Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Piers Morgan confronts guy who wants to deport him (VIDEO)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to start shooting people
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
Really? I always thought that they were taught to shoot to kill. My cop buds back home told me they were trained to shoot "center mass" - and not to try to "wing" or wound someone.

They are, but that's to give the greatest chance of hitting the target (rather than a bystander behind the target) and to give the best chance at incapacitation.

catman wrote:
Time to start shooting people

The President is openly suggesting that he will use "executive orders" to circumvent Congress's Constitutional role of lawmaking.
I wonder what the Founders' response would be to a chief executive making his own laws...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
You mean the body armor that was designed to protect vital organs and is credited for the high rate of survival from wounds? Laughing


Fair enough.

I was more looking at examining the notion that in this day and age, at least in a militar situation, one might no longer be trained to aim at the center mass if such a shot is unlikely to incapacitate the victim. In fact, shooting for the extremeties in the hopes of just inflicting a wound (or getting a headshot) might become the norm- who knows? But if we reach a point where armor is defeating arms, then you might see different methods employed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
Really? I always thought that they were taught to shoot to kill. My cop buds back home told me they were trained to shoot "center mass" - and not to try to "wing" or wound someone.

They are, but that's to give the greatest chance of hitting the target (rather than a bystander behind the target) and to give the best chance at incapacitation.

catman wrote:
Time to start shooting people

The President is openly suggesting that he will use "executive orders" to circumvent Congress's Constitutional role of lawmaking.
I wonder what the Founders' response would be to a chief executive making his own laws...


Yes, a bullet dead centre would incapacitate someone a lot more effectively than a shot in the legs because that's where the heart is. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Died By Bear wrote:
Obama's wife sleeps well knowing her children are protected by men with guns.


You must admit that they are in a very special situation. How many US presidents were assassinated? Three, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
You mean the body armor that was designed to protect vital organs and is credited for the high rate of survival from wounds? Laughing


Fair enough.

I was more looking at examining the notion that in this day and age, at least in a militar situation, one might no longer be trained to aim at the center mass if such a shot is unlikely to incapacitate the victim. In fact, shooting for the extremeties in the hopes of just inflicting a wound (or getting a headshot) might become the norm- who knows? But if we reach a point where armor is defeating arms, then you might see different me thods employed.

Maybe. In Yugoslavia, snipers shooting at UN soldiers would aim for the shoulder, arms and armpits. There were a couple of guys from my base who got messed up pretty bad that way. One got his elbow nearly blow off as he was reaching for a cigarette another got shot in the armpit and the bullet bounced around, hitting many organs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:

The President is openly suggesting that he will use "executive orders" to circumvent Congress's Constitutional role of lawmaking.
I wonder what the Founders' response would be to a chief executive making his own laws...


Given the first executive order was made by George Washington himself, their resonse might not be the clear-cut condemnation you imagine. The content of such an executive order would be open to Supreme Court review, so if it exceded executive constitutional authority, it would be struck down, and if not, it would stand. I imagine the response of the Founding Fathers to that would be, "Working as intended, and for God's sake son, stop deifying us."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:

Given the first executive order was made by George Washington himself, their resonse might not be the clear-cut condemnation you imagine.


Washington's first executive order was to ask for a summary of the status of the nation. His second was to make Thanksgiving a holiday. Washington would never have thought of using an executive order to override and bypass Congress and the Constitution. I'm sure he would think that we need to remove Obama from office if Barrack were to attempt it, just like my boy Madison:

"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

--James Madison
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:

Washington's first executive order was to ask for a summary of the status of the nation. His second was to make Thanksgiving a holiday. Washington would never ...


The editorializing here is irrelevant. We have a framework. That framework implicitly includes executive orders, and it includes potential judicial review of those executive orders. If the Obama Administration issues an unconstitutional executive order, the sitting Supreme Court will happily overturn it. Those are the facts. The rest is Fox-News-style chaff.

Barack Obama is not going to take away your guns by executive order fiat. Anything he puts forth on the matter will have to withstand judicial review, and thus will likely be very carefully crafted to work within the boundaries of existing law, just as a proper executive order should.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Died By Bear wrote:
Obama's wife sleeps well knowing her children are protected by men with guns.


You must admit that they are in a very special situation. How many US presidents were assassinated? Three, right?


Lincoln
Garfield
Mckinley
JFK

Ford was shot at and Reagan was wounded in an assassination attempt. Nothing since then though!

Quote:
Barack Obama is not going to take away your guns by executive order fiat. Anything he puts forth on the matter will have to withstand judicial review, and thus will likely be very carefully crafted to work within the boundaries of existing law, just as a proper executive order should.


Stop this realist talk. You know Obama is just about to turn this country into a socialist authoritarian government that seizes all our guns.

Of course these days communism has a higher rating than Congress does, so hmm, maybe I shouldn't be so sarcastic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:

The editorializing here is irrelevant. We have a framework. That framework implicitly includes executive orders, and it includes potential judicial review of those executive orders. If the Obama Administration issues an unconstitutional executive order, the sitting Supreme Court will happily overturn it. Those are the facts. The rest is Fox-News-style chaff.


You missed the point. It isn't about whether they can get away with it. It's that they think that they can because our president and vice president think they are above the law.

