JinJer 27?: Wearing Black Pants in the Heat of Laredo

[WhyNotJulie]

Being Canadian, I also do not understand the obsession with guns south of the border. We in general just don't see how guns are supposed to protect you from anything in the first place, especially if they're stored properly (locked box, key in a safe location, ammunition locked up in a different location, etc). 

I guess our countries just have different cultures though. Canada is far less concerned (or more concerned, depending how you look at it) about the average citizen's right to shoot other people.

[backyard sylph]

I was born in the 60s in the midwest and have lived in five states and have seen a real gun only once. When I was a child, my dad showed me a shotgun he owned and kept in a locked suitcase in his closet. The ammunition was in Mom's closet. But I never saw it again. I've never seen a real handgun either, except I guess they are on police holsters, so I sort of know they're there.

So I know a lot of people have guns, and people from other places say everyone here does, but it has not been my experience. Other than for hunting or maybe reducing varmints on the farm, it seems like a really otherworldly sort of thing to me.

On Sunday, there was a shooting at a "gender reveal party" in this region. One woman died and eight others were shot. It's all so mystifying and sad, I just can't begin to understand it.

[Trynn]

I don't understand that logic at all. I have to give a gift just because I got invited? I have never heard of that. But then, the only friend I have that msrried recently made it very clear in her invitations that, while presents were welcome, they mostly wanted our presence.

And they meant it.

[Timetostoplurking]

Here is the issue with guns rights vs. driving.  Driving is a privilege.  It can be taken away from you.  You don't have the right to a drivers license.  If you abuse your driving privilege by driving drunk, reckless driving etc....you will lose your privilege to drive.

Owning guns is a right.  It is written into our Constitution.   Our founding fathers decided it was of extreme importance that all men (I am using the word "Men" on purpose, since that is how it was written) have the right to defend themselves.  No King, or government official can take away that right.  It's just like having the right to free speech.  It's considered a very basic right.  

Of course, the founding fathers had no idea what the future would be like and that guns and gun culture would be what it is today.  It's very complicated and difficult to mess around with the Constitution.  A lot of Americans see Gun Control as tampering with the Constitution.  Gun Control is seen as a slippery slope.  If we change the Constitution for Gun Control, then we will start changing it for other issues.  

Does this explain Americans and Guns to all you non-Americans??  It's kind of a simplistic explanation, but maybe helpful to some of you.

[Antipatriarch]

39 minutes ago, Timetostoplurking said:

Here is the issue with guns rights vs. driving.  Driving is a privilege.  It can be taken away from you.  You don't have the right to a drivers license.  If you abuse your driving privilege by driving drunk, reckless driving etc....you will lose your privilege to drive.

Owning guns is a right.  It is written into our Constitution.   Our founding fathers decided it was of extreme importance that all men (I am using the word "Men" on purpose, since that is how it was written) have the right to defend themselves.  No King, or government official can take away that right.  It's just like having the right to free speech.  It's considered a very basic right.  

Hm... except even Constitutional rights are not absolute. We have freedom of speech, but not to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater or incite a crowd to riot. We have freedom of religion, but not to discipline a child to death or withhold lifesaving medical treatment from her. etc.

So when it comes to the right to bear arms -- do you agree with current law that convicted felons lose their right to carry (this is the one where I think your driving vs. guns analogy doesn't hold up)? Do you agree with measures aimed at preventing the mentally ill from owning handguns? Do you agree with jurisdictions that mandate safety training before issuing a conceal-carry permit?

I support the Constitutional right to bear arms, and also believe we need sensible regulation surrounding them. It's not an absolute... either no guns for anyone, or no laws at all on gun use. Like most everything in life, there is a balance, and we need to be decide what those regulations should be.

[lumpentheologie]

On July 7, 2017 at 11:15 PM, singsingsing said:

I stopped using antiperspirant to avoid the aluminum. First I tried a 'natural' deodorant, but found it didn't work well at all. Then I read good things about Old Spice men's deodorant and made the switch. I love it and highly recommend it! I don't notice that I sweat anymore than I did when using antiperspirant, and I smell good all day long. I find the different scent options really nice, neither too 'manly' nor too 'girly'. I personally use Wolfthorn. Ignore the dumbass product descriptions about manly men fighting like wolves and attracting females or whatever. It's a nice, sort of citrus-y berry scent. Two thumbs up. 

