Even I Was Disgusted After Reading This.....

[tucsonlib]

While doing some research to try to better understand the whole "Heller" hullabaloo, I came upon this gem. Included in the gun regulations approved by the Washington D.C. City Council (both pre- and post-Heller) is a ban on "machine guns" - defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading.
And they wonder why they're not taken seriously. As a gun-owning member of the Obama-backing, Bush/McCain-despising, radical ex-hippie wing of the Democratic Party, who generally supports reasonable gun control legislation, I am embarrassed....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Apparently they can make the truth up.

[Boomer 50]

2. Anyone who wants to submit gun legislation.....

Should be forced to pass a strict test regarding history, firearms technology, terminology, and proficiency before they may submit any bill relating to firearms what so ever.

I hate to say it but anti-gunners are very uneducated on the subject almost without exception. Sadly, for the most part, they choose to remain ignorant of a subject that they really should learn about before opening their mouths.

[iverglas]

3. but did you read on?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x180540

I commend post 43 to your attention.


edit: see also post 98 and the ensuing conversation. I think you'll be able to tell which side of it is making sense.

[Howzit]

10. "If legislation defines my dog as a cat, does that make him so?"

From your reference at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x180540#180880

I don't care if a new law defines your dog as a cat. The trouble starts when cats are banned and you have to give up my dog.

To trouble with DC's definition of a machine gun is not simply that it is wrong, but that it would ban a large number of otherwise legal handguns. If you cannot trust someone with a 13 shot pistol, I say you cannot trust them with a 6 shot revolver.

If you trust someone with a 6 shot revolver, why not a 13 shot pistol?

[jody]

14. Your post reminds me of a brouhaha in a major city when a pet section used “dhc” to

identify dachshunds in its data base.

Its law requires that all dogs be licensed and license tags be attached to the dog’s collar while in public. Dog owners may be fined for violation of the law.

Some well-meaning but grossly ignorant staffer noticed that there were a large number of dachshunds for which their licenses had expired.

The staffer came up with a scheme to identify all owners who had broken the law and shortly the city had a mass-mailing of letters denouncing those owners, notifying them of the appropriate fine, and threatening harsh action by LEO if the fine was not promptly paid.

Unfortunately legions of cat owners received those letters and city-hall was inundated with calls from furious cat owners.

Eventually the problem was discovered, the data base did use “dhc” to identify dachshunds but it also used “dhc” to identify domestic house cat.

I believe that story was in "Communications of the ACM" a decade or more ago.

[iverglas]

16. your post reminds me of a dog's breakfast

Hahahahahaha!

Why would anyone use "dhc" to mean dachshund? The letters "dhc" do not appear in that order in the word dachshund.

http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachumd/horror.html

Chicago cat owners were billed $5 for unlicensed dachshunds. A database search on "DHC" (for dachshunds) found "domestic house cats" with shots but no license. From ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 12, no. 3.

Just gets better with each telling, don't it?

Who would search a pet licensing database for dachshunds?

Somebody needs to be looking up the source cited for this one.

And I still wonder what the relevance of this one here might be.

[iverglas]

15. there's a word for this

It's "disingenuous".

I don't care if a new law defines your dog as a cat.
The trouble starts when cats are banned and you have to give up my dog.

That is not what the legislation in question does. (Did you really mean to say "you have to give up my dog"?)

So why are you pretending it is what the legislation in question does?


You know what my answers to this disingenuous nonsense are. And yet you choose to pretend there were no answers.

For your edification:

Is it acceptable to you that legislation can define a term however the legislators wish?

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION, which is what I said, absolutely.

Some US states define a fetus as a human being for the purposes of homicide legislation.

It is not the definition that bothers me. It is the legislative decision to punish the termination of a pregnancy as if it were homicide.

That help at all?

and

IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A BEEF.

***NOT*** THE LEGISLATIVE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE.

For the love of fuck.

Think you can acknowledge it this time?

[Howzit]

23. "It is not the definition that bothers me."

"It is not the definition that bothers me. It is the legislative decision to punish the termination of a pregnancy as if it were homicide."

Your example illustrates my point better than I can - you are correct:

"IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A BEEF.

***NOT*** THE LEGISLATIVE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE."

[iverglas]

24. how can / why do you say things that are quite simply false?

What I said IN NO WAY illustrates your point.

If you're concerned about the purpose/effects of the legislation, complain about that.

NOT about the terms used to achieve the purpose/effects.