As CNN reported:

President Barack Obama is exploring executive orders to help prevent mass shootings in America, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday.
"The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken," Biden told reporters before meetings with groups representing survivors of mass shootings. "We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members."

And certainly Obama has gotten away with it in the past. He couldn't get the DREAM Act through Congress, so he just mirrored the provisions in an executive order. He avoided Senate approval when he appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He bypassed Congress with the "We Can't Wait" initiative. And even the Government Accountability Office pointed out that he was supposed to check with Congress before changing welfare policy this past July. All of this was done through executive order. So how much of this was overturned by the courts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. BlackCat



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:


As previously stated, rifles kill a fantastically small number of people in the U.S. We're talking "falling out of bed and breaking your neck" numbers here. Considering how valuable the freedom to own semi-automatic rifles is to many Americans (particularly in defense from tyranny), and considering the tiny number of deaths related to them, can't we agree that legislation is better focused elsewhere? Perhaps in mandating softer carpets for people to fall out of bed onto?


Rifles killed 358 people in the USA in 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Falling out of bed kills, on average, 450 people in the US per year.
http://www.oddee.com/item_98002.aspx

So you are correct, although the article doesn't add details about broken necks. But I have to wonder, should we ban beds then? Should we ban absolutely everything in the world that may cause injury besides guns because that one thing was covered in a document that was written over two centuries ago? A document that has been revised multiple times to reflect the changing world? Is there no room for common sense?

A bed has many more practical uses than death machine, which is the single use of the gun. An individual can pick up a rifle and kill dozens of innocents. Does someone force dozens of people to fall out of bed and crack their necks? In any case, more people, by far, use beds everyday. Several times a day, actually. So on a per use basis, the stats aren't really close at all.

On average, falling of out bed kills more Americans than terrorism does, by an even greater number. Should the government stop pursuing terrorists and focus on soft carpets, as you suggest?

I'm just curious where the pro-gun people draw the line. What is an acceptable amount of deaths? I agree with you that legislation could be focused elsewhere, and I think we're pretty much on the same side. But an assault rifle ban is a step in the right direction, a first step. I don't think minimizing it does any good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A bed has many more practical uses than a gun...


A bed pretty much has one use.

Oh, I forgot about sleep. Make that two.

Quote:
Should we ban absolutely everything in the world that may cause injury besides guns


Should we ban everything in the world that may cause injury besides beds?

I think the point is that one should carefully weigh the merits of banning something and not do so unless there is a compelling risk as well as a potentially serious act.

Quote:
because that one thing was covered in a document that was written over two centuries ago? A document that has been revised multiple times to reflect the changing world? Is there no room for common sense?


I'm not sure you really grasp how seriously those first 10 Amendments are taken. Yes, there have been additions to our Constitution that corrected some grievous wrongs, but the thing is that if you repeal one of the 10 Amendments, then basically you cross a bridge into it being open season on the rest.

And I'm sorry, I don't see anyone throwing out phrases like "Some document written two centuries ago" or "Times change" when it comes to things like Due Process, Search & Seizure, Rights of the Accused, Quartering of Troops, etc. And let's not forget- Those things came after the Amendment on guns.

I'd sooner see a ban on semi-automatic handguns than some sort of cockamamie "Assault Weapons" ban that bans scary looking guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. BlackCat wrote:
Should the government stop pursuing terrorists

Yes. It is a giant waste of money. The government should also stop being terrorists, both at home and abroad (far more important, since there are very few "real" terrorists that actually affect the US directly).

Quote:
I'm just curious where the pro-gun people draw the line.

I don't. I think any gun that's available of the free market should be allowed to be owned. Hell, that even includes tanks (not that there's much of a market there). The real key to getting rid of the worst weapons would be to ban the military-industrial complex. That would even solve the infamous "should citizens be allowed to own nuclear weapons" quandary that gun-grabbers so love to pose. Imagine someone trying to produce a nuke on the free market (it would simply never happen).

Being serious though, on a practical level there is no "line". People, except criminals, should be allowed to own whatever guns they want. Since criminals will do so regardless (and the government has super-weapons that can destroy the whole planet), it's all the more reason the rest of us law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own whatever arms we choose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
Fox wrote:

The editorializing here is irrelevant. We have a framework. That framework implicitly includes executive orders, and it includes potential judicial review of those executive orders. If the Obama Administration issues an unconstitutional executive order, the sitting Supreme Court will happily overturn it. Those are the facts. The rest is Fox-News-style chaff.


You missed the point. It isn't about whether they can get away with it.


It is exactly about "what they can get away with" within the bounds of the system laid out by the Constitution.

madoka wrote:
It's that they think that they can because our president and vice president think they are above the law.


Pointless editorialization.

madoka wrote:
(stuff that Madoka is angry about clipped) All of this was done through executive order. So how much of this was overturned by the courts?


How much of it is genuinely unconstitutional, such that it should have been? Probably none: the Constitution grants the President broad power in his management of the executive branch and its activities with regards to implementing the law.

Your complaint about the NLRB appointments in particular are ill founded; the question of whether legislators can pretend to be in session to block recess appointments is a conflict between the executive and the legislative which is in need of judicial resolution. The issue needs to be forced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 7 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International