The role of your personal politics and getting into LS Forum

[MiracleNeeded]

If laws are to be ignored by criminals, then why make laws at all? Any of them?

There are basic laws that we need in a civil society. We have a law against murder, theft, etc. THese are reasonable laws. If you make a law that says I can't own something because i might do something illegal with it, you're starting to get ahead of the game there. Where does that end? No fast cars because I MAY want to rob a bank and have a quick get away? I MAY want to speed down the highway? Like my other example, no more free press, because I MAY insult someone, or MAY insight a riot.

No more religion for me or you, we've seen too many crazy people take the word of God and kill in the name of it, so hand in your Bibles, Torahs and Korans.

The truth is we DON'T need most of the laws we currently have. That goes for laws against drugs, laws against prostitution, etc. Government has a role in our lives, and that role is to keep us safe from foreign invasion, to provide civil order, and infrastructure. That's pretty much it. When government wants to step in and play the what if game, I draw the line.

Guys I would love to keep going, but I have LSATs to study for. Who the FUCK am I kidding? I'll be back here to read the next comment, and get sucked in. This sucks, I really do need to put some hours in. Who started this shit?

[eric922]

So a basic assumption here is that violence is and always will be a necessity to battle at least one type of oppression.

But you have to grant that the very threat that comes from others possessing guns takes away just a bit of my freedom. That is the cost, and not a cost I want our members of society to pay forever. But for now, yes.


Also this cost of freedom is directly tied to how effective your weapon is. Thus a ban on assault guns to me, is warranted.

Your freedom to live a quiet and undisturbed existence can be violated by many of the rights granted to the people. A Jihadist can blow up a building you're in because some guy makes a cartoon of Mohamed that guy wasn't happy about. Should we tell people not to make anymore youtube videos because we don't want to another attack on American soil (the embassy was technically American soil).
define what an assault weapon is.

The truth is that we pay a price for living in a free society. There was very little gun crime in the USSR, there is no gun crime and very little violent crime in Cuba, I don't want to live in those societies.

You say we should ban assault weapons. What's an assault weapon? by your definition.

Any automatic weapon. I'm sorry, but a pistol or shotgun should be sufficient for home defense. No one needs to own an automatic weapon. And to be completely honest, I'm starting to think your political views may be a hindrance to law school admissions. You aren't just a Republican, you are coming across as slightly paranoid and seem to be preparing for an imminent government takeover

[RightWingConspiracy]

Also, I'd like to point something out. I think it is a myth that academia discriminates against conservatives. I've met plenty of right-wing professors in my undergrad years. Hell, I've never met a single liberal in the economics department of my college and I had one professor who openly attacked FDR and things as moderate as Keynesian Economics.

I do not think professors grade conservative students any differently than liberals. I wear my views on my sleeve and I have always been graded fairly. I also think it is a myth, although I have not heard this myth.

[RightWingConspiracy]

So a basic assumption here is that violence is and always will be a necessity to battle at least one type of oppression.

But you have to grant that the very threat that comes from others possessing guns takes away just a bit of my freedom. That is the cost, and not a cost I want our members of society to pay forever. But for now, yes.


Also this cost of freedom is directly tied to how effective your weapon is. Thus a ban on assault guns to me, is warranted.

Your freedom to live a quiet and undisturbed existence can be violated by many of the rights granted to the people. A Jihadist can blow up a building you're in because some guy makes a cartoon of Mohamed that guy wasn't happy about. Should we tell people not to make anymore youtube videos because we don't want to another attack on American soil (the embassy was technically American soil).
define what an assault weapon is.

The truth is that we pay a price for living in a free society. There was very little gun crime in the USSR, there is no gun crime and very little violent crime in Cuba, I don't want to live in those societies.

You say we should ban assault weapons. What's an assault weapon? by your definition.

Any automatic weapon. I'm sorry, but a pistol or shotgun should be sufficient for home defense. No one needs to own an automatic weapon. And to be completely honest, I'm starting to think your political views may be a hindrance to law school admissions. You aren't just a Republican, you are coming across as slightly paranoid and seem to be preparing for an imminent government takeover

Who makes the choice that one weapon is sufficient and another is not? And why do you say that no one needs to own an automatic weapon? Why not? Preparing for a disaster or conflict is not being paranoid, it is being logical.