To trouble with DC's definition of a machine gun is not simply that it is wrong, but that it would ban a large number of otherwise legal handguns.

The definition IS NOT WRONG. It is a definition of a term used in legislation. It has NO OTHER intended or actual effect. Why can't you grasp this concept?

Mules ARE NOT cattle. They are defined as cattle in the Criminal Code of Canada. This DOES NOT change the nature of mules or cattle, and IS NOT INTENDED to change the nature of mules or cattle.

Legislation CANNOT CHANGE the nature of ANYTHING.

Your problem is that the legislation would ban a large number of otherwise legal handguns.

That has NOTHING TO DO with what those handguns are called in the legislation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Here's the definition just so you understand.

In United States law, a Machine Gun is defined (in part) by The National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) as “... any weapon which shoots ... automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

So yes the definition is wrong according to current US law. What about that don't you get? I thought you were a lawyer or whatever they call lawyers in Canada.

David

[iverglas]

28. here's a clue, just so you understand

In United States law, a Machine Gun is defined ...

In a PARTICULAR United States FEDERAL law, a machine gun is defined FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT LAW ...

That's what you meant to say.

The definition of "machine gun", or anything else, in a FEDERAL statute has NO EFFECT on laws at other levels, or on how governments at other levels define anything in their own legislation.

The definition of "machine gun" in a United States federal statute is OF THE MOST SUPREME IRRELEVANCE to this discussion.


So yes the definition is wrong according to current US law. What about that don't you get?

Have you figured out yet, Dave, that there are different kinds of laws in your country -- federal and state, for starters -- and that no level may legislate about something under the jurisdiction of another level?


I thought you were a lawyer or whatever they call lawyers in Canada.

I was. And we call them "machine guns".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. You call semi-automatic pistols machine guns?

I disagree with your second point. It is not uncommon for federal law to override state law.

David

[iverglas]

39. I call mules "cattle"

when I am discussing the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

And I would call a pickle sandwich a machine gun, if I were discussing a provision of a statute that defined it as such.


It is not uncommon for federal law to override state law.

Have you considered applying for a job as a law professor? Obama's position might be open soon ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. You guys sure are weird.

In regards to your snipe, the Civil Rights Act comes to mind.

David

[jody]

34. You’re treating a patient for a curable disease but it could be a terminal illness.

You and I know that anyone with a modicum of internet savvy above McCain would know how to use Google, locate 26 USC 5845. Definitions, and read:

(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

You deserve an award for patiently educating those who are ignorant or ignore such inconvenient things as the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense, a right protected by the Second Amendment of our Constitution and acknowledged by PA (1776) and VT (1777) as a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

[iverglas]

38. which one is masochism?

The irresistible urge to make a complete ass of one's self in public ...

[jody]

4. Do we Dems have a covert group within the highest echelons of our party that keep our candidates

very close to winning the presidency but not to actually win?

Gore and Kerry lost very close elections and RKBA was a contributing factor. The only debatable issue is just how significant RKBA was in causing their loss.

Now comes a spoiler in such a covert operation to keep RKBA as a divisive, polarizing issue that along with a few others like abortion and GLBT can keep those who sweat for their daily bread fighting like starving dogs over crumbs while some other group tightens their strangle-hold over the government we are taught in school belongs to We the People.

That spoiler is D.C. v. Heller which SCOTUS narrowly decided in favor of We the People.

That should have taken RKBA out of play in presidential elections and I didn't know why the NRA was not an early and aggressive advocate for Heller's side.

Now I must at least ask why did the NRA not aggressively support Heller until it was a fait accompli.

That should have been a no-brainer even though NRA is clearly used by Republican operatives to manipulate its 4.3 million members who in turn are often grassroot leaders among the 54 million gun-owners in our electorate of 200 million. Heller after-all was clearly about the right to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense.

I need to go to sleep because what I thought was pure BS :tinfoilhat: is beginning to look scary.

From another post I said, Like the fictional anchor Howard Beale on "UBS Evening News" I want all Democrats to open their windows and join me in shouting "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore.”

Have a pleasant evening. :hi:

:sarcasm: below or is it?

[iiibbb]

5. fait accompli

The NRA gets a lot of it's membership because people are concerned about losing their rights. The SCOTUS was a lose-lose for the NRA. A favorable decision hurts the NRA because they have a harder time recruiting if people feel their right is secure... A negative decision hurts the NRA because they fail in their mission/promise to protect gun rights.

