Hickock 45, gun culture 2.0

[capt14k]

I can't imagine how many paint chips you'd have to eat to think George Soros is paying people to post on Calguns.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/01/paid-govt-and-corporate-internet-trolls-are-real/

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[champu]

This type of foolish thinking is how our gun rights get lost. Remember, any Democrat in the house or senate WILL toe the party line when the party calls for unity. Betray the party when it counts and you can run as an independent next time.

My point was if they betray their constituents, and actually have to run against a Republican and not another Democrat like they do here, then it doesn't matter what's in parentheses after their name in the next election. I'm not suggesting anybody give democrats control of a legislative body, I'm saying politicians can do more or less (for better or for worse) when they're in the super-minority, minority, majority, or super-majority party and if they have real competition for their seat. Both what a candidate wants to do and what they will be able to do should be considerations when voting.

-Global warming rant-

Sorry my example spun you up. My point here is that whatever concerns people have about the Republican platform, they are basically invalid when voting in California. I'll use another example at the risk of someone biting my head off. I'm pro-choice. Hell, I'm pro-abortion. If someone doesn't want to have a kid, then I don't want them having a kid and I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing that than on raising the little bastard and keeping said person's genes in the pool. Does that prevent me from voting Republican in an attempt to stop the bleeding out of the 2A here? No, of course not, because the ability to get an abortion in California isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[IVC]

Alcohol prohibition and enforcement for one. In NC my state managed to hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still managed to cost tax payers millions of dollars while doing nothing but raising the costs to consumers.

Mandated teaching of scientifically and academic falsehoods like creationism.

Could you go to jail for having "non compliant" liquor at home? Did you go to jail if you told your kids what the teachers told them was nonsense?

We are talking about creation of crimes out of thin air in CA, with consequences as serious as life ban on possession of firearms even if one moves out of state. We are talking about CA attacking our civil rights.

Let's keep it apples-to-apples.

[Robert1234]

CA science classes are too busy suppressing any scientific questions into the role of the humans in the climate change. The models at hand that connect human activity to global temperatures cannot explain previous much larger changes in the Earth's climate, but hey, asking for scientific proof is called a "denier."

Then California is about to pass a law about banning "fake news". Politicians defining what the truth is and what we can see and hear...

And conservatives and libertarians are called facist by these actual facists.

[Robert1234]

Could you go to jail for having "non compliant" liquor at home? Did you go to jail if you told your kids what the teachers told them was nonsense?

We are talking about creation of crimes out of thin air in CA, with consequences as serious as life ban on possession of firearms even if one moves out of state. We are talking about CA attacking our civil rights.

Let's keep it apples-to-apples.

Well stated.

[IVC]

Evolution is a fact provable with basic biology and chemistry, it isn't up for debate. We were not made from magic rib bones. Conflating the two does an incredible disservice to children.

Here is the problem: A theory cannot be confirmed by invalidation of another unrelated theory. I cannot prove that my dog is a dog by proving "it's not a cat."

Sure we are "not made from magic rib," but that is completely irrelevant when discussing theory of evolution which indeed is neither provable nor "closed for debate." (The "open for debate" part doesn't mean that we are debating creationism vs. evolution, but that we are debating the scientific parts of the theory of evolution itself.)

Telling children that theory is a fact and that something is provable when it's not creates "religion of science" which is an incredible disservice to children (to borrow your words). We end up with kids who will accept yellow science and correlational inference as "facts," then push it on the rest of the society in the same way religious beliefs were pushed - anyone who doesn't believe it is a denier and a heretic, true scientific method be damned.

[ChuckDizzle]

Could you go to jail for having "non compliant" liquor at home? Did you go to jail if you told your kids what the teachers told them was nonsense?

We are talking about creation of crimes out of thin air in CA, with consequences as serious as life ban on possession of firearms even if one moves out of state. We are talking about CA attacking our civil rights.

Let's keep it apples-to-apples.

Yeah, they actually have liquor task forces and an ABC police academy ran by the state. I've had friends busted for possesion of untaxed liquor.

[IVC]

Sorry my example spun you up.

It didn't, but it's telling that you called it a "global warming rant," where I only brought up some generic issues with how scientific method works.

So, let me give you exactly the same *scientific* argument, but this time packed in the format that you might approve of:

"CA Deep-south science classes are too busy suppressing any scientific questions into the role of the humans vaccines in the climate change onset of autism. The models at hand that connect human activity vaccines to global temperatures autism cannot explain previous much larger changes in the Earth's climate occurences of autism, but hey, asking for scientific proof is called a "denier.""

So, does this make me "vaccines cause autism denier," or is it simply that the science behind it doesn't add up?

[IVC]

I've had friends busted for possesion of untaxed liquor.

Different ballgame...

[IVC]

I'm pro-choice. Hell, I'm pro-abortion. If someone doesn't want to have a kid, then I don't want them having a kid and I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing that than on raising the little bastard and keeping said person's genes in the pool.

I'm pro-choice as long as the baby gets to make the choice too. Short of that, killing it while it's in the womb is no different than killing it after it's out of the womb - it's just a matter of whether such killing is legal or not (in the US, it's legal to kill it before, but not after; that's just where we stand).

My main problem with that debate is just that it's called "pro-choice" or "woman's issue," when more appropriate would be "killing the baby issue." Other than that, at least they are killing their own children.

I can look at my daughters and tell them that mommy and I never ever thought about killing them while they were the most vulnerable and that we started protecting them from the moment we knew they existed. That's what family is all about...

[fawndog]

Here is the problem: A theory cannot be confirmed by invalidation of another unrelated theory. I cannot prove that my dog is a dog by proving "it's not a cat."

Sure we are "not made from magic rib," but that is completely irrelevant when discussing theory of evolution which indeed is neither provable nor "closed for debate." (The "open for debate" part doesn't mean that we are debating creationism vs. evolution, but that we are debating the scientific parts of the theory of evolution itself.)

Telling children that theory is a fact and that something is provable when it's not creates "religion of science" which is an incredible disservice to children (to borrow your words). We end up with kids who will accept yellow science and correlational inference as "facts," then push it on the rest of the society in the same way religious beliefs were pushed - anyone who doesn't believe it is a denier and a heretic, true scientific method be damned.

Evolution is not theoretical. What makes you say it is ?

[ChuckDizzle]

Different ballgame...

Just stop and admit that right wing governments tend to be just as overbearing as left wing ones. You're back pedalling so fast you don't know where to put the goalposts. Muh civil rights! Never mind that the NC GOP is openly suppressing minority voters and gerrymandering the state so that some votes count more than others while trying to ban gays the right to marry.

[ChuckDizzle]

I'm pro-choice as long as the baby gets to make the choice too. Short of that, killing it while it's in the womb is no different than killing it after it's out of the womb - it's just a matter of whether such killing is legal or not (in the US, it's legal to kill it before, but not after; that's just where we stand).
.

Such baloney, pretending a fetus is a human being is an intellectually lazy argument. About 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, yet I've still never been to funeral for a fetus.

I don't care about abortion either way, but clearly even conservative Christians that believe in zygote souls don't take out burial plots for miscarriages.

[FeuerFrei]

Make no mistake. The gun culture is on life support in this state along with other freedoms/rights.

The pezzonovante running this state and those that vote for them have created neo-feudalism right in front of us and the collective vox populi is impotent now.
Now we all are paying the price for freedoms lost.

[HectorEscaton]

Yep. Creationism is also a theory that has yet to be disproved. It holds as much validity as any other theory regarding the origin of the universe and man.

What testable predictions does creationism make? That's a key feature of any theory.