I have never heard of a case where simple indigence, or inability to "manage one's own financial affairs" was enough to remove their firearms....indeed, not managing one's financial affairs doesn't seem to be what the law intends or specifically says. Managing one's "affairs" is not the same as being good with money. Maybe it's been misused that way, but not that I've heard of, and that's not the kind of thing the NRA usually keeps quiet about. Lacking the mental capacity to contract or manage one's own affairs is completely different from being unable to pay your bills, and seems to require a mental evaluation to prove you aren't even lucid enough to hire someone to manage them for you. That is FAR from just being poor, it's being mental to the point where you can't even tell that you're poor or ask for help managing your finances....and I agree, if you are that far from lucid, you should not have deadly weapons of any kind.


OK, as I said, training makes ACCIDENTAL MISUSE of firearms LESS likely, not impossible, but more important, it lends credence to any charges because ignorance can't be an excuse for misuse if you've been trained.

I also don't know stats on accidental discharge, accidental misuse, intentional misuse, and intentional (but improper) discharge. I must think that improperly securing the weapon is one of the major root causes of accidents, because then completely untrained people (usually kids, but not always) get hold of them and misuse them.

OK, yes. That's correct. I have no personal experience in grain farming (except corn, but grown to eat on the cob, so that's also different).
I still say the same applies to OVER use of chemical fertilizers and the environment, but perhaps that's much less of an issue with grain crops.

As I said above, I admit that new crop genes paired with new chemicals could produce greater yields on more damaged land. Roundup/roundup ready crops are a prime example of this, as they artificially eliminate competition for the remaining nutrients and root space, leaving it all for the crop. That doesn't eliminate the damage though, it only hides it from the farmer. When they stop working (and they will eventually), we'll have serious trouble.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

I think you're wrong about the root cause, but you'll continue to follow the same themes and nothing will get done.
Do you have or need an assault rifle? If not, why do you continue to support what's tragically killing these people. How about more money to mental health. What about the Republicans blocking legislation stopping people on the no fly list being able to get guns just recently. Nothing gets fixed. We just move on to the next tragedy which is a sure sign of stupidity as individuals and as a nation.

All is talking about gun regulations, or lack there of for this terrible event.


Guns are not the root cause.

Muslim religion is the root cause for this mess.

Wait...you don't vote for corruption, but you'll vote for Trump? That does not compute. Trump has been involved in 3500 lawsuits over the last decades and often doesn't pay his bills, so often he had to address it and actually said 'if I don't think you did a good job, I don't pay'...that's theft of services, a crime of moral turpitude. You think he doesn't have experience placing obstacles to his adversaries? That's an insane hypothesis, he's shown thousands of times that he does know, and he wrote a book about it. EDIT: In fact, it seems that, in large part, he's made his money by extortion, making it far more difficult and expensive to fight him than it is to just let him rip you off and walk away.
He has clearly and repeatedly said HE is one of the people that paid off politicians to make laws that favor him (he said this in an effort to paint Clinton as corrupt for taking his money). HE is the ROOT of corruption in Washington....how on earth can you convince yourself he's not corrupt.

Trump will absolutely make an unfair system worse. He's a megalomaniac, and will do everything in his power, legal or not, to grab as much power as possible and put it into the hands of the president with no thought to what that does after he's out of office, and no one will stand up to him in any meaningful way out of fear of certain disproportionate reprisal.

Yes, maybe eventually the damage he does could be fixed, but that damage is FAR worse than you seem to imagine. The rest of the world sees him as a completely unstable, unpredictable person, and if he's the president, there's absolutely no question that world markets would fail due to that uncertainty, causing another world recession at best just from his election without a single act. As was mentioned, our standing on the world stage will also be destroyed, as it would be a clear signal to the world that America is not a partner, but an adversary to cooperation and reason.

Most non republicans would certainly disagree with your description of Scalia's record, as would many republicans. Some progressive laws got past him, yes, but the more progressive ones were usually stymied by him for completely insane reasons.

True, a smart corrupt person could do more damage than an upstanding idiot, but a bullying corrupt idiot with power can do the most damage of all without even trying...and holy shit are we all doomed if he gets upset and tries to do damage.

/facepalm

I get the whole "let's come up with cool ideas to save the planet", but this is kinda stupid...

"Oh honey, can you get some celery from the fridge!"
/looks outside at hailstorm

If you want a damn root cellar, build a root cellar when you build your house...

Further to the complexity of the problem in Canada is this shooting on a native reserve just an hours drive from me. I don't know if it's kosher to link to another sift vid I just uploaded, but I don't wanna bloat this post either. Short version is that a man on reserve shot two people. His uncle was a former chief on the reserve, and after the shooting his uncle and other leaders held the linked press conference.

