Cold bottle+air=condensation=wet, slippery hands.

or he was twisting it the wrong way

What slippery slope we live on.

The government commits mass crimes against its people and the messenger is convicted.

Get you ass in gear and vote for TEA Party candidates.

Terror attacks that get prevented tend not to get quite the same news coverage. We'll likely never know how effective it was, but is the efficacy of the program at all relevant?

I don't think the motives behind this whole prism thing were some machiavellian aspiration to become Big Brother. They have blown the terror threat out of proportion and have allowed the ends to justfy their means. Nobody wants another Boston or 9/11, but the idea of a future where such terror attacks are impossible by way of mass survelliance is far more frighteningly dystopian. Buuuuuut I am in danger of making a slippery slope argument and creating a false dichotomy. Needless to say society is about the sacrifice of freedoms for some degree of security. I hope the debate as to where that trade might become unfavorable continues, and I certainly hope those that provided the seed for it dont end up swinging from a rope for treason.

Sad that we accept tazers as compliance instruments rather than non-lethal substitutes for guns now. Slippery slope in action.

If you are truly curious I hope you'll read everything.

TLDR Post Inc:

It's basically pragmatism and the slippery slope. You're making a registry of all the citizens who own guns. I mean have you ever applied for your firearms license before? Have you ever purchased a handgun? It's pretty crazy.

I wanted to purchase a handgun about 10 years ago after I got held up. It took me over 6 months to get my permit. Then it took me about another month to be able to purchase a handgun.

The Process:
In order to get your firearms id card you have to apply for it. Part of the process involved me having a sit down "evaluation" with a detective that was basically an interrogation for about 30 minutes.

Then once that detective says "this guys not crazy" He takes his form and all my information and mails it to the FBI. Then I had to wait about six months for the FBI to say "this guys not crazy and/or a terrorist.

When I have my Firearms ID card I can buy a shotgun or a rifle if I want that's no problem. But if I want to buy a handgun (which I did) I have to go back to get a handgun permit. Luckily since I was applying for my firearms permit they also gave me one (read one) permit to buy a handgun. I could buy one handgun; If I wanted more I had to apply for ANOTHER permit. Not another Firearms ID Card just another Handgun permit.

So I take my permit and I purchase said gun. I can't purchase the gun after 5:00 PM because the NIC office over at the FBI closes and they have to call it in. Even AFTER they call it in I still had to wait like 6 days before I could pick it up.

I receive a copy of the permit (and a receipt) , the dealer gets a copy, and the last part gets sent to the FBI. Once the FBI confirms they have a copy of the permit (which includes the serial # that is on multiple parts of the gun) then and only then am I allowed to pickup my firearm.

So even if I sold it to someone everyone would know know who it belonged to beforehand.

I'm not sure how much more gun control you can have. The "gun" that needs the most "control" are handguns because they are used in almost all gun related crimes if you look at the stats.

I wont' get into hypothetical situations about how citizens could perform those checks or whatever. I just want to show how regulated things are already. The idea that I could purchase like 10 handguns and then re-sell them all to someone else and NEVER have it traced back to me seems almost impossible. Heck I doubt I could even get approved to own that many handguns!

Also:

I'm not a "giant conspiracy" kind of person. But I feel like with the way government has been going with Guantanamo, stop and frisk, not really enforcing a lot of anti-trust laws, not really prosecuting some of the big banks responsible for what happened, etc etc etc I just feel like there really an upward swing for government control and collusion with protecting their own interests and not the interests of the people.

I don't see the government as an instrument of the people anymore it just seems to be wealthy people patting each other on the back.

What happened in Boston really upset me where people were just pulled out of there houses at gunpoint because there "could be" a terrorist nearby.

I believe that Obama has a good reason for trying to put these tools in place and he has no motive behind it he is just trying to protect the American People in his own way. But I don't believe gun control will help at all and all it will do is put more of a hindrance on law abiding citizens. I'd equate these laws to Anti-Piracy solutions? Ala Sims3 and Diablo etc etc. It just punishes the actual customer NOT the criminal.

If you told me there was a way to ensure program the registry of gun owners could only be searched if the striations from a bullet were scanned that was used in a crime or something like that I'd be fine with it. But there really is no way to do that.

Sorry it was long but it's not really something I can just say something short.

I'm sure people will says "Well what are your guns going to do against tanks and helicopters and xyz xyz". First I'll point to Iraq and Afghanistan and how well those "wars" went. Everyone can agree it was a disaster and we probably made a lot of terrorists by just killing people innocent or not. The same thing would happen here in America.

Would the government actually TRY to take over? I don't' believe so because it's not in our best financial interests. Everyone wants to stay wealthy and some sort of civil war would be horrible for our economy. But I believe over time constantly just eroding our rights will just lead to that. People got pulled out of their homes at gunpoint and screamed at by police in boston and they were just like "Well the police are just trying to keep us safe!" I just find that creepy.

There's a saying blah blah blah doesn't go out with a bang it happens with a whimper. I'm not going to make myself look smart by googling the quote.

Anyway that's my whole post sorry if it's long but I'm tired. I would have put it in the discussion section but I'm not at the appropriate star level.

