Loaded guns are fine in most places as long as responsible adults are the ones carrying them, LAWFULLY, as demonstrated by the various background checks and permits that we already have in place. This isn't even up for debate. The constitution is clear.
You can have a gun on a goat
You can have a gun in a boat
You can have a gun in your house
You can have a gun near a mouse
You can have a gun inside your den
You can have a gun to anger a dem
![Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002112943/infographic-54399676329_xlarge.png "Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]")
Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]
SodaHead Infographics
2011/08/26 23:00:00
Earlier this week we asked SodaHeads what they thought about keeping a loaded gun in the car, and the results are in.
SodaHeads overwhelmingly decided that keeping a loaded gun in the car should be your legal right, and that majority spanned across a huge range of demographics. However, there were still a few statistics that stood out to us.
For instance, ever wonder what exactly the difference between a "liberal" and "progressive" is? Looking at their responses to this question, liberals are far more likely to concede gun control than progressives. In fact, liberals were markedly in support of allowing loaded guns in cars.
The original question was tied to a recent incident involving a clumsy gun-owner on a Tennessee highway who accidentally shot himself, but that didn't deter votes in the least.
Wanna find out more? Hold your breath, and get ready for another Deep Dive infographic -- powered by SodaHead.
(For clarity's sake, we counted "only in the trunk" responses as a yes.)
SodaHeads overwhelmingly decided that keeping a loaded gun in the car should be your legal right, and that majority spanned across a huge range of demographics. However, there were still a few statistics that stood out to us.
For instance, ever wonder what exactly the difference between a "liberal" and "progressive" is? Looking at their responses to this question, liberals are far more likely to concede gun control than progressives. In fact, liberals were markedly in support of allowing loaded guns in cars.
The original question was tied to a recent incident involving a clumsy gun-owner on a Tennessee highway who accidentally shot himself, but that didn't deter votes in the least.
Wanna find out more? Hold your breath, and get ready for another Deep Dive infographic -- powered by SodaHead.
(For clarity's sake, we counted "only in the trunk" responses as a yes.)
![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png "Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]")
![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png "A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]")
Someone like you? Only militias should posses guns, not nutjobs like you.
We are then militia in a time of war.
We are our own first line of protection in any violent event. Ex. Mugging
How is he a nut-job now?
Ask a Somalian how that turned out for them?
"Those who pound their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't"
Thomas Jefferson
Thugs rule the country now. Arm the civilians and the troubles go away!
My God, people like you need to be neutered,
Not sure what your stupid point is... Militias aren't the only ones allowed to possess guns per our Constitution and SCOTUS so I guess you don't support either?
If we're serious about safety than the answer is to shut down the monetary system, and all legal system of the planet, and move into a technological egalitarian economy globally where nobody controls resources hence nobody is able to keep resources from anybody else!
If nobody controls the resources, THEN WHO DOES?! People like me wouldn't go for communism like that.
Communism is just another technique to decide how scant resources will be distributed. Ways to give people incentives to work hard at jobs they hate.
I think he's talking about a system of plenty, which is totally different. One where no one *needs* to control the resources, because there's enough for everyone to have as much as they want.
I don't know how practical or realistic it is. But it's worth thinking about.
It is technically possible to make all resources people need to live as abundant as the air, the only question is there the will among the dumbed down human population we call civilization around this planet to do so.
3 examples:
Aeroponic agriculture technology can produce enough fruits vegetables, herbs, seeds all organic to accommodate 20X the current human population with very minimal use of land because aeroponic technology works in any building, you could take over any exist skyscraper in a city and convert those into aeroponic facilities and that solves the food problem right there.
A fully automated transportation infrastructure that would serve all transportation needs of people and reduce the manufacturing of vehicles by 95%, and would eliminate the need for anyone to own a personal vehicle, and would free up all of the land in cities that's being wasted for use as car park facilities because the vehicles would always be in use, so you would never have vehicles just sitting occupying space.
An automated courier system comprised of a global vacuum tube network system would deliver letters, and packages in minutes to hours depending on the distance, and once in place would run itself.
those are just examples ...
It is technically possible to make all resources people need to live as abundant as the air, the only question is there the will among the dumbed down human population we call civilization around this planet to do so.
3 examples:
Aeroponic agriculture technology can produce enough fruits vegetables, herbs, seeds all organic to accommodate 20X the current human population with very minimal use of land because aeroponic technology works in any building, you could take over any exist skyscraper in a city and convert those into aeroponic facilities and that solves the food problem right there.
A fully automated transportation infrastructure that would serve all transportation needs of people and reduce the manufacturing of vehicles by 95%, and would eliminate the need for anyone to own a personal vehicle, and would free up all of the land in cities that's being wasted for use as car park facilities because the vehicles would always be in use, so you would never have vehicles just sitting occupying space.
An automated courier system comprised of a global vacuum tube network system would deliver letters, and packages in minutes to hours depending on the distance, and once in place would run itself.
those are just examples of how a global TECHNOLOGICAL EGALITARIAN system would work, and that is far different from the monetary system, and the terms communism, capitalism, and socialism are just different terms for the monetary system! Arguing over those is just like arguing over 2 red balls, that's a stupid argument to make! Stop pretending as if they are different system when you people know good, and damn well they're not! That's why I say those terms should not even be in encyclopedias!
