I bet the same question was asked by buggy whip makers back in the day (and the same solutions were proposed by them as are getting +5Insightful in this story).
I would die first before moving to texas. most of my friend also feel the same.
That's fine with us. We'd just as soon you not come.
the outright racism and bible-belt feel just is not compatible with many techies' view of what a good living area should offer.
I like how you gobble up tropes fed to you by your Democratic overlords, and then accuse others of bigotry. It's cute.
in that area of the country? it does not seem so, to me. seems more like deep red states, more or less.
Detroit? Deep Red? Detroit has not had a Republican mayor in 50 years. Detroit is your liberal, socialist utopia. Liberals should be flocking there to bask in their success.
So the five extra words of the proposed amendment can't hurt, now can they?
If you can get the amendment passed, then it is by definition constitutional. I'm not a big fan of either the 16th or 17th Amendments, but the federal income tax and direct election of senators are both absolutely constitutional to even the most hard-line strict constructionists.
Society is entirely within its rights to demand the sacrifice of those whose lives might have been saved by possession of firearms by the argument that more lives would be saved by not permitting ownership of firearms.
Then prove that your premise is true.
The point is that technological advancement in the press allows for information to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society better.
Have you ever heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword"? It's not just a pithy one-liner. The press can be used to influence the thinking of many people. The reason a large militia gathered in Nevada was because the event got press. It doesn't matter how many guns Cliven Bundy had, of what caliber, or magazine size, he could not have turned away a heavily-armed federal police force of 200 people by himself. The press is much more powerful, for good or ill, than firearms by themselves. Technological advancements have only made it that much more powerful. That's why oppressive governments have to control both the firearms and the press. You can't effectively control one without controlling the other.
Technological advancement in armaments allows for bullets to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society worse.
Why? Because you say so? I live in Texas, and feel relatively secure from home invasion because criminals here know that any given home in Texas has a good chance of being well armed with modern, effective firearms. That's not to say that violent home invasions never happen here, just that they happen quite a bit less. Compare that to Australia, where the government confiscated all the guns to keep people safe, and violent home invasions skyrocketed. And since you seem to think that gun-free places are safer, consider how quickly these senseless mass shootings would end if more people were armed. Take the recent one in Fort Hood. Would that guy have been able kill and injure so many people if we didn't disarm our own soldiers (who are well trained in handling firearms) on their home bases? Instead of hiding helplessly, the victims could have quickly taken the guy down and not been victims. I personally find it very disconcerting that the only thing standing between a crazy gunman and an elementary school is a piece of paper that says it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. The gunman doesn't care about that law, but he knows that the campus is full of lawful citizens, which means he knows he will be the only person who is armed there. You don't see a lot of mass shooting rages at the NRA convention, or at your local Bass Pro Shop.
If you are personally afraid of guns, that's your business. I'm not going to try to force you to own one. But you have not convinced me that I would be better off living in a society where law-abiding citizens are disarmed.
You are correct in that the Republicans in the USA are not actually free market capitalists, which is what USA is supposed to be - a free market capitalist Republic.
Republicans are not different from Democrats in that they have their own constituents and those are the people that are tightly connected to the government and the Federal reserve is sponsoring them.
Unfortunately for the USA (and really for the world in general) USA Republic has degenerated into a 'democracy', which really only means that the majority of people are kept in the dark of who is truly running the show, but that is the problem with the mob, the collective, you can't have a democracy that does not degenerate into oligarchy, because the people are stupid and will vote against their self interest, however when I say that I do NOT mean what the average
However the mob votes for the short term satisfaction that is promised by any lizard politician and the end result is always the same: the politicians end up with all the power, the individuals end up stripped of their rights and of their property, basically of their right to pursue happiness on their own terms.
The politicians end up gatekeepers for the top most connected people, the government is a mafia that uses threat of violence to destroy individual freedoms and sell them to the top bidders.
Free market capitalist republic (or even a benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore) works to improve the conditions for all people by allowing the true private property rights and self determination, people work to improve their own situation and as a result they increase the overall wealth in the system. The top wealthiest people do NOT need free market capitalism, they are just fine within a system that is corrupt, they can afford to purchase the gate keepers.
It is the middle class and the POOREST of the people that benefit from free market capitalism, they get the lowest prices and the biggest selection of all products and services that the system builds.
19th century USA was a very good example of what free market capitalist system does to improve the standard of living for all people, not for the richest people, but for everybody. The standard of living was rising faster than at any other time in history because of the freedom, private property rights, the rule of law (rule of law means applying laws equally to everybody regardless of their personal circumstance, that is true justice and morality, not what the mob thinks morality and justice are).
Today that example is found in Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, China, but actually the Scandinavian countries have been on the correct path for the last 20 years, since the time they started moving in the right direction 20 years ago, when they finally destroyed their economies with socialism. Today they are much more capitalistic and responsible (have little to no debt) than the so called 'capitalist' nations like the USA.
Of-course currently the ECONOMIC STUPIDITY is reaching some insane local maximum, with the vast majority of the population believing in nonsense, Keynesianism, socialism, welfare state, other such equally destructive patterns of behaviour, so for example in Switzerland there will be a referendum to attempt and introduce a minimum wage and a welfare system, those are huge mistakes and the only reason the Swiss can even talk about it is the fact that they grew their economy so much in an actual free market capitalist system, so now they just may be ready to start destroying it with the socialist nonsense.
In any case, as I said, people are very very stupid, the majority have no clue about the economics and how it works and what is in fact in their best interest. The special socialist groups that benefit from the dependency state and from poverty (they thrive on the poverty votes and movements) are using so much propaganda on the general population, that at this point average economic intelligence is probably the lowest in history of human kind. The cavemen understood economics much better than the current population, at least the cavemen didn't buy into demand side nonsense, they knew that they had to produce stuff to enjoy higher standard of living.
I don't have any illusions about the people around me, they are stupid, economically illiterate, they act against their long term self interest and they will fight to keep that nonsense going, so from my perspective right now it makes complete sense to try and live outside of any established system of nations and states, to structure affairs in a way that would minimise the damage by the political systems established in the vast majority of the world today. Be smart, don't ground yourself, ensure that your assets are global, not local, ensure that your business is never tied to the place where you are supposed to pay taxes, pay attention to how it is done by the people that know what they are doing, etc. etc.
"Early 2000 called
Seriously - you're either a terrible programmer, a troll, or both.