So they waited.

I do think Republicans manipulate gun-owners, which seems to have a larger proportion of single-issue voters than most right-to-whatever organizations.

[jody]

6. Several of my friends who are Life/Endowment/ Patron/Benefactor members agree with me but you may be

correct.

Have a pleasant evening. :hi:

[iiibbb]

7. I think I'm right because of the way the NRA advertises...

... you just have to watch one of their membership drives on TV to figure it out. Read one of the NRA mailings.

Not that I haven't been a member... as it was a requirement of my hunt club... but one of the reasons I don't like the organization is the amount of $$ the put toward advertising and trinkets (i.e. free keychain with membership).

[jody]

8. So we disagree. That won't prevent us from having lunch to discuss politics if we were ever to meet.

Have a pleasant evening, :hi:

[iiibbb]

9. You too.

[pipoman]

11. I agree with this

I do think Republicans manipulate gun-owners, which seems to have a larger proportion of single-issue voters than most right-to-whatever organizations.

The difference between this issue and say the abortion issue is that both sides of the abortion issue are equally active on the issue. There are similar numbers of single issue voters on the side of choice as on the side of anti choice resulting in a very small number of net votes one way or the other on any national election. On the issue of gun control, the pro-RKBA are far, far more active and have millions more single issue voters than the anti side does resulting in losses at the national (and some regional) polls on this issue alone. It is just too bad that it has to be Democrats who choose to be on the loosing side of this issue when it would be so much better for the party if our platform and candidates left gun control issues to the states and got on with the issues our party members know are truly important and worthy of fighting for. We allow our leaders to keep doing the same loosing things, then wonder why we keep loosing. Part of this is the party's inclination to stifle open debate about this issue as at the convention and even here at DU. Maybe if we act like the elephant isn't in the corner nobody will notice.

[jody]

13. Outstanding point. A toast to those of us who want the Democratic Party to become pro-choice

on RKBA as it is pro-choice on abortion. :toast:

Too bad the phrase "pro-choice" has already been co-opted for use to define a position for the divisive, polarizing abortion issue.

[iverglas]

18. vile

Too bad the phrase "pro-choice" has already been co-opted for use to define a position for the divisive, polarizing abortion issue.

Simply vile.

[old mark]

59. I believe it is still valid to use that phrase,

and I hope to see the day when we as Democrats in the USA can agree to disagree without the snide name-calling and demonizing that seems to go with this issue.

At least, let's win the election and we can argue among ourselves afterward.

I have no problem with anyone who dislikes guns not owning any - I respect your decision, and expect the same in return.

How hard to understand is that?


mark

[iverglas]

17. no, it is not

The difference between this issue and say the abortion issue is that both sides of the abortion issue are equally active on the issue.

The difference between the issues is that there is no legitimate justification, based on any public interest of {edit: or, not of} question of public welfare, for interfering in the exercise of women's reproductive rights (such interference being a violation of the right to life and liberty, btw).

There is not even a possible legitimate justification that could be argued by those seeking to interferen in the exercise of those rights.

That is NOT the case in respect of firearms possession, as even an overwhelming majority of those who are largely against restrictions would agree. There IS a public interest in controlling access to firearms.

So you all can just take your vile attempt to exploit women, once again, someplace where you might get away with it.

[pipoman]

19. So you disagree that there are literally millions

of anti-choice single issue voters? Really? You deny that the anti choice brigade is very active? Really? Without regard for the legitimacy of the argument?

I can't think of another single issue held by either party which has more single issue voters than abortion and firearms, no other comparison made, none.

So you can take your vile attempt to say I said something I didn't, once again, someplace where you might get away with it.

[iverglas]

21. so you're still beating your dog?

Got anything to say that is actually in some way related to something I said?

I managed to respond to what I was responding to. You should try it.


So you can take your vile attempt to say I said something I didn't, once again, someplace where you might get away with it.

I quoted what you said. If you want to disown it, feel quite free.



Edit: I'm going to help you out.

You said: The difference between this issue and say the abortion issue is that both sides of the abortion issue are equally active on the issue.

I said: No, that is not the difference between the issues.

The relevant, significant difference between the issues is something else altogether that you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist.

I did NOT say anything about who is active about what issue.

So why you would say: So you disagree that there are literally millions of anti-choice single issue voters?... blah blah ... well, maybe you can tell me. I don't actually care, of course, since it has nothing to do with anything I said.

