not too hard for an expert

Done, one lucky guess

Hi all. Starting todays expert

pause

Start

Done. 1 wrong guess

done

ding, second guess

Quite excited at the TED 2016 conference. Can't wait to see the talks. Wish I could afford the $100 to watch it live. Seems strange, I bet most people think that's a lot of money when the object of the exercise is to spread the word. Ten bucks and I would have paid it along with probably ten more people for every one they may get now. Cost of distribution, cents.

Diane: the right of the people to keep and bear arm...not the right of the militia! But to give you an even better answer:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional convention.

Diane: Switzerland has a very low murder rate and yet virtually every male citizen between 20 and 34 is in the militia and keeps his "assault weapon" at home. Perhaps its not the gun that is the problem.

And if gun control works so well why do Chicago and New York have such high murder rates?

Diane: the federal government tells us what light bulbs we can and cannot buy. It won't allow you to drain the swamp on your own land. It tells us we cannot flush more than 1.6 gallons of water down the toilet at a time. It forces us all to buy health insurance.

@drwho - and what is the problem with that if it is better for the country as a whole?

Diane: You tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is allowed to make such laws. Back in 1913 it took an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. How is restricting what kind of toilets or light bulb may be manufactured and sold any different than alcohol? Yet now it only takes a law.

Mr. O: it's not better for the country when they do these things illegally, which I have just pointed out. But the real point of all these things is not to improve the country but to consolidate power in the hands of the politicians.

In the US the power of politicans comes from big capital, not from the law alone. That means any law that is good for the country but not so good for capital actually reduces the power of politicians.

That is fine. I don't fear big capitol. They wouldn't give the politicians so much money if they didn't think they were worth it. That's why the politicians want power, they can turn it into money. Our constitution strictly limits the power of the federal government. If we were true to it, the politicians wouldn't be worth so much.

They are worth it for capitol because they do not go against them.In Europe we call that a bribe, and we think that is illegal. And if your constitution rules otherwise, maybe it was written too long ago when there were fewer people, the earth was less polluted and they really didnt think about the whole world as the only place we have?

okay back to this puzzle

The constitution labels bribery an impeachable offense. But which big business can put a gun to your head and force you to buy its products or services? The government can.

Sorry, that was not my point. Health insurance for everybody its better for the country as a whole, as almost evry European country has known a long time. It does strengthen the insurance industry maybe, but diminishes the power of the medical and pharma, so that is a trade-off.

drwho, common sense must prevail. In Aus, many people thought it went against civil liberties to take their guns away but we had a courageous prime minister, amongst others who said, enough is enough. Something has to change. There is no other way. Now even those who were against it realise it was the right thing to do. We can still own guns and many do but they have to have a legitimate reason and secure storage. Handguns should only be kept at a gun club due to their ease of concealment. Obviously it goes without saying you need to not be a criminal to get one and the Police issue licences. Everyone feels safer and zero mass murders in what, 19 years now. Some minor loss of civil liberty is not a reason to allow anyone to walk into a gun show and buy an automatic assault rifle which has absolutely no place anywhere outside of the military, period.

meanwhile, greens but no guesses. - and agree with Phil

Couldn't agree more MrO

Worked for a Dutch company once, long time ago.Wonderful level headed people, had a lot of fun too, fond memories.

I had trouble with this one...had to restart twice but finally done!!!

drwho, you're not correct on Switzerland. If we had regs that the Swiss have, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz\n.asp.

drwho, there's a commerce clause in the Constitution.

drwho, please compare freedoms (or lack thereof) in the US vs. other industrialized countries. And while you're at it, compare health care (and health care outcomes), costs as a % of GDP; education; and quality of life. You might be surprised.

In Switzerland they have national service and all those who partake are issued a rifle in the protection of their country. Haven't looked at whether they have had mass shootings so can't comment on that.

What's interesting, Phil, is that the Swiss in the national service are issued gov't-issued weapons - BUT NO AMMO!

Unfortunately drwho, I think most people in the world see that paying money to lobby politicians is regarded as bribery. It's highly regulated here in Aus and even then the general public have an immense dictate for it. Health care for all is just plain fair. No system is perfect but to leave poor people with no treatment, well that's just unjust.

Quite rightly and makes sense does it not. You get to fire the weapons in a controlled environment during training and if the unthinkable were to happen and invasion looked likely it would be much easier to distribute ammo alone. Most military patrol with firearms but no ammo. Simple and sensible controls.

Sorry, dictate should have been distaste.

drwho, your position on $$ is telling. $$, the Citizens United decision, the loss of the middle class with wealth being consolidated in the hands of a few, more people being plunged into poverty, are the largest threats to freedom in the US.

Sometimes Pollies need more regulation over big business. The GFC showed us that quite clearly. Big business must never be allowed to dictate to government. The people vote for the parties that have the policies they believe in. The World is still trying to get to grips with how they were duped by indefensible practices in the US banking and finance sector yet why have they not gone to jail? Fortunately our banks were not too badly hit due to strong regulation by an independent Federal Reserve. It's trusted by the people because it has shown itself to be effective and working in the interests of all our citizens not big business per se.

Night all. Tough puzzle.

go

done, ng 2 guesses

Diane & Phil: my point about big business is that it doesn't matter what big business dictates to government if the government is powerless to do it. Take for instance insurance. We are mandated by law that we must have liability insurance to drive a car and now that we must have health insurance. If government can actually mandate such things of course every big business will want to get government to mandate that people buy their products also. Hence all the money. But if our federal government actually respected the limits imposed by the Constitution there would be much less reason for big business to throw so much money at it.

Diane: the commerce clause you refer to is Art. III, S. 8 P. 3. That was there in 1913. Why didn't it authorize the prohibition of the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverage? It required an amendment. I submit you are stretching the meaning of "regulate commerce". But even then the regulation is limited to commerce with foreign nations and among the several states....

go

later . . .

Phil: Some common sense from Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Difficulty score 47. No green.

In the UK, the first mass shooting took place in 1987, and 16 people died. The next happened in 1996, and 18 people died (mostly children and staff at a primary school), and the last in 2010, when 12 people died. In each case, the shooter committed suicide at the end ofthe 'spree', suggesting that they were suffering form mental health problems. We have around 60 homicides involving guns each year, and our gun murder rate of about 0.1 per 100,000 people in England and Wales. We don't carry guns, almost all these murders involve illegal weapons and many of them are drug/gang related. I like the freedom of being able to walk the streets not worrying about being shot.

drwho, like I said, great words from a great man many lifetimes ago, but in a settled democracy, sometimes a little loss of liberty is a very small price to pay compared with the life of the innocent

good luck to the teams in the Super Bowl, and also to the Australian doritos ad from Perth that made it to the final three. It's a corker! If it doesn't get the guernsey have a look later.

its really a no brainer isn't it digomdda, clearly you'd check to see if someone had mental health issues before issuing a firearm licence, wouldn't you. How anyone can seriously believe that it infringes civil liberties to an extent that it can't be implemented is beyond the pale, and yes the English in the 14th century were not very sensible.

hah - corker? Guernsey is a cow, no?

go again

done

99% of murder in the US is driven by drugs, not guns. Now we have declared drug offenses as "non-violent" so be assured the murder rate will most likely go up even further. Chicago, St Louis, DC, Baltimore...

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms. So I guess we should outlaw cars when we outlaw guns.