Mistakes and frantic scenarios

Tjc

WriterAlexis We've always taken ours off when traveling through airports, but I am borrowing that.

TSA can be funny about chastity belts. I am allowed to remove mine for airport security but have to relock before boarding the airplane and verify with a photo. I am sometimes asked what it is when it goes through the x-ray but not always. I did once show it to a supervisor (on a slow day), he knew what is was. I asked if I could have worn it and he said yes but it would be extra work for the checkpoint to screen me after it was detected by their metal detector. His advice was I could waer it but he wished I wouldn't.

Renita

Tjc It was a federal office building but this was before 9/11 and it did not occur to me that there would be metal detectors for building security.

I always remember metal detectors in the federal buildings even before 9/11. At least in Texas.

curious

Renita
Well, if you could agree to outlaw guns (at least for everyone not having a - very rare - permit), you would not have to check and safeguard each individual place / building but overall society would be saver.

WriterAlexis

curious

Hard pass.

Andrew

curious Well, if you could agree to outlaw guns (at least for everyone not having a - very rare - permit), you would not have to check and safeguard each individual place / building but overall society would be saver.

Sadly, though, this is rather impossible. America is too steeped in gun culture for this to be seriously curtailed now. Besides, even in countries where access to firearms is very low often government buildings are guarded and it is necessary to pass a security check to enter them.

Sasha

curious Well, if you could agree to outlaw guns

This is impossible. To do so would require revoking a constitutional right. Which I’m this case could be seen as for the greater good.
But would also make people question if they can take that right away can others be taken? Would they do it again?
Could be seen as both a significant risk and fallacy at the same time of course

Avery

Sasha This is impossible. To do so would require revoking a constitutional right.

That can be done. There is a procedure for it. There are already 27 changes to the Constitution.

curious

Sasha This is impossible. To do so would require revoking a constitutional right. Which I’m this case could be seen as for the greater good.

Here is the solution to your constitutional problem.
The text of your 2nd Ammendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, ok, you can keep and bear Arms all you want, but I would suggest you just impose a government fee on any round of ammunition purchased if you do not hold an appropriate licence. Make that $10,ß00 per round of ammunition and all the rednecks can run around with their ~~penis extensions~~ guns but very few will be able to actually hurt soneone with that gun (unless they throw it at you).

WriterAlexis

Avery

And out of those 27, only a single one has been repealed.

Sasha

Avery That is correct. However only one amendment restricting rights was ever passed, and was later repealed. Marking the only occurrence of this.
It is unlikely bordering on impossible another amendment will ever be repealed, and definitely not for the purposes of restricting/revoking rights.
Even if it is a fallacy, people would fight against it on the slippery slope idea. If they can do that what’s next? 1, 5, 8, 14?
All that can be done is regulation which even that is fought because it punishes the 99% who aren’t the problem, while doing nothing about what’s already out there and not carrying harsh penalties for violations.

youdontknowme

Avery Only one that abolished a previous amendment though. And that one was not part of the bill of rights.

WriterAlexis

Sasha

If they can do that what’s next? 1, 5, 8, 14?

Kanye wants to repeal the 14th. He has a curious theory about that.

Avery

Sasha That is correct. However only one amendment restricting rights was ever passed, and was later repealed. Marking the only occurrence of this.
It is unlikely bordering on impossible another amendment will ever be repealed, and definitely not for the purposes of restricting/revoking rights.
Even if it is a fallacy, people would fight against it on the slippery slope idea. If they can do that what’s next? 1, 5, 8, 14?
All that can be done is regulation which even that is fought because it punishes the 99% who aren’t the problem, while doing nothing about what’s already out there and not carrying harsh penalties for violations.

I sometimes forget where I am. There is a procedure for it. That does not mean the procedure is easy or people want to do the thing. But there is still a procedure for it.

Sasha

curious Aside from the undo tax argument which the courts would likely uphold. There’s been cases before where such taxes were seen as a barrier to exercising a right.
It also penalizes many people who aren’t the problem.
So until some politicians come up with regulations that would provide harsh penalties for violations, address what’s out there already and actually be effective, things just are what they are. Because so far all I’ve seen are meaningless, empty attempts that do none of that. Just ban this after this date and it’s all better. I realize I’m young but not stupid

WriterAlexis

curious

They used to have a poll tax to keep poor people (read racial minorities) from voting. That didn't go over too well.

[Do the mods split this out to a political thread at this point?]

MissBlossom

Sasha So until some politicians come up with regulations that would provide harsh penalties for violations, address what’s out there already and actually be effective, things just are what they are.

How about getting shot as a harsh penalty for criminal behavior?

It would in theory be easier (though probably still not feasible) to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

We didn't have these problems back when people could mail order guns, only after it became difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Sasha

Avery Yes there’s of course a very difficult procedure for this, that’s never been questioned. It’s because of that procedure being set in motion that we can vote.
Just mentioning that there’s only been a single instance where that procedure took rights away, and that amendment was the only time one had been repealed.
But even if it were a good idea to do so getting past the slippery slope argument won’t allow it to happen.
Anyway, it’s not really a discussion worth having, we should probably steer this back on track. Or ask the mods to split it.

Samantha

I've made a mistake today. So, probably, most of you, just us me and him, are aware of "Locktober", which just started. My big f-ing mouth said to my husband "You know, we never did Locktober? I mean... I; 'm always locked, and ever since you have my key you only unlock me when you want to". At this point, he interrupted me "Locktober wouldn't mean that much with your experience, it would have to be a year" to which I said he must be joking! To which, he said that at the beginning he was, but now I better behave or it won't be just a year...

F...-me! Well, I wish 😅

youdontknowme

Samantha I would say you should both be locked for Locktober, if you still have his belt around.

Angelina

Samantha

Maybe you should both do a longer test, the question is whether this is feasible in a relationship.

Greatcornbow

Samantha I've made a mistake today. So, probably, most of you, just us me and him, are aware of "Locktober", which just started. My big f-ing mouth said to my husband "You know, we never did Locktober? I mean... I; 'm always locked, and ever since you have my key you only unlock me when you want to". At this point, he interrupted me "Locktober wouldn't mean that much with your experience, it would have to be a year" to which I said he must be joking! To which, he said that at the beginning he was, but now I better behave or it won't be just a year...

F...-me! Well, I wish

Well as of now he has control anyway. But for the full experience for you both would you and Mark both agree a third as KH (?Anna) for 31 days or whatever?

Greatcornbow

Angelina Maybe you should both do a longer test, the question is whether this is feasible in a relationship.

Well why not? But would Mark agree? Maybe they could talk to Anne who was KH for both before the wedding. I daresay she'd be OK with it if agreement were reached.

« Previous Page Next Page »