TMI
- Pot or Coke
- Too many teeth or No teeth at all
- What do you like to read when you poop?: The intarwebs
- Why are people so afraid to learn the truth about building 7?: Microsoft has no building 7, and conspiracy theorists use Windows
- What book have you read the most?: Dragonsdawn
Apr 18
Tawnos commented on The Reason Why We Can't Trace Gunpowder.
@16, I don't hold your vitriol against you. Just angry words on the internet, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Apr 15
Tawnos commented on What Do You Think of the Catching Fire Trailer?.
Hopefully they've invested in steadicam this time around.
Apr 1
Tawnos commented on Where and How Do You Buy Your Liquor?.
Total wine in Bellevue when I need a big selection. Whatever store I'm in when I don't.
Mar 15
Tawnos commented on Because Guns Make Us Safer.
@37: Do you have a point, or have you simply turned into something like a NOM member, where your focus is guns instead of gays? At what point are you making any sort of positive contribution to the ongoing debate about the limits of our constitutionally protected rights? Or have you just devolved into taking pot shots and bitterly commenting in an area you've realized you cannot win, much like NOM?
Mar 14
Tawnos commented on Just the Tip.
When my IEMs drop their silicone, I either use the headphone to pull it out, or a paperclip. No tweezers needed. Though you probably want to replace your silicone when it starts to get soft enough to detach.
Mar 11
Tawnos commented on How Hateful Homphobe Orson Scott Card Became a Hateful Homophobe.
@5, the second link @6's post contains is the core of why I refuse to support OSC any further. That post was shameful and horrible, and nothing short of a full apologetic retraction will get me to read his books again.
Mar 7
Tawnos commented on Scrap the Cap!.
Would an increase in the amount paid result in a proportional increase in the amount paid back? If so, seems fair to me. If not, why not?
Mar 6
Tawnos commented on The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts.
@22 - just as soon as car drivers (note: I drive more often than I bike or bus) pay equal to their costs. This includes building roads of size and thickness meant to hold cars, plus the environmental externalities cars produce.
Mar 6
Tawnos commented on The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts.
@21
I normally don't respond to trolls (anon/trolls, same difference on the stranger), but your post is well enough written that I might as well try.
I'd say that, empirically yes, we should get rid of driver's licenses. They don't stop somebody who has theirs revoked from driving, and at their heart they are an attack on the freedom to travel (US v. Wheeler - one of the many reasons I'm against limitations on immigration). This immediately raises the question of insurance - should it be required for firearms as it is for vehicles? My honest answer: I don't know, as of now I've not yet had the time to run the numbers and do the research.
As for "why bother the 'owners' with having them follow the law" - which law are you talking about? I originally started a response trying to guess which law or laws you were talking about, but wasn't able to ascertain any that seemed relevant to the point in discussion. Please clarify, and if you're still writing coherently (even with the usual anon name trolling), I'll do my best to respond.
Even unable to discern your intent with your middle paragraph, I can address what I perceive as the heart of the issue. Personally, I live with a "try to do no undue harm" doctrine. A law that penalizes harming (or trying to harm, or even having a significant singular risk of harming) another person without due cause is likely fine by me. On the other hand, punishing or limiting those who have no history, evidence, nor inclination towards such misdeeds, while potentially punishing and definitely limiting those who have not shown any propensity to those problems raises red flags in my head. Ultimately, I favor an approach that comprehensively addresses the cause of negative harms in our society while reducing the limitations on otherwise legal tools used to implement those harms. That means I support such things as funding education, public transit, healthcare, jobs programs, reformation over punishment for the convicted, etc; but I oppose restrictions on travel (including anti-immigrant policies), the right to keep and bear arms, terrorist watch lists, and similar.
I'm a liberaltarian, it's true, and maybe that makes me a dirty outcast in a community such as SLOG. However, I still maintain hope that the focus on tools will be redirected (insert obvious joke about me being a tool) towards focus on cause among some of the anti-firearm folks here. In the meantime, I just get to enjoy Dan's sex column, Goldy's garden posts (okay, and his usually-correct legal analysis of pending state supreme court cases), Paul's political meanderings, Cienna's anti-rape awesomeness, Brendan's theatrical outgoings, the others I forgot to mention, and Charles's hackery as the only SLOG writer worse than the typical anon-trolls. I mean, sure the guy can write prettily, but the content is as daft as people who think homosexuality is a choice and can't get anal sex out of their minds.
More...
I normally don't respond to trolls (anon/trolls, same difference on the stranger), but your post is well enough written that I might as well try.
