Killing is already illegal. Obtaining guns illegally is already illegal. Giving a gun to someone that cannot obtain it legally... is illegal. Even stating you are going to assault/kill someone is illegal. Laws can and should be improved. Even the deepest blue states have mass shootings. Therefore passing yet another law won't fix the violent culture. Fairy sprinkles have nothing to do with this matter. "Lord Trump" has nothing to do with this matter. Not sure why you think such things are relevant. How did you come to the conclusion that you think I think Christians are worth more than any other group? Compulsion to straw man or what?
... Uh ... You know, there's still millions of guns in the US, and state borders do little to stop them. So "Therefore passing yet another law won't fix the violent culture" is at best a foregone conclusion, certainly not a fact.
also dj, you say things like "deep blue" or "dark blue" often recently, but my understanding is that's just the way the majority goes consistently / the way the gerrymandering panned out, and that more often than not rural areas tend to be redder and urban tend towards blue. it's not as though any state is all extraordinarily one thing, being my point (i think there's a west virginia joke in here, but i'll abstain)
Both of Oregon's senators are Democrats. Four of five representatives in the House are Democrats. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/OR The Governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, is a Democrat. The last time Oregon had a Republican Governor was 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Oregon The last time Oregon went Republican during a presidential election was 1984. http://www.270towin.com/states/Oregon Sure looks like a solidly blue state to me.
Spanking Tinkerbell seems rather degenerate. EDIT: Or it did at first, then the Famas youtube channel DMr posted in the "Battlestations" thread opened my eyes to the truth. (Yes, I'm being facetious; and mostly referencing them because they were amusing to me.) Do you really believe that culture can be changed by law?
Yep! For example the suppression of racism. When properly enforced future generations will not be poisoned by their ancestors in that manner and the oxygen wasters eventually die out.
According to BLM, it's not working. Not that I trust their assessment. I would, however, say that culture had been shifting away from racism for a long time. Obviously, removing institutionalized racism (segregation, slavery, etc.) is a good thing. However; it's not in my view the law shifting the culture but rather it's the culture shifting the law.
I think you're not understanding what I'm saying, but it's not hugely important. how do you think culture gets changed? law certainly seems like a part of it to me, although in the US we've passed a number of laws that have gone against established culture and, in some places, rather than go with the new order there can be a tendency to stick to the past, sometimes even fudging the facts to make a better narrative. the first thing that comes to mind is i remember some nut or another being interviewed (he wasn't important, or even i think held to be particularly representative, but bear with me) who said that abe lincoln was the worst president we'd had- i forget his exact reasoning, but it involved declaring war on the south. said 'nut' had never heard about slavery in this country. law changes culture, but nothing works for everyone, is, i guess, my point. (and yes, culture changes/affects law too. the two concepts are not exclusive)
10-2-2015 Chris Mintz, 30, was shot seven times during the Thursday rampage, but he says his main concern is about the others who were injured. "He ran to the library and pulled the alarms and he was telling people to run, grabbing people, telling them, 'You just have to go,'" witness Hannah Miles told ABC News. "He actually ran back towards the building where the shooting was and he ran back into the building and I don't know what happened to him," she said of Mintz. The student and Army veteran who witnesses say charged the shooter at a community college in Oregon is alert and awake at the hospital as he recovers. "During the shooting both of his legs were broken and he is going to have to go through a ton of physical therapy," Mintz's cousin Derek Bourgeois wrote on the page. "He is a father, a veteran, a student, and now he's a hero," Bourgeois wrote on the GoFundMe page, beneath a picture of Mintz and his son. https://gma.yahoo.com/hero-umpqua-c...tz-speaks-154937626--abc-news-topstories.html# American hero right there. I guess this is where I am supposed to type "USA!!!" 3-4 times in a row. I wonder how many lives he saved.
Eh. Northern culture shifting the law and the law then shifting southern culture. You think they wouldn't still have slaves if nobody had stopped them? Just "hero" is enough.
I think law can change culture indirectly (how people react to it), but it can't force a specific controlled change. Culture can change through a variety of things: New technologies, wars (also indirectly), immigration, emigration, exchanges of cultural goods (books, music, and other media, including intranational exchanges for larger and multi-cultural nations), the influences of charismatic individuals, religious teachings, propaganda, etc. Generally speaking, I believe that making something illegal has had a poor track record of keeping people from doing it, at least as the primary factor for changing culture. While it does of course affect certain aspects of culture, it won't generally obtain the desired specific change. Without the efforts, sacrifices, and losses the Pro-LGBT community has endured, the groundwork for general cultural acceptance of such individuals could not be forced through by the Supreme Court. You'd have plenty of entitled government clerks defying the law and refusing marriage certificates, and more importantly, those people would not be largely derided by the majority of people in their community, rather they'd probably get support, possibly for an amendment to disallow LGBT marriages in spite of the 14th. Of course, this is just hypothetical speculation, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. You know, through all the superfluous, extra commas, and stuff, I put into my sentences. Specifically, that you cannot force a culture to change into what you want through force of arms. Though, sadly, that hasn't kept people from trying really hard to do precisely that.
I think most of the South wasn't involved in slavery directly, and that there were already moves to phase it out even without the war. I also think that some US (at least US-based Multi-national) companies employ foreign slave labor for the manufacture of their goods. I also think that those that were pro-Slave persisted in their bigotry and sub-human threatment of Black people throughout the following century. The culture didn't change because Slavery was outlawed, save indirectly through increased proliferation of the cultures that the Slaves spread once they could get the heck out of where they were held.