Although it's arguable that it did (and still does, in those few cultures that aren't ours) up until about 10,000 years ago.
If you can just step outside and pick up whatever you want or need, what does anyone gain by taking it? What do you gain by not sharing?
The answer there, really, is control. If you can force other people to gather your food, that leaves you a little more time for leisure activities. OTOH, if pretty much all your time is dedicated to leisure activities anyway, what difference does it make?
One of the reasons the Europeans felt justified in seizing the Natives' lands in America was that it looked to them as if the Natives were lazy and weren't doing anything productive with it. It turns out that they had it completely backwards. The Natives could afford to live lives of leisure, because they lived in a reality of abundance.
You get real power and control if you lock up the food and force people to work to get it. Ultimately, this is the basis for our culture. Which is not a successful one.
You might get a better idea of the contrast by watching "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Which is mostly BS--that culture had been pretty much totally wiped out before the movie was made. But is still enjoyable and thought-provoking.
After you've watched it, try imagining that sort of culture...
If you can just step outside and pick up whatever you want or need, what does anyone gain by taking it? What do you gain by not sharing?
The answer there, really, is control. If you can force other people to gather your food, that leaves you a little more time for leisure activities. OTOH, if pretty much all your time is dedicated to leisure activities anyway, what difference does it make?
One of the reasons the Europeans felt justified in seizing the Natives' lands in America was that it looked to them as if the Natives were lazy and weren't doing anything productive with it. It turns out that they had it completely backwards. The Natives could afford to live lives of leisure, because they lived in a reality of abundance.
You get real power and control if you lock up the food and force people to work to get it. Ultimately, this is the basis for our culture. Which is not a successful one.
You might get a better idea of the contrast by watching "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Which is mostly BS--that culture had been pretty much totally wiped out before the movie was made. But is still enjoyable and thought-provoking.
After you've watched it, try imagining that sort of culture with high technology available freely to everyone. _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_ is Cory Doctorow's vision of what it might be like. It's an interesting and amusing read, if you're into science fiction. I think you can download it for free.
Population follows food supply. We might be able to produce more than enough for everyone, briefly. People like to pretend that we're different from other animals in this way, but we aren't.
There are groups in Africa that are starving because there are too many people for areas to support. So we send more food as charity. Their population grows, and we have more people starving. This has been the story of our culture for around 10,000 years.
You might enjoy the Daniel Quinn books. _Ishmael_, _The Story of B_, and _My Ishmael_. You pretty much have to read all three to get a clear picture of what he's trying to say, but any one of them conveys the basic idea. He thought he'd covered everything thoroughly with Ishmael. People kept pestering him with questions, so he wrote Story of B. And there were still more questions, so he wrote My Ishmael.
There are a couple of others, that really aren't part of the series but related. The guy who told me about them considers them optional.
The girl who first introduced me to them hated Ishmael, but totally identified with Story of B, which might be my favorite.
If nothing else, it's a thought-provoking premise about a totally different way of looking at the world. In a lot of ways, it's not really all that different from yours. In a couple of important details, I think it might be very fundamentally different.
1) I live in a city.
2) I encounter sketchy people. Many of whom would mug me if the opportunity was right. Often, I see these people before they come towards me. If you are aware of your surroundings, you are less likely to get surprised. Also my brother has been mugged twice. Both times from the front by a guy with a gun. You cannot say that every person gets mugged from behind. That is idiotic.
3) If we were to shut down the monetary system, the first reaction would be for people to panic and loot.
4) If you shut down the legal system, criminals would still harm people. The only difference is they would go free or be hunted down by mob violence.
5) Even if no one "controlled the resources" and everyone had an equal share (which is impossible to create especially without any enforcement), then there would always be someone who wanted more than their share. I got one banana. I wanted two. I'll just take that guy's banana.
6) Not all violent crime is based on monetary gain. i.e. rape, personal vendettas, psychological issues, etc
Secondly, I am talking about moving out of the scarcity orientated economic system-the monetary system, and moving civilization into an abundance orientated economic system, as long as there is scarcity than there will always the open door for someone to control resources. The answer is to make all resources as abundant as the air, and that is technically possible to do. It is technically impossible for anyone to control air, and that's the point we need to get to with all resources! And all the legitimate things you mentioned such as personal vendettas, and what not, all occur as a result of the monetary system, and legal systems which are there to enforce the monetary system. Any system that needs to be enforced is an unsustainable system!
Secondly, I am talking about moving out of the scarcity orientated economic system-the monetary system, and moving civilization into an abundance orientated economic system, as long as there is scarcity than there will always the open door for someone to control resources. The answer is to make all resources as abundant as the air, and that is technically possible to do. It is technically impossible for anyone to control air, and that's the point we need to get to with all resources! And all the legitimate things you mentioned such as personal vendettas, and what not, all occur as a result of the monetary system, and legal systems which are there to enforce the monetary system. Any system that needs to be enforced is an unsustainable system!
I would appreciate an explanation of your theory about how "rape = sex."
Please expand on that.
You also believe that cunnilingus & fellatio should be prohibited/forbidden?
I'm not passing judgment, I'm just asking you to clarify what you mean.