I'd say that, empirically yes, we should get rid of driver's licenses. They don't stop somebody who has theirs revoked from driving, and at their heart they are an attack on the freedom to travel (US v. Wheeler - one of the many reasons I'm against limitations on immigration). This immediately raises the question of insurance - should it be required for firearms as it is for vehicles? My honest answer: I don't know, as of now I've not yet had the time to run the numbers and do the research.
As for "why bother the 'owners' with having them follow the law" - which law are you talking about? I originally started a response trying to guess which law or laws you were talking about, but wasn't able to ascertain any that seemed relevant to the point in discussion. Please clarify, and if you're still writing coherently (even with the usual anon name trolling), I'll do my best to respond.
Even unable to discern your intent with your middle paragraph, I can address what I perceive as the heart of the issue. Personally, I live with a "try to do no undue harm" doctrine. A law that penalizes harming (or trying to harm, or even having a significant singular risk of harming) another person without due cause is likely fine by me. On the other hand, punishing or limiting those who have no history, evidence, nor inclination towards such misdeeds, while potentially punishing and definitely limiting those who have not shown any propensity to those problems raises red flags in my head. Ultimately, I favor an approach that comprehensively addresses the cause of negative harms in our society while reducing the limitations on otherwise legal tools used to implement those harms. That means I support such things as funding education, public transit, healthcare, jobs programs, reformation over punishment for the convicted, etc; but I oppose restrictions on travel (including anti-immigrant policies), the right to keep and bear arms, terrorist watch lists, and similar.
I'm a liberaltarian, it's true, and maybe that makes me a dirty outcast in a community such as SLOG. However, I still maintain hope that the focus on tools will be redirected (insert obvious joke about me being a tool) towards focus on cause among some of the anti-firearm folks here. In the meantime, I just get to enjoy Dan's sex column, Goldy's garden posts (okay, and his usually-correct legal analysis of pending state supreme court cases), Paul's political meanderings, Cienna's anti-rape awesomeness, Brendan's theatrical outgoings, the others I forgot to mention, and Charles's hackery as the only SLOG writer worse than the typical anon-trolls. I mean, sure the guy can write prettily, but the content is as daft as people who think homosexuality is a choice and can't get anal sex out of their minds.
Mar 6
Tawnos commented on The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts.
@17: It adds substantial inconvenience (find FFL where buyer and seller can meet, fill out paperwork, etc) and cost ($25-50 for an FFL to do the transfer, plus paying use tax if the seller cannot demonstrate that the firearm was bought in state or that enough sales tax was paid in another state already). The background check system isn't available to everyone who wants to use it, and if it were, that could lead to improper usage.
It creates a form of forced registration, which may cause a chilling effect on the right of people to keep and bear arms (be it those of an unpopular political beliefs, religious beliefs, sexuality, etc). Not to mention that there is historical precedent for such registration to be used as a means of confiscation.
It only can add additional penalties for a person who is caught after the fact, bringing up search and seizure implications (need to verify a firearm wasn't purchased or transferred after that date without the FFL involvement, problems for owners of privately purchased firearms purchased prior to the enactment of required background checks for transfers in "proving" they acquired legally, etc). As a result, it doesn't do anything to stop the illegal transfer of firearms.
Basically, it's a feel-good measure that doesn't address the problem of the "wrong people" getting firearms, could lead to significant imposition on the right of normal people to keep and bear arms, and brings with it significant other policy implications that affects other rights. You can say you don't care about the right to keep and bear arms and argue to repeal it, but playing it off like adding universal background checks doesn't add a burden on firearm owners is either uninformed or intentionally dishonest.
More...
It creates a form of forced registration, which may cause a chilling effect on the right of people to keep and bear arms (be it those of an unpopular political beliefs, religious beliefs, sexuality, etc). Not to mention that there is historical precedent for such registration to be used as a means of confiscation.
It only can add additional penalties for a person who is caught after the fact, bringing up search and seizure implications (need to verify a firearm wasn't purchased or transferred after that date without the FFL involvement, problems for owners of privately purchased firearms purchased prior to the enactment of required background checks for transfers in "proving" they acquired legally, etc). As a result, it doesn't do anything to stop the illegal transfer of firearms.
Basically, it's a feel-good measure that doesn't address the problem of the "wrong people" getting firearms, could lead to significant imposition on the right of normal people to keep and bear arms, and brings with it significant other policy implications that affects other rights. You can say you don't care about the right to keep and bear arms and argue to repeal it, but playing it off like adding universal background checks doesn't add a burden on firearm owners is either uninformed or intentionally dishonest.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