In the press conference, they make no mention of the victims until the very end and spend the majority of the time describing how the government needs to send them more money to solve the root causes of the problem. A few years ago Harper was lambasted for demanding that reserves post very basic summaries of how they spend government money or risk having it cut. Dakota Tipi was one of the hold outs and still hasn't posted.

http://videosift.com/video/Shooting-on-Canadian-Reserve-Press-conference-by-leaders

Eh, I still upvoted for the glorious juxtaposition of that awful happy music with the (completely faked) tragedy...

ps. Done with a drill press (and be warned, there is an awful graphic picture), but this is what can happen...

"Women scalped by electric drill"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lupD4LZc5s

Like any fibre that is securely rooted in thousands of places, hair doesn't just pull off in large patches. The girl in the vid should consider herself lucky only the fake hair got caught up.

Absolutely not a straw man when the statement it contradicts was "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”
At what point do you decide (for yourself, the only one you get to decide for) 'sentience' exists? Shrimp? Crabs? If so, then logically also mosquitos, gnats, and ticks.
Also, why have YOU decided so capriciously that 'sentience' is the measure of a life's worth? What, if anything, do you base that decision on? Perhaps a sense of biological superiority?

BUT you insist others adopt YOUR definitions of non violence, oppression, exploitation, others, property.

Again, you insist that "every human believes" something you believe. That's absolutely not true of ANYTHING, and totally wrong about this topic...clearly. It clearly doesn't 'when it concerns humans' or we wouldn't be murdering and torturing each other as we are.

We clearly disagree that animal consumption is the MAIN issue globally....just as we clearly disagree that it's even a possibility for humanity to switch to a purely vegetarian diet...pasture land is not the same as farmable land.

There are certainly ecological issues with meat production on the scale and in the manner we do it today...there was no such issue when the population being fed was 1/10 what it is today....no one burned massive portions of the rainforests to raise cattle 150 years ago, they didn't need to.

When I see a video like this that highlights people being kind to animalS (the dog AND the bird) it's disturbing that people are so disconnected with normalcy that they see a connection with murder and torture....or that they see murder and torture where it doesn't exist, and disturbing that they feel the need to shit on the happy video comments with a 'but you're all murdering bastards...feel bad and capitulate'.

Yeah, again, I don't click random links, and I don't get science from the internet, no need to read any vegan propaganda. Thanks

Ask 10 people on the street if they think it's OK to humanely raise animals for consumption, 9.95 of them will say "yes".
Now you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm, equating intentional frivolous casual injuring and killing for pleasure with occasional unintentional injuring and killing for an essential purpose.

You made no such equivocations in your original assertions. You've completely changed your argument by adding them. EDIT: You quoted "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”, nothing about sentience, reasons, intent, etc.

Your imperatives may not be others'. Your insistence that they must be is what makes you enemies rather than allies.
No serious organization would make any such spurious claim. Poor treatment of animals is an issue, but it is incredibly far from the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. Over population is, as it drives EVERY human caused issue one can name, but you don't see me interjecting that into every comment thread I enter, because that would not convince anyone of anything besides convincing them that I'm a single issue zealot that should be ignored at best.

First, since this is your SOLE focus, and so you inappropriately insert it into every conversation you participate in, you are preaching about it. No one likes to be preached at, and that methodology always ends with the preached at becoming opposition to the preachers. That means that the way you go about trying to convince people of your point is working against your goal and is creating adversaries rather than cohorts.
Second, most people strongly disagree with your base premise, that all life is equal. Have you ever taken medicine or other steps to get rid of a disease? Ever slapped a mosquito? If so, you are an uncaring, hypocritical, torturous and murdering bastard! You killed billions of living micro organisms, and likely thousands of macro organisms. If all life is equal and it's cruelty to kill, period, then all life is evil because it's impossible to live without killing.

That some people can't see that their pet cause is not the most important issue facing the planet and/or that their viewpoint on a particular topic might not be rational is the root of all that's wrong with the world.

that is my focus because this is where all the harm is taking place. as Paul Farmer said, "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”

the video is about being a man being kind to a dog and a bird-i was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being kind to these animals while paying others to murder cows, pigs and chickens who are not at all different from the dog or the hummingbird.

"In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people." — Ruth Harrison

I dunno... as much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly, that showed a pretty encouraging amount of self-awareness and savvy comprehension of some of the root issues that are tearing the Republican party apart.

And the Democrat party establishment better be taking notes, because plenty of their base are upset about the same sorts of problems with the system. Next time, the "nightmare candidate" that the status-quo-loving party elites just can't shake off might be on the Democrat side...

The whole argument FOR guns in the states seems to boil down to one deep-rooted thing... It's REALLY fun to play soldier!