I also use Old Spice men's deodorant!  So good!  I thought I was the only one. I use the original and love the smell, it's a kind of warm spicy that I think works for women as well as men. It is funny to read the back about how their manly deodorant elves will make me smell so manly. 

[Georgiana]

To be fair, when our Founding Fathers wrote the right to bear arms into our constitution, firearms themselves were VERY different.

In 1789, a firearm was essentially impractical for any type of combat apart from the organized battle of war or dueling.  Accuracy was low.  They were cumbersome, time consuming to load, fire, reload, and nearly as dangerous to the shooter as to the target (helped in large part by again, their lack of accuracy).  

Firearms in 1789 COULD be used by a militia against a government, but they posed little to no risk to your average citizen.  You couldn't go into a crowded area and shoot up the place (you could try, but best case scenario would be you probably accidentally hitting something with the single shot you could get off and being subdued by the bystanders as opposed to being beaten to death).  You couldn't really use them against your neighbor.  Your average cane posed more threat to the general populace in 1789 than a firearm (and oh buddy did old timey American gentry folks love to beat people with canes).

2017, that's no longer the case.  Does anyone REALLY believe that an armed public, even WITH assault weapons, stands a CHANCE against a modern military?  Get real.  Civilian militias are essentially a thing of the past.  You rise up against a government now, unless you have another government backing you and probably even still, you're getting decimated.  Firearms pose very LITTLE threat to entrenched governments.

They do, however, now pose SIGNIFICANT risks to the public.  I don't think I need to go into that.  

This is the OPPOSITE of what our Founding Fathers intended.  They never intended to protect a right that would endanger the safety of the American public without a significant benefit, and that's what firearms have become.  This is WHY our Constitution is the way it is: because our FF trusted us NOT to deify them or their writings, but to treat both as fallible creations that may need to be changed or reinterpreted.  They WANTED us to change the Constitution and TAKE AWAY or LIMIT certain elements as they were no longer beneficial to our society.   This was a document written in response to SPECIFIC PROBLEMS in 1789.  We are SUPPOSED to edit it in response to the specific problems WE face now. This wouldn't be the first piece of the original Constitution + BoR that we have struck out, and it wont be the last.  

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

1 hour ago, Timetostoplurking said:

Does this explain Americans and Guns to all you non-Americans??  It's kind of a simplistic explanation, but maybe helpful to some of you.

The problem with this explanation is that everyone seems to have forgotten the 1st 1/2 of the 2nd amendment, that being. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Especially the 1st 4 words. That always seems to get erased from people's memory. 

[Georgiana]

3 minutes ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

The problem with this explanation is that everyone seems to have forgotten the 1st 1/2 of the 2nd amendment, that being. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Especially the 1st 4 words. That always seems to get erased from people's memory. 

I referenced this in my post just above you, but I want to double down on this...

A civilian militia hasn't had a shot against the US Army or any other modern Army since I'd say WWI, but CERTAINLY WWII. 

When guns are the latest in military technology, giving people guns essentially makes them an army in reserve.  But when military technology goes FAR beyond personal firearms, giving people guns just makes them people with guns.  

[SapphireSlytherin]

30 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

To be fair, when our Founding Fathers wrote the right to bear arms into our constitution, firearms themselves were VERY different.

The same could be said for the first amendment:  the press, then, was vastly different than it is today. Then - it was newspapers. Today, it's radio/TV/Internet/etc. But that freedom still exists, as does the right to bear arms. Both amendments have been upheld over the years through the Supreme Court to included today's iterations of guns/press.

[Georgiana]

12 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

The same could be said for the first amendment:  the press, then, was vastly different than it is today. Then - it was newspapers. Today, it's radio/TV/Internet/etc. But that freedom still exists, as does the right to bear arms. Both amendments have been upheld over the years through the Supreme Court to included today's iterations of guns/press.

True, but unlike the firearms, Freedom of the Press STILL has a pronounced benefit to society, endangers no one, and largely serves to check the government and people in power.  

If we could say the same about firearms, I would support that.  However, as I said before, the OPPOSITE is true of firearms: they provide limited or no benefits to the general populace, endanger the public, and are NOT a threat to the government.

