its most natural state is the healthiest, and I like to support local farmers instead of commercial farmers.

 

However, we're going through climate change. We need scientists who can help farmers make food that can grow during a drought, and we need food that will grow FAST, for when we have shorter growing periods, and also just to feed the growing population. You absolutely cannot feed all the people on this planet with locally grown food. It's not possible. I don't know if you can even sustain have the earth's population today that way. There just isn't enough arable land. We have to have mass produced food in order to not starve to death.

I agree with all of your points except the lack of enough land.  Right now farming techniques and technology are so efficient in this country that we could easily feed the entire world.  We are also blessed with a huge amount of the richest soils in the world.  The problem is more in food distribution.

Also, consider that a lot of acres are devoted to animal feed crops.  If we needed to increase the number of humans we feed per acre, just converting some percentage of that to direct human consumption crops would exponentially increase that number.

A resource that powerful should be protected from soil loss with sustainable practices, IMO

1 hour ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I posted those links to show my confusion on this topic.  Not knowing which sites or data you can trust.

 

One site says Mars has global warming.  The other says it's bunk and not happening.  Who should I believe?  I'm not a scientist, I'm just a regular person who's, when it comes to climate change/global warming, I'm not entirely sure what is factual and what is bunk.

I guess I would recommend reading about science from respected sources rather than random websites that are biased at best, and propaganda at worst.

good sources for science news, off the top of my head, ... Smithsonian Mag, National Geographic, Nature,   Popular Science, Scientific American, Discover, etc.

Being a skeptic is GOOD in science!  That's how scientists approach their own research, and how they debate each other's research.  That's how you protect yourself from the propaganda-peddling and B.S.

 Be skeptical when politicians or talk shows or news agencies make assertions without referencing data or academic research.  Be skeptical of "experts" that have never actually done research, or been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that have taken money from special interest groups.

it takes a little extra effort to identify misleading information these days, but it's worth the effort.  

On 2/14/2018 at 10:08 AM, HS_Coach_C said:

Both the men's and women's teams are struggling to overcome poor starts to the season.  If both of these teams could have their November/December games back, I think they would be firmly in the tournaments.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.  They played the games, and weren't very good to start the year, which makes it all the more important to finish strong.

Which is why the RPI is sh#t.  They should be looking at advanced metrics, like Massey (KenPom doesn't do WBB).  Massey weights more recent record a little heavier, and looks at margin of win up to a certain point.

RPI: #59 (just outside the bubble)

Massey: #35 (solidly in)

15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well, one of the biggest selling points for roundup was that it greatly decreased the amount of herbicide that was needed.  You weren't spraying several times to kill various weeds.  You had one spray that killed everything but the crop.  That was a huge improvement over old practices for both the producer and environment.  Nothing is perfect and we need to keep improving.  Agriculture in the US is great at continual improvement and I am a firm believer that it will find a solution to this.  Believe it or not, farmers don't want to harm the environment and if it makes sense, they will do it.  After all, the healthier the environment they work in, the easier it is to farm.

 

The milkweed/monarch issue is one that needs to be looked at.  However, I don't think the fix is to just allow milkweed to grow in all crop fields unhindered.  

 

As a pheasant hunter, I would love to have way more CRP land in Nebraska.  But, farmers aren't going to do that without being compensated and paying farmers for things like this is looked down upon by lots of people.

Fair points.  I'll try to take the long view on Roundup.

As a tangent to this tangent..... What do you think about reversing the CRP policy of basing payments on the value of the land (which is based on production value)?  I get it that part of the goal is to allow even prime farmland to "rest" and be fallow for a few years.  It's a soil conservation thing.

OTOH, the "marginal" lands for farming are actually some of the most productive lands for biologically diverse habitat (wetlands, wetland-upland edge, dry sandy upland, etc.).  So if the CRP payment for those marginal lands were even slightly increased, it would greatly incentive-ize NOT cultivating prime habitat.  Overall, the government would be spending less, and the farmer would be making more, AND there would be way more bang for your buck in terms of native habitat.  Just a thought.

10 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

I can get behind the idea that people are in support of control variables. I'm sorry for my strong reaction. There's so much stigma in mental health already that I get defensive quickly. My bad for missing the point. 

You made a good point, though.  It's easy to say "yeah, that sounds like a good idea".  Then when you can't hunt anymore because you were diagnosed with depression, it doesn't seem like a good idea anymore.  There is so much grey area as it relates to mental illness, psychoses, etc, that trying to predict who is going to go postal becomes a fool's errand.  The gun proliferation and generally easy access is the bigger picture issue, I think.

It's like the good guys/bad guys debate in gun control, or incarceration.  Most people are in the grey area of that.  Many fantastic people in good standing in the community, etc. have still driven a car while drunk, for example.  Once they kill somebody, they immediately become a "bad guy", even though they had engaged in the same risky behavior before.  Or felons that turn their life around will always carry that "scarlet letter", and will always be viewed with suspicion.

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Your first example of the milk weed isn't an example of more pesticides being used.  It's an example of one being developed to kill a certain weed.  The argument is, do we want that weed killed at the rate it's being killed.

 

Round-up is one of the safest and less damaging chemicals farmers have used in decades.  It really is amazing how much safer it is to people and the environment compared to other herbicides.  But..it's used so often as a boogie man in this debate.

Well, just because I was using Milkweed as an example doesn't mean I am only talking about Milkweed.  The article mentions Roundup not to pick on that chemical, but because it is the herbicide that is used in a vast majority of GM crops.  As you know, Roundup is a non-selective herbicide.