[laxbrah420]

Who makes the choice that one weapon is sufficient and another is not? And why do you say that no one needs to own an automatic weapon? Why not? Preparing for a disaster or conflict is not being paranoid, it is being logical.

Umm, the legislators, and then the courts. Duh. I thought right wingers were supposed to know shit about the constitution?

[MiracleNeeded]

So a basic assumption here is that violence is and always will be a necessity to battle at least one type of oppression.

But you have to grant that the very threat that comes from others possessing guns takes away just a bit of my freedom. That is the cost, and not a cost I want our members of society to pay forever. But for now, yes.


Also this cost of freedom is directly tied to how effective your weapon is. Thus a ban on assault guns to me, is warranted.

Your freedom to live a quiet and undisturbed existence can be violated by many of the rights granted to the people. A Jihadist can blow up a building you're in because some guy makes a cartoon of Mohamed that guy wasn't happy about. Should we tell people not to make anymore youtube videos because we don't want to another attack on American soil (the embassy was technically American soil).
define what an assault weapon is.

The truth is that we pay a price for living in a free society. There was very little gun crime in the USSR, there is no gun crime and very little violent crime in Cuba, I don't want to live in those societies.

You say we should ban assault weapons. What's an assault weapon? by your definition.

Any automatic weapon. I'm sorry, but a pistol or shotgun should be sufficient for home defense. No one needs to own an automatic weapon. And to be completely honest, I'm starting to think your political views may be a hindrance to law school admissions. You aren't just a Republican, you are coming across as slightly paranoid and seem to be preparing for an imminent government takeover

Any automatic weapon? Those are already illegal and have been illegal for the last 19 years. The truth is, your definition is not the same as the government's definition. From 1994 to 2004 we had an assault weapon's ban which made ALL fully automatic weapons illegal. In RARE cases with a tax stamp (yes, everything is illegal unless you float Uncle Sam a few hundred bucks) and oh, about $20,000 you can get yourself a preban (post 1994) full auto weapon, unless you live in NY, CA, DC, NJ, MA, and well, it would be easier to list where you CAN have them. In those states mentioned, the original federal ban which expired in 2004 is still in effect. In NYS we added more limits, it USED two take TWO cosmetic features to make a rifle an "assault weapon" now it takes ONE feature. Let me say that again, these things are COSMETIC. If I have a Rifle that fires exactly the same as a so called assault weapon but it has no pistol grip, no barrel shroud, no whatever the shit else, then it is legal, and NOT n assault weapon, this is madness.

I'm also not paranoid, I was arguing for the second amendment and why it was put in the constitution. I have no fear that the Bama will declare marshal law, I don't see a revolution in our future. I do like having options, I do like having the guns that I see fit to have. Which brings me to this point. Who are you to dictate what is sufficient for my home defense needs? I have a Glock 30 on my nightstand, which replaced a shotgun that was in my closet. I also have several handguns that I carry for self defense due to my job. I have an AR, but I don't have it loaded in my home for defense, in fact it isnt even assembled anymore, that's how whacky and paranoid I am. I didn't get the AR for the apocalypse, nor did I get the SKS that's being shipped to my FFL dealer in a week for a government take over. I got them because they're fun to shoot, fun to have, and I just wanted them. You say that should not be so. You say I can't have something because i don't need it in your estimation.

[MiracleNeeded]

Who makes the choice that one weapon is sufficient and another is not? And why do you say that no one needs to own an automatic weapon? Why not? Preparing for a disaster or conflict is not being paranoid, it is being logical.

Umm, the legislators, and then the courts. Duh. I thought right wingers were supposed to know shit about the constitution?

Yep, the same guys with security details. I always get a chuckle when I see Michael BLoomberg on TV. The guy wants me to be unarmed in NYC, but he has 7 dudes 6'4" with MP5's under their trench coats.

