TheLeviathan

See, I'd argue that's exactly your issue. When a christian bombs an abortion clinic, liberals have no problem saying "christian". When a homophobe attacks someone who is LGBT we have no problem saying "homophobe". But if Islam motivates someone to attack someone else we bend over backwards to make it fit our frame of the issue. Well, to whatever the hell you can call the common nonsense of liberalism these days at least. I love Muslim families (they have, many times, rewarded my efforts as a teacher with some absolutely delicious food and every bit as much with their patience, understanding, and kind words), but this is Islam. It's Islam that motivates people to throw gays off of buildings. To "honor kill" rape victims. To deny education to girls. To flay dissenters. To burn children. I don't hate the religion or any of it's followers, but I won't shove my head in the sand either. Religions have been distorted to evil before - the problem is finding a way to turn it back to what it truly is and as it is practiced by many. But denying the role it plays? That's obnoxiously dishonest.

Yeah, you totally lose me here. First, to USMC and others - the FBI did investigate him and couldn't find any evidence of his involvement. To this - really Psuedo? You can't see the value in it? I would sure as hell hope that Dylan Roof was investigated thoroughly to see if he had networked with other racists on future attacks. Or with a group that believed that sort of thing was ok. Because if we can find that, we may be able to prevent another one. His motivations, his connections, and his path to this act are potentially a window to others planning the same thing. So...holy s*#^ I can't believe I have to say this....it absolutely matters. I don't care if he was a homophobe, a zealot, or whatever, but why so freaking afraid to call things what they are? I mean, people are actively LOOKING to call this homophobia so they don't have to call is Islam. I just don't have words for that level of denial. We know ISIS and other groups coordinate, fund, inspire, and network these sorts of attacks. Calling it what it is, identifying it for what it is, and giving people insight into how others may be doing the same thing absolutely helps us prevent future attacks.

Pfft, my hunting rifle has clearly kept the drones away. I have a rock outside that keeps tigers away too.

First, speaking of inane - the idea that "Democracy" is buying politicians is about as inane as I can imagine. Vote what you want. Having an iron grip on Congress because you are an extremely powerful lobby? I don't support that no matter what the issue is. And it sure as hell ain't Democracy. The 2nd amendment clearly states that arms are there for militia purposes which are clearly to be regulated by the government. Especially since the right is stated as being contingent upon the need for a militia. Which isn't some re-framing, when the Constitution was written the intention of the amendment was to allow individual white men to own a gun so that, when called on, they could come armed to protect the country. It was never about inscribing an individual right - that came about through Constitutional interpretation later. You should read this, it includes detailed notes from Madison and other framers that basically says the current interpretation is a complete load of bull. And that bull and the inability to acknowledge that you don't have to be The Punisher is why these debates happen. The NRA can't even suggest compromises that might, you know, prevent no-fly potential terrorists from having conceal and carry permits. There are plenty of mechanisms for it. He was born in New York long before 9/11 - so no, it wouldnt' have worked. It also does nothing for the white kid who stole his mother's guns to massacre six year olds. And yes, the second is flimsy for a variety of reasons - most notably for the fact that even if you did it, the effects would be impossible to measure and take a generation of people not witnessing it to probably even notice. You sacrifice your free speech every day by accepting a whole host of speech you aren't allowed. You sacrifice your unadulterated right to freedom at someone else's nose every day by accepting where your rights end and their rights begin. Hell, to be specific, you've accepted bazookas shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society. And most importantly, among those "inalienable rights" is your pursuit of happiness - which again MUST end where it infringes on others. Gun culture is not only infringing on the happiness of others, it's taking the most inalienable rights of all - life. As for this issue, let's be clear about your contribution so far - you're going to sit here and say "Nope, not guns!" but offer no solutions? And when asked, you just respond with lame devil's advocate hypotheticals? You're not doing yourself any favors being taken seriously. Cmon - actual solutions. Not hypotheticals.

At the very least that phrase should invite discussion. The NRA has bought and paid for so much political influence that most seem to think the second amendment is a right without any infringement. Whether we agree on how much is irrelevant. The conversation keeps coming up because one side refuses to acknowledge that rights are not limitless, especially those that are explicitly stated to be "well regulated". Regulation, by strict interpretation is mandatory and thus should be a larger conversation. Your first idea doesn't even stop this Muslim man (born in NY) and does nothing for Sandy Hook. Your second idea is pretty flimsy, if you're going to seriously address a serious problem...is that it? Part of being a member of society comes with an accepted limitation on personal freedom, such sacrifices for all should never be off the table.