[pipoman]

25. I think any time a man utters

the word abortion you see red and can't see anything at all or your reading comprehension is severely flawed. Did you read the quote I was responding to? Did you read my response to THAT QUOTE. Did you read my response to you? I know you understand that I was not commenting on the act of abortion, pretending that you aren't understanding same. Do you enjoy pretending you are too dumb to understand? Or are you just unwilling to acknowledge that the comparison I made is accurate, trying to derail the conversation to another of your pet issues?

I know, beat your dogs breakfast with a wire whip made for beating eggs and butter, and all that nonsense...don't bother if you can't address the subject at hand.

[iverglas]

29. Lord fucking jesus

I think any time a man utters the word abortion you see red and can't see anything at all or your reading comprehension is severely flawed.

I think that's just exactly the kind of misogyny I expect to see around here.


You said, to me:

So you disagree that there are literally millions of anti-choice single issue voters? Really? You deny that the anti choice brigade is very active? Really? Without regard for the legitimacy of the argument?

You said that WITH NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS. You said that I did something THAT I HAD NOT DONE and THAT YOU HAD NO REASON TO SAY I HAD DONE.

I DID NOT SAY that I disagreed that there are literally millions of blah de blah blah blah.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT how many blah de blahs there are.

I said that THE DIFFERENCE between the issues is that there is NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION for interfering in women's reproductive rights. There IS legitimate justification for interfering in the "right to keep and bear arms", as you and virtually everyone here will agree.


Or are you just unwilling to acknowledge that the comparison I made is accurate

The comparison you made is 100% SPECIOUS.

The Democratic Party does not uphold women's reproductive rights BECAUSE there are millions of people agitating for it to do so.

That is not WHY the Democratic Party upholds women's reproductive rights.

So your attempt to compare the Democratic Party's approach to the two issues based on HOW MANY PEOPLE agitate about them is DISINGENUOUS. The comparison is SPECIOUS and the distinction you described is IRRELEVANT.


The actual issue you chose to drag in, in an attempt to make a case, is actually irrelevant too, both objectively and to me personally.

Or it would be, if it weren't such common practice in certain quarters to try to hard to EXPLOIT women's interests in the service of those quarters' own agenda.

[iiibbb]

20. So remind me what the AWB did to control access to firearms.

Because... I don't think it did shit.

[joshcryer]

42. I'd say that "partial birth abortion" is directly analogous to "banning guns by redefinition."

Ironically the poster who is most vocal here would make all sorts of arguments against the former while defending the latter!

[iverglas]

43. I'd say that "turkey dinner" is directly equivalent to "the last episode of MASH"

and be making exactly as much sense.

Oh, except there actually was a last episode of MASH. So I guess I'm making more sense.

[joshcryer]

44. What are you trying to say? You are so incoherent at times.

I think you should check yourself into some place or something.

"Partial birth abortion" is a redefinition. You know it. I know it. Don't play stupid.

[iverglas]

45. "You are so incoherent at times."

Got it in one.

That's exactly what I was saying.

[joshcryer]

46. Yeah, but you don't substantiate it at all. You just make some spurious claim.

This is why you are incoherent and I am not. There is substance to what I write.

Please explain to me how "partial birth abortion" is not the same redefinition in law that the OP is talking about. It's exactly the same thing.

[joshcryer]

48. Cute.

The definition IS NOT WRONG. It is a definition of a term used in legislation. It has NO OTHER intended or actual effect. Why can't you grasp this concept?

iverglas, if consistant, saying the definition of "partial birth abortion" is not wrong. :)

But we know that it is, we know that the legislator is completely wrong by defining it the way it does, just like we know that it is wrong for defining machineguns/assault weapons the way it does. It's about power and control.

[iverglas]

49. well there ya go

iverglas, if consistant, saying the definition of "partial birth abortion" is not wrong.

Got it in one again.

It is *evil* when used in public discourse.

When used in legislation, it is simply a term chosen to describe something.

The "something" in question is the problem: an ill-defined procedure used in terminating pregnancies (note, most commonly non-third trimester pregnancies), and outlawed. There is no constitutionally acceptable justification for outlawing it.

But the term itself, as used in the legislation? Just words.


But we know that it is, we know that the legislator is completely wrong by defining it the way it does

blah blah

If the legislature defined it the way it does, and then used the definition in provisions requiring that insurance companies cover the cost of the procedure, I just wouldn't be bothered at all. I mean, I'd think it was dumb, but what would I care?