Diane Feinstein had a fucking concealed carry permit.

[MiracleNeeded]

Also, I'd like to point something out. I think it is a myth that academia discriminates against conservatives. I've met plenty of right-wing professors in my undergrad years. Hell, I've never met a single liberal in the economics department of my college and I had one professor who openly attacked FDR and things as moderate as Keynesian Economics.

I do not think professors grade conservative students any differently than liberals. I wear my views on my sleeve and I have always been graded fairly. I also think it is a myth, although I have not heard this myth.

I've been treated fairly as well. I had a professor threaten to give me a failing grade in a class, I ended up getting an A. I do know that academia is a liberal place in general terms and I don't want to ruin my chances in any way.

[laxbrah420]

Who makes the choice that one weapon is sufficient and another is not? And why do you say that no one needs to own an automatic weapon? Why not? Preparing for a disaster or conflict is not being paranoid, it is being logical.

Umm, the legislators, and then the courts. Duh. I thought right wingers were supposed to know shit about the constitution?

Yep, the same guys with security details. I always get a chuckle when I see Michael BLoomberg on TV. The guy wants me to be unarmed in NYC, but he has 7 dudes 6'4" with MP5's under their trench coats.

Diane Feinstein had a fucking concealed carry permit.

Do you think that this is a persuasive point, a humorous anecdote, or did you post this for some other reason?

[MiracleNeeded]

Who makes the choice that one weapon is sufficient and another is not? And why do you say that no one needs to own an automatic weapon? Why not? Preparing for a disaster or conflict is not being paranoid, it is being logical.

Umm, the legislators, and then the courts. Duh. I thought right wingers were supposed to know shit about the constitution?

Yep, the same guys with security details. I always get a chuckle when I see Michael BLoomberg on TV. The guy wants me to be unarmed in NYC, but he has 7 dudes 6'4" with MP5's under their trench coats.

Diane Feinstein had a fucking concealed carry permit.

Do you think that this is a persuasive point, a humorous anecdote, or did you post this for some other reason?

I can ask the same thing about your post.

[eric922]

Also, I'd like to point something out. I think it is a myth that academia discriminates against conservatives. I've met plenty of right-wing professors in my undergrad years. Hell, I've never met a single liberal in the economics department of my college and I had one professor who openly attacked FDR and things as moderate as Keynesian Economics.

I do not think professors grade conservative students any differently than liberals. I wear my views on my sleeve and I have always been graded fairly. I also think it is a myth, although I have not heard this myth.

I've been treated fairly as well. I had a professor threaten to give me a failing grade in a class, I ended up getting an A. I do know that academia is a liberal place in general terms and I don't want to ruin my chances in any way.

I think you'll be treated fairly. But I do think that conservatives bring it upon themselves for being underrepresented in academia. When a large segment of your party denies evolution and believes in Creationism and when the vast majority of your party's elected officials deny global warming despite what scientists say then you can't blame some people for thinking conservatism has a streak of anti-intellectualism to it.

[laxbrah420]

I can ask the same thing about your post.

But you didn't. Please answer my question.

[MiracleNeeded]

I can ask the same thing about your post.

But you didn't. Please answer my question.

1 and 2

[MiracleNeeded]

Also, I'd like to point something out. I think it is a myth that academia discriminates against conservatives. I've met plenty of right-wing professors in my undergrad years. Hell, I've never met a single liberal in the economics department of my college and I had one professor who openly attacked FDR and things as moderate as Keynesian Economics.

I do not think professors grade conservative students any differently than liberals. I wear my views on my sleeve and I have always been graded fairly. I also think it is a myth, although I have not heard this myth.

I've been treated fairly as well. I had a professor threaten to give me a failing grade in a class, I ended up getting an A. I do know that academia is a liberal place in general terms and I don't want to ruin my chances in any way.

I think you'll be treated fairly. But I do think that conservatives bring it upon themselves for being underrepresented in academia. When a large segment of your party denies evolution and believes in Creationism and when the vast majority of your party's elected officials deny global warming despite what scientists say then you can't blame some people for thinking conservatism has a streak of anti-intellectualism to it.