The spirit behind these documents is to PROTECT average citizens.  Allowing firearms USED to protect them from a tyrannical government.  It no longer does in ANY tangible way.  Now, it largely endangers them.  

[Jinder Roles]

19 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

The same could be said for the first amendment:  the press, then, was vastly different than it is today. Then - it was newspapers. Today, it's radio/TV/Internet/etc. But that freedom still exists, as does the right to bear arms. Both amendments have been upheld over the years through the Supreme Court to included today's iterations of guns/press.

But guns and media don't work the same way. That's a bit of a disingenuous statement.

Plus even if there is something fundamentally flawed/dangerous with the first amendment(and I don't there is) it doesn't change the flaws with the second amendment.

[SapphireSlytherin]

7 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

But guns and media don't work the same way. That's a bit disengenuous. 

Plus even if there is something fundamentally flawed/dangerous with the first amendment, it doesn't change the flaws with the second amendment.

I'm not arguing/debating. I was simply pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the validity of both amendments since the Bill of Rights was written.

 

 

[Georgiana]

13 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

I'm not arguing/debating. I was simply pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the validity of both amendments since the Bill of Rights was written.

I don't know how to say this without sounding mean, so I am sorry, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the role of the Supreme Court is.  The Supreme Court's role in part is to INTERPRET the Constitution.  The SC CANNOT change or abolish what is written in the US Constitution or the amendments.  It does not have that power.  It can only interpret.  This is consistent with the judicial system at large.  The courts can INTERPRET law, but they CANNOT write or edit law.  

CONGRESS AND/OR THE STATES are the only ones who can change the US Constitution via the process outlined therein.  

So your argument there means absolutely nothing because the Supreme Court can neither uphold nor strike down a part of the US Constitution.  It can only interpret what is currently contained therein.  You might as well argue that you or I have "upheld the validity of both amendments" because we have just as much power to strike them down as the Court does (a.k.a. absolutely none).  

ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO MAKE LAW.  The Constitution is the highest law of the land.  NEITHER the executive NOR the judicial branch of government has the power to remake the Constitution.  Reinterpret?  Yes.  Edit? No. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

Again. Not arguing. If you want to think you sound mean, that's fine. You know how exasperated you are with me? That's how I feel about you. lol

Are you a constitutional scholar?

[MoonFace]

On 7/7/2017 at 2:27 AM, Lurky said:

I'm often in my jeans in heatwaves, because (so shameful to admit) when I sweat a lot, my thighs rub together and chafe and I get sweat-rash (like nappy rash).  When I wear loose cotton (which my shorts & capris are), it can still chafe, as the cotton rubs, so I'm always sad to have to wear leggings under dresses, and jeans in the heat.  It's always been this way, even when I was a super-fit teenager.

So, collective FJ wisdom holders - any ideas how to stop this?  I'd love to go bare legged under a sundress, while it's heatwaving here in the UK!

Use stick deodorant on your inner thighs.   Just rub both legs with the stuff and they will glide against each other.   I use the deodorant under my breasts as well - especially if I want to let the girls hang free. 

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

I don't know how to say this without sounding mean, so I am sorry, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the role of the Supreme Court is.  The Supreme Court's role in part is to INTERPRET the Constitution.  The SC CANNOT change or abolish what is written in the US Constitution or the amendments.  It does not have that power.  It can only interpret.  This is consistent with the judicial system at large.  The courts can INTERPRET law, but they CANNOT write or edit law.  

CONGRESS AND/OR THE STATES are the only ones who can change the US Constitution via the process outlined therein.  

So your argument there means absolutely nothing because the Supreme Court can neither uphold nor strike down a part of the US Constitution.  It can only interpret what is currently contained therein.  You might as well argue that you or I have "upheld the validity of both amendments" because we have just as much power to strike them down as the Court does (a.k.a. absolutely none).  

ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO MAKE LAW.  The Constitution is the highest law of the land.  NEITHER the executive NOR the judicial branch of government has the power to remake the Constitution.  Reinterpret?  Yes.  Edit? No. 

Just pointing out that Congress doesn't exactly have the power to remake the Constitution either, although they are part of the process.

We should admit that neither amendment is going to be repealed anytime soon.