So increased use of Roundup-ready GM crops = increased use of Roundup = very clean fields and very dead weeds.  Unfortunately, the term "weeds" can apply to both invasive non-native noxious weeds, as well as native plants that provide habitat and food for native ecosystems.  So killing lots of milkweed (and many other critical native plants) is essentially destroying breeding habitat for the Monarch Butterfly, (and many other critical insects, like native bees that are critical for agriculture)

If there was a way to ensure that a certain amount of native habitat could persist alongside GM fields, I probably would have no problem with GM crops.  Because the CRP program is voluntary, and prices/subsidies were up, much of that has been tilled.  Even marginal land.  That has probably had as big an impact, and is a separate issue.  But the fact is that the tiny fraction of land in the midwest that harbors functioning native habitat is shrinking, and GM crops are a big part of that.

I'll take your word on the (relative) safety of Roundup, as an improvement over other herbicides.  and the decreased use of insecticides is definately a good thing.  Of course, this is relative, because virtually ALL pesticides are carcinogenic at some level of exposure.

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Because some of us don't know the technical definition of GMO.

 

It's the fun part of having knowledge but dealing with lay people. We make wrongful assumptions/presumptions.

Kind of like the purpose of this poll? ....ha.... well played... I think.

2 hours ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

FFS, I tried to get ahead of this, but lets have the discussion.

 

How many of you know what a "mental illness" is? How many of you have any notion of the statistics surrounding violent crime associated with specific diagnoses? What about the "severely mentally ill" do you know what goes into that?

 

Do you really want to rely on 18 year olds to say someone else has "mental issues" because I can promise you even a good chunk of my master's students have no clue. 

 

Let's do a quick knowledge check before we advocate for something because I'd wager really good money that this isn't going to work out well for the side of the general consensus. 

I'm not going to debate the difficulties in defining mental illness, because I don't disagree with you.  Somehow drafting effective legislation on that would be difficult.

I was simply illustrating that on many gun control proposals, there is a large majority of Americans that hypothetically would be in favor of them.  Mental Illness just happened to be the one with the highest level of support from both parties, and from gun owners and non-gun-owners.  I mean, Friggin' 90%!

The fact that the NRA digs its heels in on any and all gun control legislation, even (hypothetical) proposals with 90% support, was my point.

I could have chosen some of the other gun control proposals with majority support from that poll, like:

1. Background checks for private sales and at gun shows = 84% in favor

2. Barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists = 83% in favor

3. Creating a federal database to track gun sales = 71% in favor, including 54% of gun owners

4. Banning assault weapons = 68% in favor, including 48% of gun owners

5. Banning high-capacity magazines = 65% in favor, including 44% of gun owners

But none of these initiatives will ever see the light of day because of the NRA's influence.  That was my point.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

41 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

So have dogs and bananas, just not via the same means of engineering.

GMO is a technical term with a very specific definition.  Why are we even debating this?  Weird.

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

So, this person is known by his classmates and teachers to have had mental issues.  And Trump says we're supposed to be on the lookout for these kinds of people.

 

His gun was purchased legally, despite his mental issues

[...]

How could that have happened?

[...]

Thanks, Trump! 

Exactly.  I wonder if there is any support from Americans for laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns?....  Let's check a recent poll....

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

ONLY

89% of non-gun-owners

89% of gun-owners

90% of Democrats

88% of Republicans

would support that legislation, so it's fine that the NRA lobbies against it.  I mean, it's such a PARTISAN and CONTROVERSIAL proposal.

SMDH

32 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

(I highly doubt anything short of a zombie apocalypse will ever completely end the NRA).

I believe this statement to be completely false.  A zombie apocalypse would be a major boon to the NRA.  They may have to branch out a little, though, to include chain-saws, machetes, and swords.

I had the wrong link in the OP.  Sorry about that   I fixed it, but here is the Pew article again:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/

Here were their poll numbers:

MMR Vaccine:

55% Almost All

28% More than Half

15% Half or less

Climate Change:

27% Almost All

35% More than Half

35% Half or less

GMO Safety:

14% Almost All

28% More than Half

53% Half or less

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Oddly enough, most of the food you buy at the supermarket is genetically modified, and has been for centuries.  Cattle are GMOs, having been bred for specific traits, as are most grains and most fruits.

This is what corn used to look like compared to now, after it was selectively bred

Here's what bananas used to look like, compared to now:

If you have a dog as a pet, it was genetically modified through breeding, as was your house cat.  GMOs are all around us, and they're not (necessarily) bad.

Yeah, none of those examples are GMOs.

With GMOs you are actually splicing genetic material together from different species, not selectively breeding them.

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Actually, they reduce this.

I'll keep an open mind on the subject.  Do you have a credible source that backs this up?  My reasoning is based on the fact that native milkweed has been in a major decline over the last two decades, and many studies have linked this decline to increased Round-Up (glyphosate) use associated with the expansion of GM crops.  Milkweed is needed by the Monarch Butterfly for reproduction, and they are in a steep decline as well.

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/gmo-linked-herbicide-may-doom-monarch-butterflies#.WoWpeujwa71

Quote

The explosion in glyphosate use has killed off the milkweed plants where monarchs lay their eggs. The study said the dwindling monarch population is “predominantly attributed” to the loss of milkweed breeding habitat, especially in the U.S.

 

"Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans, which now constitute 89 percent and 94 percent of these crops, respectively, in the U.S.,”

 

Here's an NPR article that contends that GM crops have led to less insecticide use, but have likely led to more herbicide use:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again