You're not compromising your civil liberties. No more than you have by not allowing the purchase of bazookas. You still get guns, it's just more "well regulated". Sorry, took that strictly from the 2nd amendment. The compelling reasons are massacres of human lives, including a classroom of six year olds. Sorry that factor is inconvenient. But it's not demagoguery - it's fact. It's a thing that happened. Assuming you think such massacres are a problem, and since they are perpetrated by the acquisition (in many ways) of high powered, large magazine firearms - targeting the instruments of such brutality would seemingly be an avenue towards a solution - no? If not - what's your solution?

Perhaps we should actually be working on some constitutionally workable solutions rather than throwing our hands in the air? Or distracting the issue away towards mental health? When is the last time the NRA or the pro-gun lobby worked towards anything meaningful?

There absolutely is. If a classroom full of dead first graders isn't enough to get even the slightest budge, you're asking for every single massacre to re-ignite the conversation. Which ones did I miss? And, again, can you elaborate on why only the second amendment seems immune from changes? And why a bazooka is universally dismissed as protected under the 2nd amendment but not a X (pick whatever you'd like)?

I'm sorry, could you tell me more about what your exploration entailed? Because it seems like it's merely "It's there, so it must forever remain there" Which, if we had taken the same approach to other constitutional issues, you might need to explain to women in your life why they aren't fit to vote. And why anyone black you know is only a partial, or not at all, person. Or maybe, just maybe, the bill of rights isn't a static thing.

1) The pro-gun side is always going to be the ones starting the debate until we see some give on that side. Sorry, that's just the way it is. 2) And I agree with you, more people on the left need to take heed of what Bill Maher has been saying. As a liberal, what is going on in Islam should be among your top priorities. If you understand what being a liberal means or the causes you are fighting for.

What I don't understand is that they value him enough not to let him go, but not enough to let him play. That feels too familiar with other mistakes.

I could see him sacrificing himself for Brienne also. It's hard to tell what will happen to the south once the war in the North starts really raging.

Either way that isn't much of a story merge since one isn't really happening. Unless Brienne, stoneheary, jaime, the hound, and Arya come together. That has some book elements.

I don't think Stoneheart is back in the show at any point. I could see Arya and the Hound reuniting.

Are you talking about Arya's mother?

Caitlyn? Am I missing something?

Oh, sorry! Figured that came with viewing the episodes. Either way you knew the Northern battle was coming. How it turns out I have no idea, but the producers have talked about this being their largest battle scene of the show, blowing Hardhome and others out of the water.

I think that's exactly it Brock. I've heard next week's battle was a massive expense that drained a major portion of their budget. I hope it pays off in entertainment value.

I think the pacing is a reflection of balancing too many storylines that, as yet, don't have a place in which they meet. The books were plagued by the same issues. I'm glad the Arya thing is over, that conclusion made this whole process feel like a waste of time. And they could've fixed it with a freaking montage showing her skills.

I think it might be stretching it to call the National Guard a "militia" in the sense the 2nd amendment was written, but you're right that it's probably as close as we come. So, if that's true, then you can have a gun if you sign up to be part of the National Guard.

I hope with all the different plot threads starting to come together that the story-telling improves. The show was at it's best when it basically had 3-4 locales it was focused on. With this season trying to do somewhere around 10-12 it's made it seem too fragmented. By the end of this season we'll have hopefully come back much closer to 3-4.

There is no militia in "working order". So, you're right, it doesn't even stand the same chance as the ant vs. my boot via not existing.

But at some point we just have to dismiss tinfoil hat theories and hopelessly outmatched realities and look at the day to day cost of guns. We can't sit back and say "well, you never know when the government...." while every day people are dying of gun violence. The belief you need guns to protect yourself from the government, in 2016, is about as relevant as saying you need them for an alien invasion, zombie outbreak, or the inevitable rise of the apes. We can't make public policy based on that kind of thinking.

So can a law-abiding person with a gun. Hunting accidents and plain, legal stupidity kill people every year. You don't have to be acting like a criminal to kill someone with a gun either. And the problem with the "required process" is the NRA and the tentacles it has firmly around the throat of so many. "Common Sense" is just code for "stop listening to lobbyists and pass laws independent of them".

"Regulating" need not mean controlling. It could mean, you know, regulating what kinds of arms the citizenry has access to. Which we already do, by the way. An ant versus my boot doesn't get any more hopeless if the ant is missing a leg.