The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Jan]

Where the failure comes from is parents that do not give a flying shit about their kids. How can the kids be expected to act responsibly when the parents are not taking their responsibility seriously? In my view there would be less teenage pregnancies if the state placed the onus for teenage pregnancies on the parents of the teenager who is pregnant. Make them pay - not the UK taxpayer.

Speaking as a former teenager, there's realistically no way the parents can control whether or not their kids have sex. What the parents can and should do is not try to deny that fact and make sure the kids are protected as well as they might be.

Also - can these kids not keep their legs closed?

Can? Sure. Will? Probably not. Their frontal lobes are still maturing which explains why there's the famous assumption of indestructibility in teens.

Jan

[Jan]

Here's a law firm's link that may help, with emphasis made on the 6 points discussed:Restoration of Firearm Rights

Thanks. I'll look into that further.

Keep in mind that even when B is "yes," that you're dealing with criminals. Criminals break the law as a matter of course.

Yes...and no. After I posted I recalled a friend of the family who did something massively stupid and ended up a convicted felon. He had a gun and at that time asked my sister to take custody of it for him. I don't know what happened to it eventually, though. My point, though, is that 'criminal' is a broad term (as is 'felon') and many of those crimes don't have anything to do with firearms.

Also, note that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction (which can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness) is enough to get one a permanent ban.

Yeah, I was sort of aware of that one. A classic instance of public hysteria causing bad law to be written, I imagine.

Jan

[circularREASON]

[QUOTE=Jan;57051]"Speaking as a former teenager, there's realistically no way the parents can control whether or not their kids have sex. What the parents can and should do is not try to deny that fact and make sure the kids are protected as well as they might be."


There are good parents - and bad parents.

My opinion is based on the lowest scum of british society who seem to be more interested in either drinking themselves to oblivion, popping as many kids out as humanly possible, or shooting as many drugs into them as they can. All this while their other 8 kids run around on the streets with rags for clothes, Stabbing passers by, or sometimes dealing drugs themselves.

Kids will always have sex, but education doesnt make any difference.

According to the teachers at my sons school, sex education is far better than it was when I was at school. This is puzzling.

How come I knew to wear protection and kids nowadays dont then? If the schools say they are doing a better job then the only excuse for not using protection is arrogance. (its not gonna happen to me is it?)

[I love Lyta]

Oh, education DOES have a beneficial effect on kids and young adults. Maybe not nescessarily sex ed, but like I stated before: A girl's/woman's IQ is the best contraceptive. And the IQ can be raised through good education.

But on a whole other aspect in this thread concerning being able to take FOX "News" seriously (or NOT to for that matter):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=229028&title=Fox-&-Friends%27-Lingerie-Football-Romp

[Doom Shepherd]

Speaking as a former teenager, there's realistically no way the parents can control whether or not their kids have sex. What the parents can and should do is not try to deny that fact and make sure the kids are protected as well as they might be.

One of the ways my parents did this for me was to instill in me a healthy disdain for "peer pressure" and such environmental factors.

It helps for children to know that, despite what their friends, society, and media tells them, not "everybody" is having sex, and that you don't actually HAVE to.

Too many people jump on the far side of the spectrum, and assume "kids WILL have sex."

No, not necessarily. It really is possible to have the opportunity, and not take it. If you have the knowledge of the potential consequences, and enough self-control to claim your H. sapiens birthright.

I think people who believe in "abstinence only" education are deluded. But I think people who won't even consider abstinence as an option to be discussed are equally deluded.

[Der Mike]

Quick change of subject to ask something that I'm pretty sure almost everybody knows more about than I do.

In reading online accounts of the Holocaust Museum shooting, there's talk about the shooter (who won't get the dignity of being named by me) being a convicted felon and still having firearms. My questions are A) Do all convicted felons have to relinquish any firearms they own previous to being convicted? B) Are all convicted felons barred from purchasing guns after their conviction and C) What checks are made and steps taken to ensue that convicted felons get rid of any guns they own? I think the answers to A & B are both 'Yes' but I don't have any clue at all about C?

Thanks,

Jan

A little late, and Karachi would likely know better than any of us, but yes, a convicted felon must relinguish all firearms and is banned from owning others. Giving them to a spouse is a normal way to skirt the law (which is how, for example, G. Gordon Liddy has firearms), but you cannot own them under your own name after a felony conviction.

Funny --- they want to restore the right to vote --- but not the OTHER rights felons forfeit.

...outside of polls showing that they will vote for one particular party overwhelmingly, anybody know why?

[Jan]

Funny --- they want to restore the right to vote --- but not the OTHER rights felons forfeit.

...outside of polls showing that they will vote for one particular party overwhelmingly, anybody know why?

Now, now...you didn't really think a vague post like that would go unchallenged, did you? Who's 'they'? What polls? You seem to be trying to insinuate something but I'm either not in the mood to play or too dense to know what you're talking about-reader's choice.

Jan

[JoeD80]

Funny --- they want to restore the right to vote --- but not the OTHER rights felons forfeit.

The felon voting laws vary from state-to-state. They range from some states like Washington and Kentucky not allowing certain felons with a record to vote ever again to the other end with states like Vermont and Maine allowing felons to vote directly from prison. California makes you complete parole first; Montana and Indiana let you vote the minute you are released. There's not a consistent set of rules to make general statements about.

[Der Mike]

Now, now...you didn't really think a vague post like that would go unchallenged, did you? Who's 'they'? What polls? You seem to be trying to insinuate something but I'm either not in the mood to play or too dense to know what you're talking about-reader's choice.

Jan

They are Democrats. You don't see Republicans falling over themselves to do so. Crime should bring about harsh penalties.

The polls are every single poll taken about the issue. Admitted as such by:

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking08/VotingRights.html

[I love Lyta]

Low down dirty shame

FOX opiniotainment just recently hired Sarah Palin as news anchor or whatever.
That finally seals it's fate concerning credibility.

[Dr Maturin]

Fact: A commentary show =/= a news show, thus the host =/= a news anchor.

Sign,

Dr Maturin, the checker

PS

Credibility concerning what?

[Jan]

What's " =/= " mean? Does not equal?

Jan

[David Panzer]

Palin finally got a job? Oh well. It's not like I'll watch

[I love Lyta]

Right. She's doing a political commentary show. Sorry...
But hey, since FOX "News" doesn't broadcast any actual news but just political comments and opinions it's not like they have any real news anchors anyway.

Oh, and I meant their credibility concerning their claim to be broadcasting news and not just onesided BS and fiction.
Even over here everyone knows by now that it's just opiniotainment.

You know WSAH, I'd prabably watch it for 5 to 10 minutes (depending on how long I can stand it) just for the sheer entertainment.
Telling by how long I could stand watching Glenn Beck in action however, it would probably not even be 5 minutes...

@Jan: Yeah, it obviously means "does not equal". Since I'm in IT, personally I'd probably have used != or <> though.

[Doom Shepherd]

Right. She's doing a political commentary show. Sorry...
But hey, since FOX "News" doesn't broadcast any actual news but just political comments and opinions it's not like they have any real news anchors anyway.

Oh, and I meant their credibility concerning their claim to be broadcasting news and not just onesided BS and fiction.

You can always go back to watching Dan Randall -er, Rather- and the Fake Memo Network...

Beck 1, Van Jones 0.