"Voting on My Marriage? Let's Vote on Your Guns"

[Rolyo85]

Just something button-pushing that I read on Huffpost. Could have merit for discussion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patric...ref=gay-voices

...

We have the duty to evaluate what "the right to bear arms" should mean, in the over two centuries since our forefathers penned those words with a quill pen, on the edge of a wilderness and to block their fledgling nation from a tyrannical country they fought to be free of, when a barrel-loaded musket was the weapon of choice and no video game was giving our kids bonus points for killing.

We have a duty to demand of our president-reelect and elected officials that something change. Public tears, flags at half-mast and formal proclamations of condolence are no longer good enough. They never should have been without something next. A plan. A solution. A dialogue. A stand against the bullies that are the NRA.

These are our duties to the lost of Sandy Hook. This is our national debt to repay.

...

If our president-reelect won't speak up on the federal level about marriage bans and employment discrimination, let's make the issue of gun ownership a state-level vote, too. But no, they'll argue, you'll just cross a border and the laws will change. You mean like how a New York marriage license isn't honored after a PATH ride to New Jersey? Funny how that argument works.

If conservatives protect gun ownership under the fragile and deceptive umbrella of not wanting to give Big Government too big a hand, let's pass local legislation, then. I'm pretty sure Connecticut, right now, would vote for some kind of change, even among the blue- and white-collar, orange-vested deer hunters. If leaders are so sure there should not be change, they should not fear a vote. That's how it goes, right? And besides, in communities across the U.S.A. already, people are handing their guns over, without any buy-back incentive. That seems to be an indicator of how some of that voting might go.

...

[opinterph]

Just something button-pushing that I read on Huffpost. Could have merit for discussion:

Quoted words: 310

OP’s own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the quoted work: 13 words

[JayHawk]

Could make you more fit!

When most people think of HIIT they think of it as applicable only for cardio, yet it can also be used in weight training. After all, weight training itself is a form of HIIT—you do a set with all-out effort, rest, then do another set, rest, and repeat. Resting two to three minutes between sets, however, is too long for a training session to be considered an effective form of HIIT. But all you have to do is shorten rest periods and you're doing a kind of HIIT that burns fat.

The following workouts are simple to follow, just not very easy to do. For each major muscle group, after following the HIIT 100s protocol on your first exercise, you'll do three more sets to failure of the same exercise using your 10-rep max (10RM). Of course, after doing 10 sets of 10 reps, you'll no longer be able to complete 10 full reps with your 10RM weight—probably more like 5-7 reps. On the third set, you'll do a dropset with the same weight you used for HIIT 100s (50% of your 10RM) and do as many reps as possible.

Can I just leave this here????

i dont think i would marry him but he has nice guns.

[palbert]

By ignoring SCOTUS the quoted section is incomplete. By going everywhere but SCOTUS Mr.Hamilton goes nowhere. It is a lament for a national epiphany that will not materialize.

[Jack Springer]

Just read an article about how "expressing" your anger can add 2 years to your life.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles...n-lifespan.htm

I'm planning on the extra 2 years.

[palbert]

Oh, Jack, you have another lifetime saved up. (But I understand the spur for part of it.)

[Kulindahr]

Neither should be voted on; rights are rights, and the right to freedom of association is as valid as that to self-defense. Freedom of association means marriage, and self defense means keeping and bearing arms.

[palbert]

Freedom of association has nothing to do with marriage.

The analogy is strained.

[Kulindahr]

Freedom of association has nothing to do with marriage.

Marriage is entirely a matter of freedom of association.

[palbert]

Marriage is entirely a matter of freedom of association.

I doubt that is a constitutional meaning. You're trying to palm the Ace and I won't abide it.

Similarly the author of the cited piece tries to link gun or ammo regulation with marriage equality. Logically sophmoric.

[palbert]

Marriage is entirely a matter of freedom of association.

It is not. Were it the marriage equality debate would not be open to discussion.

This should suffice.

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.

(e.s.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

[Rolyo85]

Quoted words: 310

OP’s own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the quoted work: 13 words

It's an article. I want to see what others think, not analyze it. I don't agree with all of it, but the point it makes strikes a chord with me, so I put it here for debate.

And for Jack to act like he's 12 as usual.

[opinterph]

It's an article. I want to see what others think, not analyze it. I don't agree with all of it, but the point it makes strikes a chord with me, so I put it here for debate.

It seems more like an Op-Ed.

With what part(s) do you agree/disagree and why do you find it of interest for discussion (or debate)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-j-hamilton/

[Rolyo85]

Well, I disagree with the emotional setup. The laws of the country prohibit it becoming a state by state issue. But I agree with the unfairness of making civil rights a state by state issue, and with the need to change something about guns. Put in a very few words.

[loki81]

based on polling, people in favor of repealing the second amendment really don't want it to be up for a popular vote.

[Rolyo85]

Repealing? Not in this generation. But restrictions? I am sure a popular vote would surprise many gun advocates.

[Kulindahr]

It is not. Were it the marriage equality debate would not be open to discussion.

This should suffice.

(e.s.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

I'll bet you made quite an impression when you told everyone in school that the United States is an illegitimate nation because the Revolution had no foundation in British law.

[palbert]

I'll bet you made quite an impression when you told everyone in school that the United States is an illegitimate nation because the Revolution had no foundation in British law.

English history is replete with revolutions and overthrows. The Plantagenet line was one long revolution toward the end; see, The Wars of the Roses. See also, The English Civil War.