Creationism and Global WArming. We can make two more threads where I'll be distracted from my studies for a few days. I don't think that either of those examples shows why we aren't in academia. There are plenty of scientists who believe that global warming is not happening, and still others who believe that it is, but it has nothing to do with pollution, they base this on the fact that other planets are also going through a warming phase. Ever see the movie Cool It! ? Many of these scientists have actually been silenced by threats. Many Conservtives are fiscally conservative and have no religion, like Milton Friedman may he rest in peace, and Ayn Rand.

I think the real reason you don't see conservatives in academia is because most of us go into business. There's even a theory that academia became a liberal haven for left leaning people during the Vietnam war, many were avoiding the draft by staying in school and never left, thereby changing the demographic of professors.

[sublime]

..

[MiracleNeeded]

And we made it like 30 posts on this thread before it inevitably devolved to this. I am almost proud of TLS collectively that it made it that long.


OP, now knowing more fully your views, I would not mention any of this at all in your apps. Don't even touch it. I would stress this even more concerning your tank control views, global warming, creationism, and your theories about academia.

Yeah I came to the same conclusion 25 posts ago, I was never sure I should open that can of worms. I hope to get in, get the degree, and do some real "damage" you know, like work for NRA and make sure all us crazies have guns, that's the ticket.work from the inside.

[sinfiery]

Yes, yes, it is a give and take though. I agree with you regarding freedoms to the extent that they not infringe upon others rights.

For example, in Oregon your basically allowed to put 12 feet tires on your trucks. Monster trucks were all over the road and on a two lane road with a ducking monster truck coming at you going 60 in a 40, its terrifying. Very glad we have restrictions on this in Texas because there is no forest to harvest and thus no benefit and only pain.


My real question to you is do you think will ever exist a society where violence will not be necessary to quell the powers of unfair governmental action in any scenario? Thus reducing the net benefit of guns and still infringing upon my freedom. I think one day we will.

I also ask, would a civilian with a tank really be any better able to defend himself than with a pistol versus an attacking and presumably far far fat superior force. One that could send drones and bomb the area of any perceived threat from x miles away?


I don't know definitions of guns. I believe assault rifle is of a tier that is powerful, but not so powerful as to actually help in the aid against oppression relative to the tier under that.

[MiracleNeeded]

Yes, yes, it is a give and take though. I agree with you regarding freedoms to the extent that they not infringe upon others rights.

For example, in Oregon your basically allowed to put 12 feet tires on your trucks. Monster trucks were all over the road and on a two lane road with a ducking monster truck coming at you going 60 in a 40, its terrifying. Very glad we have restrictions on this in Texas because there is no forest to harvest and thus no benefit and only pain.


My real question to you is do you think will ever exist a society where violence will not be necessary to quell the powers of unfair governmental action in any scenario? Thus reducing the net benefit of guns and still infringing upon my freedom. I think one day we will.

I also ask, would a civilian with a tank really be any better able to defend himself than with a pistol versus an attacking and presumably far far fat superior force. One that could send drones and bomb the area of any perceived threat from x miles away?


I don't know definitions of guns. I believe assault rifle is of a tier that is powerful, but not so powerful as to actually help in the aid against oppression relative to the tier under that.

The short answer is no. It is in our nature to fight. If we ever get to that point, it won't be within our lifetime. Also, you would not have any worries about my guns if we lived in a world where there was no violence. Perhaps we will still like to target shoot, or hunt.

[sinfiery]

What if we get really close to it? Can my neighbor still park his 4 tanks in his Suburbia backyard? I mean I guess my family will be very terrified but there's still a chance we need to rebel so ill just tell them to suck it up.

[20141023]

.

[Big Dog]

I wrote my PS about fighting to impeach the Kenyian Dictator and I got into many law schools.

Of course, bcos that is PC. (Doh!)

[MiracleNeeded]

Our plan is to keep you on this thread so long that you bomb the LSAT and don't get into any law schools.

Self-preservation of the liberals.

You clever bastards.