Raider5678

Today I learned, a 52 year old man became a 6 year old girl after leaving his wife and seven children behind. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

Today I learned men can be arrested in New York for having their legs spread too wide on public transportation, also known as manspreading.

Today I learned that most missiles are actually solid fuel rather than liquid fuel, due to their ability to remain usable for decades without having to worry about the corrosive effects of liquid fuel.

Thank you.

Cool. I'm assuming that'd be insanely expensive right now. Unless someone miraculously learns how to reland rockets...............Elon, get the block 5 ready. Let's say you have 2 separate modules, 1 that's large enough for astronauts to inhabit for some time, and another that's much smaller and is just a counterweight. The large one could spin at whatever speed they need, and an equation could tell the system how fast to spin the smaller one to counteract the speed of the larger centrifuge. Would that work? It'd help save the cost of building 2 of them.

Out of curiosity, couldn't you add two modules and each spins in a separate direction? Would that counteract the effect of one? Assuming we have the technology to spin them both to the same speed, at the same time.

It honestly just sounds like they're going mad to me.......

Who cares? The Democratic party was doing under the table BS and got caught redhanded. They decided to deny and then cover it up. The Republican party was doing under the table BS and got caught redhanded. They decided to deny and then cover it up. The "Trump-Russia collusion" question is pretty much only a question because it worked in his favor.

You can only shoot one gun at a time.

Exactly.

Ultimately this statement is true. Now keeping the guns out of the hands of people who do is the key. Also known as gun control.

IMO the American people aren't like a courtroom. Doesn't work like that. In court, if evidence(DNC emails) is obtained illegally(through hacking), that evidence is to be thrown out and can't be used. However, since American people don't simply ignore evidence against the DNC simply because Russians hacked it, they meddled in the elections. My very honest opinion, if you want it, is that the best way to avoid being ambushed is to not be pulling BS like that in the first place. If the DNC hadn't been lying to people in the first place, covering things up, and rigging the democratic nomination regardless of how votes went, the emails wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much damage. The horrible crime the Russian hackers did was publish nearly 20,000 emails. On top of that, the DNC had ANOTHER opportunity to fix it. They could have said something like "We're doing an internal review. People were caught lying to voters, people were caught hiding things, people were caught rigging the elections, these same people will be investigated and probably fired. We, as the Democratic National Convention, do not tolerate corruption and will take all actions possible to get rid of it in our party." And then they could have followed through with it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html (unless CNN is controlled by Russian hackers and so are all the sources they've listed, the information I've posted here is in that link) And this link outlines some of the things the emails say. Racist things(Skip to the last one on the page for that one), corruption, trying to rig the primaries, etc. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

And how would we do that?

Today I learned that bathtubs are just the opposites of boats.

Would you assume a pistol, two rifles, and a decent shotgun a lot? That'd mean around 64 million Americans would own a gun if the guns were split evenly to 4. That'd be 1/5 Americans. Just curious. However, the true story lies with the fact of gun collectors/sportsman/avid hunters/and gun sellers. Collectively, they own most of the guns.

Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted. If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it. There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay. Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state.

No. I didn't. Read again. You've taken the line out of context. However, I've placed it back into context so hopefully, this confusion will be cleared up. I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion at hand.

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion? Edit after downvotes: I did not put words in your mouth. You said it was a problem that states had the ability to thwart federal laws on safety. I pointed out that they can't, and suggested that perhaps you don't fully understand the U.S. legal system, which is okay. It's not me being a Canadian racist, it's me suggesting something that's true. Then, after I stated that states can't thwart the federal government you try to tell me you never said it. Yet, I've quoted you directly saying that we might have to remove their ability to do so. Your posts have created a contradiction with themselves. You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

Your own quote suggested that states could just thwart the federal government. They can't, and you very clearly stated it: Unless your opinion is that someone who breaks the law automatically thwarted the legal system even if they're caught and punished, then your quote doesn't hold up.

Alright, then you should understand that if the State passes laws that contradict the federal government, the federal government overrules the state's regulations.

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works. There's a 9-month course I took that went over it. It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

As far as I know, if the supreme court orders a state to do something, they have to do it. That hardly sounds like thwarting the federal laws.

I defined regulated as having strict laws, however, you are correct. I agree. I'm not sure I follow, but that's a whole other ballpark. If you start a thread on it I'll be happy to participate in it, however. States do have the right to put pretty much whatever restrictions they like on guns unless deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. I've participated a little in judiciary programs, however, I am not familiar with a case where the Supreme Court ruled that states had to repeal a gun law of any kind. I could be mistaken. So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt.

Would you be opposed to universal background checks and mental fitness checks for anyone buying a gun?