Now, if the legislative body in question used the definition of "machine gun" in question in provisions requiring that, oh, I dunno, local authorities issue permits to carry the things as now defined in the impugned legislation around, would you be bothered?

I'm thinking not.

[joshcryer]

50. "Just words"?

You do realize that without these suspect definitions the *goals* are much more difficult, don't you?

It's the difference between saying "ban all guns" and "ban all assault weapons," "redefine assault weapons as all guns."

I would be appalled if these suspect definitions *were* used to further some goal I liked. Because the definition is *wrong* and it can lead to *further control.* All it would take is a simple ammendment, "define machine gun as all guns." "Ammend machine guns to be banned." It's a joke!

By your saying "partial birth abortion" is not a wrong definition, you are in fact furthering the goals of the authoritarians.

I suspect that you really don't want to think about this issue very much and that you're fine with these weaselwords in law, despite that it results in a clear contridition.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

55. hush now

I'm trying to flirt with two Englishmen at once in another far-flung corner of the internet. You're distracting me for no good reason.


There is absolutely *no context* where the words "partial birth abortion" are *true.*

Words are not true, and words are not false.

Definitions are not true, and definitions are not false.

I don't know. Maybe Noam Chomsky has said something somewhere that could help you out with this.


Likewise there is absolutely *no context* where the words "machine gun is a gun that holds more than 10 bullets" is *true.*

And yet there is a context where "machine gun" is defined as "___" for the purposes of that context.

My statement makes sense. Yours doesn't. Quite apart from the fact that your subject and verb don't agree.


There's a reason the AMA doesn't recognize the term "partial birth abortion" (even though it is written in *law*).

It may come as a surprise to you, but what the AMA recognizes or doesn't recognize is of the most supreme irrelevance when it comes to the law.

What the AMA does not recognize is the EXISTENCE OF A MEDICAL PROCEDURE that could accurately be described as "partial birth abortion". Nothing to do with "recognizing" a term.

Maybe some day you'll see the difference.

Then again maybe you really are that dense.

[joshcryer]

56. Garbage.

No wonder no one takes you seriously on these forums. I mean you consider "partial birth abortion" an arguably accurate term for crying out loud. From now on consider your comments to me a waste of your time because I certainly won't be taking you seriously by wasting my time with replying to your compulsive drivel.

[iverglas]

57. "No wonder no one takes you seriously on these forums"

Ha. Yeah, that would be why so many people obviously find it so necessary to lie about what I say.

Moving on ...

I mean you consider "partial birth abortion" an arguably accurate term for crying out loud.

You can mean it all you want. You can mean it 549%. It will still be 100% false. And you will still be 100% unable to produce any evidence to support it.

From now on consider your comments to me a waste of your time ...

... because you don't understand a word. You thought I hadn't known that for always?



html fixed

[iverglas]

58. damn damn damn

Banned from the genealogy board again. Fortunately, one of the lads in question was banned at the same time, and I'd been flirting with the other one by email anyhow, so the only net effect is: more time for all of you!

Banned from the genealogy board -- again?? How can this be?? you ask.

Well, as near as I can tell, it was for posting Tom Lehrer lyrics. We shall see, when they respond to my demand for explanation. Failing which, and failing a reversal of the decision and credit for time while denied use of the service, I shall make good on my threat to file complaints with the UK consumer protection and anti-discrimination authorities ...

[joshcryer]

61. WTF is this person rambling on about now? Does anyone know?

:shrug:

[iverglas]

62. actually

Probably everybody but you does.

Not quite sure what you're on about though, of course. You speak to me and refer to "this person".

":shrug:"

[joshcryer]

64. An enigma for sure.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

70. I saw you quoting the rules at someone just now, jody

So I gather you've read those rules. Do they just not apply to you?


ROFLMAO, I read “enema” when you wrote “enigma”. How careless of me. n/t


You seem to have picked up on this one recently, after being hit with it more than once:

"Do not use the DU Groups to 'rally the troops' to go participate in discussion threads elsewhere on our website, or to likewise encourage members to vote in polls or recommend threads or alert on posts."

although maybe you're not quite up to speed on this one:

"Do not use the DU Groups to whip up feelings of victimization or to complain about perceived mistreatment by the administrators, moderators, or members of Democratic Underground."


And of particular relevance here:

"You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

If you wish to ignore me, you are welcome to do so.

If you wish to speak to me, you are welcome to do so.