[Topaz]

 

2 hours ago, Timetostoplurking said:

Owning guns is a right.  It is written into our Constitution. 

<snipped>

It's very complicated and difficult to mess around with the Constitution.  A lot of Americans see Gun Control as tampering with the Constitution.  Gun Control is seen as a slippery slope.  If we change the Constitution for Gun Control, then we will start changing it for other issues.  

<snipped>

I'm not American so please forgive/educate me if I'm missing something, but are the amendments not changes to the constitution? If the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms then the constitution was already changed once with regard to guns. 

In addition I thought (and Wikipedia agrees for what it's worth) that there was an amendment for Prohibition and another one repealing it, so that precedent has also been set already. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

Just now, Topaz said:

 

I'm not American so please forgive/educate me if I'm missing something, but are the amendments not changes to the constitution? If the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms then the constitution was already changed once with regard to guns. 

In addition I thought (and Wikipedia agrees for what it's worth) that there was an amendment for Prohibition and another one repealing it, so that precedent has also been set already. 

The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Topaz said:

 

I'm not American so please forgive/educate me if I'm missing something, but are the amendments not changes to the constitution? If the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms then the constitution was already changed once with regard to guns. 

In addition I thought (and Wikipedia agrees for what it's worth) that there was an amendment for Prohibition and another one repealing it, so that precedent has also been set already. 

The first 10 amendments don't really change the original constitution, they address things that were not touched upon in the body.  Specifically they indicate rights the federal government cannot impinge on.  The body of the constitution explains how the federal government will work and gives each branch limited powers.  

Yes, repeals and amendments can absolutely happen, but it is very unlikely and difficult.  Particularly when a large number of Americans (I think it may even be a majority) do not want to second amendment repealed.  

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

Maybe the gun rights and associated topics could be further discussed in another thread devoted to it since it is complicated and an issue about which people tend to feel emotional.

 

[Topaz]

@justoneoftwo thanks for clarifying. I wish we'd learnt a bit about the US in history, would have been interesting and useful.

[SapphireSlytherin]

Just now, So-Virgin-It-Hurts said:

Maybe the gun rights and associated topics could be further discussed in another thread devoted to it since it is complicated and an issue about which people tend to feel complicated.

 

Nah. Nothing good would/could ever come of that. It will be the same people with the same opinions ad infinitum. Nobody will change anyone's mind. Ever. It's like discussing politics and religion - which should never be discussed. I tried valiantly to sit on my hands, but you know... lol

[Georgiana]

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

 

I'm not American so please forgive/educate me if I'm missing something, but are the amendments not changes to the constitution? If the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms then the constitution was already changed once with regard to guns. 

In addition I thought (and Wikipedia agrees for what it's worth) that there was an amendment for Prohibition and another one repealing it, so that precedent has also been set already. 

Yes!  So the original 10 Amendments to the Constitution are generally called the Bill of Rights, and they are usually kind of lumped together with the Constitution itself.  To make a complicated issue very, very short, here's what happened:

We got our freedom, so we wrote a Constitution.  However, the states refused to ratify the Constitution because they felt the Federal government created therein had too few checks on it's power.  They basically did not want to sign up for England II.  In response, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (the original 10 Amendments) to protect those rights most essential to the states.  This persuaded the states to ratify the Constitution.  

So yes, TECHNICALLY they are changes, BUT since the Constitution was not fully ratified without the BoR, many Americans consider them to be "original".

And yes, we repeal amendments.  We also render parts of the original Constitution obsolete with additional amendments (Three-Fifths Compromise anyone?).  Changing the Constitution is an arduous process and one that takes years, which is why I think we need to start opening up the question of whether the right to bear arms should be repealed.  It's not happening any time soon, but I think it's something that should be discussed.  

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

1 minute ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Nah. Nothing good would/could ever come of that. It will be the same people with the same opinions ad infinitum. Nobody will change anyone's mind. Ever. It's like discussing politics and religion - which should never be discussed. I tried valiantly to sit on my hands, but you know... lol

Gotcha - I wrote a long-winded reply and then deleted it.  Gun-hater here.  The same thing happens in the real world if people find out I don't eat meat.  They want to debate me or defend their meat-eating.  I'm not trying to change your diet, dude.