Can I ask what is the objection to background checks for guns?

Is it a slippery slope concern? i.e. first, it's background checks then it's <something-worse>.

Is it simply a principled stand? That you feel you should be able to sell or buy a gun from whoever you like?

Or is it a pragmatic stance? The old "criminals will ignore the law anyway"?

I'm genuinely curious as to why someone wouldn't want some controls on something as dangerous as a gun.

@Hastur's rigid rod and @Payback's slippery pipe have left me very confused.

No, the bike frame would decreasingly oppose his downward acceleration until about 30-40 degrees off the pavement. It would be like sliding off a (very slippery) 14.5 ft radius pipe, half-buried in the ground.

I agree that there is the possibility that either of us could be right by law,and thats why I believe lawsuits should be filed to determine if the searches were legal. The law is to ambiguous and should be challenged in the courts and better defined. I think this situation is a slippery slope which if legal can easily be abused by law enforcement. Just my opinion.

It does NOT MATTER one bit if guns are regulated or not during a war. This is not about war, this is about trying to protect people from crazy shits and accidents during 'peacetime'. Obviously, if tyranny happened, and there was mass fear in the populace of this or any country, people find a way to stand up and fight back. Guns will be apart of that, and will be a big part. But these regulations that they are trying to put in place have nothing to do with 'surrendering to big brother'.

I completely understand the idea that this can be a 'slippery slope' that will eventually ban all guns and turn us into slaves... somehow. BUT I have a hope in my heart that most of humanity actually is human, and caring of others. We as a species have survived before the gun and after the gun. Unfortunately I can't say that about alot of the other species.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

When I said "just about any" kind of firearm should be legally obtainable, I should clarify that I mean guns. Explosive ordinance, anti-vehicle weapons, fully-auto vehicle mounted machine guns, etc. is where I see the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

My problem with getting into regulating "assault weapons" is that I see it as a very real slippery-slope hazard -- unlike restrictions like waiting periods, registration, legal obligations to keep guns locked in cabinets when not in use, etc. etc.

Here's an example: my gun-nut friends had in their extensive arsenal 2 rifles, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15 is basically equivalent to a military M-16, except the one they had didn't have selectors for 3-shot burst or full-auto (semi-auto only). The Mini-14 was designed around the M-14, which was the military standard-issue rifle until being replaced by the M-16.

Trying to get the government to regulate those firearms seems like a nightmare to me. Is just the AR-15 (M-16) an "assault weapon"? Are they both? I've fired both and I don't think that there is any reasonable way to say that the AR-15 is "over the line" of what a civilian owner should have with the Mini-14 being "ok". The Mini-14 is a fantastic farm/hunter rifle; safe, reliable, and easy to handle -- but in the event of somebody going off the deep end and shooting people up, it is going to be just as deadly/tragic as if they had an M-16.

Basically I think that the right-wing types have a pretty legitimate beef when they say that gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and that therefore most heavy restrictions just affect legitimate, responsible gun owners while doing very little to keep guns out of the hands that you really want them out of. I should look for data about gun crime rates comparing legally purchased guns versus black market sources, and gun-related injury and death rates between gun-nut havens like Texas and my neck of the woods in Kansas compared to more liberal urban areas.

Finally, I guess that I should make it clear that I'm OK with restrictions that require you to prove that you are a responsible owner to have any firearm. Waiting periods, background checks, loss of privileges to anyone with a criminal record, having to register and periodically present your firearms to prove that you aren't re-selling them, etc. I consider all that kind of stuff reasonable limitations on our right/privilege to own firearms. But getting into trying to figure out what does or does not classify as an "assault weapon" goes the wrong direction in my opinion.

I'm pretty pro-gun. I grew up in Kansas in a home with a .22 rifle, and had many friends that had a much more extensive arsenal in their homes. One "gun nut" friend had somewhere around 10 high-powered rifles, roughly the same number of shotguns, 3-4 pistols, and even an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) with extensive clips, flash suppressors, etc. purchased before the "assault weapons ban". That family was very responsible with their guns -- all locked in gun cabinets, fully unloaded, separate from ammo whenever not in use, sons all trained to use them responsibly, etc. I think a family/individual should have the right to do all that stuff. For defense, for hunting, as a farm "tool" (a firearm can be invaluable for protecting livestock, eliminating varmints and pests, etc.), for "home defense" (the least practical/intelligent use of firearms by a civilian IMHO), or even just for entertainment / target shooting -- whatever your reasons I think you should be able to legally purchase just about any kind of firearm.

That being said, the NRA goes completely off the deep end with some of the things it opposes. The Brady Bill, waiting periods, background checks, etc.? I'm fine with those "limitations", and I think that the NRA loses legitimacy putting up a fight against very reasonable measures like those. I understand the threat of slippery-slope issues, but waiting periods and background checks aren't going to bring the whole system down and definitely would do more good than harm.

All that being said, while I somewhat disagree with Jim Carrey's message in the "Cold Dead Hands" video, I liked it and could appreciate it as a good piece of satire expressing his point of view. The Fox News blowhards need to "Lighten up, Francis".

Got some good shots, but taking footage from the edges of high, windy or slippery places without use of safety-lines is unnecessarily stupid.