On 23 Apr 2013
in
6 Ways to Make a Better Argument,
Rew said:
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or shit like that.
It has to do with blowing tyrannical armies the fuck away.
People everywhre should be armed with belt-fed machine guns and jet fighters in cas the government gets an attitude and needs to be vaporized.
It's no accident that in Japan's feudal era many 'unifying figures' confiscated swords/weapons, and melted them down into large statues of the Buddha. Weapons literally turned into a symbol of peace and the land was very much pacified. But the system was a rigid feudal caste society, warriors at the top, and with the right to kill if they felt insulted.
Truthfully, an armed population does ensure some modicum of freedom for the people.
That said, anyone thinking them and 5 buddies, with AKs or ARs, is going to go toe to toe with the US armed forces is in for a rude (and very short) awakening. It takes hundreds of thousands of citizens to do something like that, and it should take that many.
We make the distinction of what can be legally owned, and a citizen can be 'armed with', often. To pretend otherwise is just dumb. So this isn't an exercise in have guns, not have guns, it is an exercise in where the line is drawn.
Pressure cookers don't need to be regulated ... the things that make them go boom do. The things that go boom already ARE regulated.
A WMD though? Come on! By that logic we should have found thousands of 'em in Iraq as a justification for our invasion and reconstruction project. Are the lawyers going to start calling the finish line there, "ground zero" too? (wretch)
On 6 Apr 2013
in
Science led to gay families,
Rew said:
chanakya4773 says
Rew says
Yes, they are completely different. Gay people aren't being targeted by hate murders, they are being treated as typical citizens, and are extended all rights there in. Certainly no one calls them any derogatory names or slurs. There is nothing parallel or even remotely close to any previous civil rights movement.
what rights are you talking about? Gays couples already have all the rights as civil unions. fighting to change the definition of marriage would be like black people fighting to change the definition of blonde.
that's why its not equal to black civil rights movement.
A civil union is recognized by the state it is granted in. Marriage, not only is granted and recognized by the state, but ALSO has federal rights associated with it that are recognized and honored country wide (especially those involving labor, taxation, and benefits).
There are many marriage rights not granted by a civil union but here are the key ones:
- Immigration
- Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement
- Family and medical Leave
- Workers' Compensation protections for the family
- Access to COBRA
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act (i.e. you can leave money to your spouse)
- Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
- Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
- Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
- The right to visit a sick or injured and have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization
The basic count goes like this:
Civil union : ~300 State rights
Marriage: ~1049 Federally recognized and state recognized rights
EDIT: If it makes you feel better to see it more aligned with women's rights and equality issues than fine. But gay rights are a current civil rights issue. Be sure of it.
EDIT 2: 1 Person dislikes facts.