If you wish to continue to post crude (and usually very stupid) remarks about what I post on this board, I suggest you ... well, I guess I suggest you do what you like. That seems to be what you have done for years and plan to keep doing. Bulletproof, I guess.

[pipoman]

12. It seems

that making a monumental attempt at alchemy which failed resulted in the alchemists claiming that the gold colored lead is in fact gold. This example is even stupider in that it would be just as easy to simply limit magazine capacities without looking like (which is kind as I believe they actually ARE) complete and total idiots.

[iverglas]

22. nah

Really. How many times does one thing have to be definitively refuted in the same place before it's enough?

It seems that making a monumental attempt at alchemy which failed resulted in the alchemists claiming that the gold colored lead is in fact gold.

Nope. It isn't that way, and it doesn't seem that way.

No one made any claim at all. No one. No claim.

A definition FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEGISLATION IS NOT a claim. Not. Is not.

It is a definition for the purposes of legislation. It does not operate outside the legislation, and it does not operate to change the nature of anything, and it is not a claim to do so.

[pipoman]

26. No defense for the classification

so you just spout more about beating dogs with a curling iron made of soap stone found in a cave on Easter Island by weasel, carried to the shore line to be discovered by Jacob Roggeveen who fashioned it into a fishing weight and caught Moby Dick, released Captain Ahab from his belly, who then began using it as a curling iron to curl his beard.

[iverglas]

30. tell me, wise man

The state of Hawaii has decided to prohibit all mining for the 20 heaviest known elements, within its jurisdiction, subject to some exceptions. Mining will be allowed one one particular island, and on other islands where a licence is issued, and anywhere at all that is not within 5 miles of a habitation.

It wishes to prepare legislation to effect this.

Now, every time it refers to the elements in question, it could spell them out, all 20 of them.

Or it could have a definitional section at the beginning of the statute, in which it says:

In this Act, "gold" means gold, lead ... and so on down the list of 20.

Then everywhere else in the Act where the word "gold" appears, it will be read as meaning all 20 of the named elements.


Now. Do you understand this? And do you understand that the legislature of the State of Hawaii would not actually be claiming that it had turned lead into gold?

[pipoman]

36. ...

(cosx + isinx)n = cos(nx) + isin(nx)

[benEzra]

63. It would make sense to define the term "heavy elements"...

rather than calling lead "gold".

The D.C. law is more akin to outlawing abortion by introducing a bill to ban "murder of a toddler", and defining a "toddler" as any child or fetus under the age of 5 years. Lets you beat rational objectors over the head with the loaded term ("How can you oppose a ban on killing toddlers!!") while obfuscating the real purpose of the law, which would of course be the point.

This is not a "machine gun" under any rational definition whatsoever:



And calling it one does not make that determination any less nonsensical.

[iverglas]

31. funny, btw

How you had to make shit up to avoid addressing what was actually in the post you were "replying" to.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

33. my dear jody

You know as well as I do that your post will be deleted. You know as well as I do that when you have put another DU member "on ignore", you are not permitted to continue to snipe at that member from the sidelines. You know as well as I do that every time you do this, your post is deleted.

What you must know, and I don't, is why you continue to do it. Do you regard yourself as above the rules? Do you just not give a shit what the rules are? Are you just too lacking in basic manners to behave as a normal person does in polite company? I truly want to know. I'm flummoxed.

Someone else may have a theory ... ?

[joshcryer]

47. iverglas giving a lesson on manners. :)

:rofl:

[iverglas]

52. joshcryer is misrepresenting reality

Quelle surprise.

Seems whatever I was doing, I was onto a good thing, eh?

Always right and never lie, that's moi.

[joshcryer]

54. Oh I thought you calling out other people with regards to manners was an admonishment.

I didn't know that you didn't give a squat about manners (oops, your post history makes that dang clear!).

Are you just too lacking in basic manners to behave as a normal person does in polite company?

[Indy Lurker]

35. DC is also banning all forks, spoons, and knives.

For the purpose of this post forks, spoons, and knives are defined as any weapon that can shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Does that mean spooning is illegal?

[old mark]

60. Yes,

and Forking, too.

mark

[LN3]

65. this minimun reply requirement sucks... i have a thread to post !!

how many replies do i need ?

[tburnsten]

66. Dozens, LN3, dozens.

[tburnsten]

67. How many do you need anyway?

[tburnsten]

68. Hopefully you will get there soon, I want to read a new thread!