There is no firearm model that hasn't had at least one catastrophic misfire, except ones brand new to the market with very few rounds put through them.
The point is: A few misfires does not warrant banning the model, a few exploding vape pens does not warrant banning vape pens, and a few contaminants resulting in deaths do not warrant banning all flavored oils. The public should be warned of the danger, the companies should generously compensate the injured and the families of the deceased, and the problems should thoroughly be addressed in order to minimize the chances of it happening again. Outlawing any of these things is not warranted.
Hoovervilles. Won't be the first time.
Respectfully...states being what they are, and also with the oftentimes capricious remarks of others in mind, I honestly believe this is something that should not be left entirely to the states alone. Look at what happened immediately (and I'm talking about within the HOUR in some cases) after the SCOTUS ruling in 2013 that struck down large parts of the old Voting Rights Act of 1965. The moment the news said that the VRA was gutted, the very states that much of the law was targeting began to CLOSE down polling places.
Specific polling locations, IN specific neighborhoods.
To date, Southern VRA states have closed 1,700 polling places, all or nearly all in Democratic areas, especially minority Democratic areas.
Of course you're correct stating that "the Founders didn't lock down a whole lot in the Constitution on purpose."
But at least it IS the states that ultimately decide the fate of a constitutional convention, whether it lives or dies, etc.
It's just that I honestly believe that it really is democracy itself that would be in the crosshairs should a convention come to pass in these times.
There is a recklessness in the air which is palpable. People no longer even envision any cohesive and generally accepted concept of what democracy even is, in the contemporary (read as: 17th century to present day - not 2500 years ago in Athens) sense of the word.
Hoovervilles. Won't be the first time.
I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't know what else we can do. Virtually everyone agrees that the system is broken; and nearly no one is doing anything about it. Things are getting worse every single day.
First thing we do is stop the hemorrhaging by getting the bastards out of power.
Then, do not relax just because the other boys have it now. Hold many feet to many fires.
To be continued...
Now it's my turn to be cynical. There is no way to remove them from power without imposing term limits. Voting doesn't work because they control that process.
Term limits make the problem WORSE, increasing the power of the money to put whoever they want in office. We need experienced, good legislators - the problem is the money that gets the bad ones also.
The nicotine isn't so much of an addiction but a mood regulator for me if that makes sense. I use the lowest nicotine level in my vape or sometimes 0 nic. If I am feeling anxious or get frustrated then I vape the nicotine juice otherwise I'm just vaping different flavors as I like the tastes and prevent me from pigging out on junk food as I find myself always wanting to eat something now that my taste is back to normal.
I can only confirm that the best way to get me anxious or frustrated in those days was to make me wait to smoke.
I have no issue with zero-nicotine vaping.
Definitely remember the tastes returning when I quit, and most especially smells. I never knew how bad a dumpster could stink until I stopped smoking.
Legislator isn't supposed to be a career in the first place. Citizen volunteers were supposed to debate and pass laws for a couple months each year and then go back to their real jobs.
I am not aware of any research that term limits exacerbate the influence of money in politics. Do you have any sources you can share?
Times change from when Thomas Jefferson could run the state department alone and 90% of people were farmers, in our trillions of dollars, very complex society that need a hell of a lot more to run the government well.
I could explain the topic, but would it do any good? Or just google for some explanations. When elections become all about 'new faces' of unknowns, that's a big advantage to the candidates with the most money for marketing them. Name recognition alone is probably the single biggest factor in these races (after perhaps party). And newer legislators are less skilled.
Candidates with the most money already have the advantage. That's why politicians and lobbyists created a symbiotic relationship wherein lobbyists keep politicians in power and politicians give lobbyists what they want. Term limits give lawmakers something to do besides get reelected.
We have the Hoovervilles now. Camping equipment is much more sophisticated today but a Hooverville is a Hooverville.
Term limits greatly increases that advantage. The corrupt lobbyist system is less about keeping politicians in office, though it does that, than it is about offering them higher pay when they leave office, so they do as the lobbyists want in office. They already have something to do besides get re-elected - go into lobbying which over half do. We don't NEED to give them other things, we need experienced, good legislators. Done here.
No, term limits do not increase the influence of money in politics. You repeating yourself with no proof doesn't make anything true.
Yes, they do, and there are people it's a waste of time discussing things with.
Five reasons to oppose congressional term limits
"It sounded like a good idea, but if California is any indication, term limits are a recipe for political chaos and increased special interest influence."
The Populist Road to Hell: Term Limits in California
Use a little common sense. Besides the money helping strangers more than known people, term limits greatly increase the politicians in office who know they will not be running for re-election, removing accountability to voters and further increasing the influence of the money and lobbyists.
You think it's a good idea to turn all the people who quite smoking cigarettes back to smoking cigarettes, and you want to turn people who started with vaping and turn them to cigarettes for their nicotine fix?
It's a terrible idea. Exactly the sort of terrible idea we always embrace to make ourselves feel better so we can say we're "doing something" when what we're doing is actually make a bad situation worse. It'll start with flavored e-cigarettes and it'll cascade if it gets momentum. And then we'll be back to every nicotine user chasing lung cancer.
I think it’s the height of cynicism to dishonestly market an e-cigarette as a smoking cessation tool.
Nevermind 480,000 yearly deaths from burned tobacco....
Yet another idiotic overreaction that will make things worse, not better. Vaping isn't killing anyone. A contaminent in a tiny tiny tiny subset of total vape products is, and thus far only 6. 6 total vs. 480,000/yr.
Naturally, the American reaction (whether D or R) is "ban them all!" We have no concept of scale.
I think it’s the height of cynicism to dishonestly market an e-cigarette as a smoking cessation tool.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?