|
| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Leader [055343019] Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 15:26
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Tucson
Oh, man, this sounds horrible. |
| | | 1 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 15:47
|
Fox News reporting Federal Judge John Roll shot and killed at the Tucson incident.
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 16:35
|
Among the six dead was a child about 9 years old, the hospital confirmed.
Holy crap. Awful, awful stuff.
|
|
| | |
| | | 4 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 21:39
|
Just because Gabrielle Gifford's Tea Party opponent Jesse Kelly used rhetoric during the November election such as "Kelly places the crosshairs squarely on Rep. Giffords", and "Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly", does not mean that he believed his supporters should consider violence.
Really.
|
|
| | | 5 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 22:11
|
Agreed, bibA. The thought this is an example of "second amendment solutions" is...is...never mind.
|
|
| | |
| | | 7 | Great One
ID: 2411372412
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 00:06
|
Tree, you had a feeling something like this was gonna happen... thats the impression i got last we discussed.
|
|
| | | 8 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 00:36
|
i've been telling friends for quite some time - and i've repeated it on these boards - that i believe we are headed toward a sort of civil war.
the rise in anger and hate speech - and the excuses from many on the right in regards to that hate speech that makes it something they feel is acceptable - makes stuff like this inevitable.
it is a fact that some people will see these words as a "call to arms", and that they will act on it.
|
|
| | | 9 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 3601297
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 08:12
|
Condolences to every body involved. Former Phillies manager Dallas Greenes grand daughter was the 9 year old who was killed yesterday.
|
|
| | |
| | | 11 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 3601297
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 10:15
|
#8 As Obama said yesterday, "it is time to come together"
|
|
| | |
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 11:37
|
#11 - i don't disagree.
but it is an absolute disservice not to point out that much of the strong language - including words, symbols, and actions - that is designed to incite, can encourage those already close to be unhinged, to previously unthinkable actions.
MITH's point in 10 shows that we have a ways to go. Erickson even says at one point, of the assassin, "On YouTube, he flagged as a favorite video one of a person dressed as a terrorist burning the American flag. Only a lunatic or a leftist would do that."
TWENTY people were shot yesterday in what is looking increasingly like a politically-motivated crime. AT LEAST six are dead.
it is critical to examine every possible angle - and if the angry rhetoric of Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, et al - that encouraged this man to commit this act - then we need to perhaps re-think this.
i have been on this earth for 10 political elections. i am old enough to remember, as a child, the "Nixon Resigns!" headlines. and i remember "rooting" for Jimmy Carter when i was 6 or 7 years old.
but i have watched over the last decade as the rhetoric from both sides have grown more and more angry and inflammatory.
you look at people like Palin and Beck - and yes, i will single them out - who trot out terms like "Death Panels" (which simply never existed), who grant a remote level of credibility to Birthers (which is the sort of conspiracy that has been thoroughly debunked and deserves not a shred of credit as legitimate), and you have to place a level of responsibility and a portion of blame on them.
words incite and inflame. it's a fact. and for some, they see it as a call to action, we need to be wary of that.
|
|
| | | 14 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 12:25
|
Just as tasteless as blaming the political right or any particular politician is denying your own contributions to the trend of violent metaphors toward the opposition that might or might not have contributed to the shooter's motives."We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps," said Rebecca Mansour on the Tammy Bruce radio show. Moreover, there was "nothing irresponsible" about the image, and to draw a line connecting Palin and Saturday's shooting is "obscene" and "appalling."
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 12:35
|
for as much as we disagree sometimes MITH, i posted that on my facebook page at about the same time you posted it here.
it is appalling.
|
|
| | | 16 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 13:19
|
to draw a line connecting Palin and Saturday's shooting is "obscene" and "appalling."
Then why did she take it down? If she feels it was a legitimate political statement then, why isn't it a legitimate political statement now? Was there any remorse when Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized immediately after her "yea' vote on health care reform?
It's neither obscene nor appalling to bring Palin into the conversation, because it's part of the conversation. To quote Gabby Giffords after the Palin target ad and the office vandalism,
" all of us have to come together and say, 'OK, there's a fine line here.' "
Was there any attempt whatsoever on Palin's part to come together and agree that a fine line existed? After all, this is a woman who constantly whines about the lamestream media's unfair treatment of her and her family. I would find her condolensces yesterday more genuine had it been accompanied by a statement of regret for putting Giffords in crosshairs for a health care vote. A health care vote!!
Asked by the New York Post whether his daughter had any enemies, Giffords's father replied: "The whole tea party."
|
|
| | | 17 | J-Bar
ID: 23054917
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 19:01
|
This is in fact a sad day in the aftermath of a horrible event. But really and truly you feel that Sarah Palin wanted someone to shoot Ms. Giffords. Please in this haste to find blame and political connection because that will maybe make someone's point, lest not our judgment be clouded and know that unstable people do irrational acts. I also believe that the comments from people making the stretch from this shooter/killer to the tea party in a day amusing after they defended the lone perpetrator with no outside influence theory of the FT Hood shooter/killer for weeks. This shooter fits very few of the tea party demographics if we were profiling (I know we don't do that). Using the term targeted seats has been around a lot longer than the last election cycle and all of a sudden it means to go out and kill people. Kind of ridiculous IMO.
|
|
| | | 18 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 19:17
|
But really and truly you feel that Sarah Palin wanted someone to shoot Ms. Giffords.
no one has said that. not one person. and if they did, they're an idiot.
but words inflame and incite and encourage.
a friend of mine once said that when you speak, it's not necessarily your intent that matters; the perception of what you say weighs equally heavily.
that's the point here as well.
Sarah Palin may not have wanted anyone to shoot anybody. but if her words and actions encouraged someone to do so, there is a level of responsibility, and it's ignorant to think that isn't important.
|
|
| | | 19 | J-Bar
ID: 23054917
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 19:39
|
You really are kidding, right? 1st of all very little evidence if any that this shooter was influenced by Palin. No one can ever, with all certainty, know how every person will perceive their words. With that logic no speeches would ever be given especially those of the motivational type. Your use of the word IF is almost lost in the rest of your statements and assumptions that you are arguing but still very relevant. I wonder who will make the final determination on that IF.
|
|
| | | 20 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 19:46
|
"I wonder who will make the final determination on that IF. "
I'm pretty much gonna vote God on that one.
As for the rest of it: obviously, it's pretty unlikely that most of even the rightest of right-wing wingnuts wanted someone to literally shoot Giffords. However, when you continually make every effort to demonize and dehumanize your enemy ... well, it's a lot easier to shoot an "enemy" than it is to shoot a person.
Also, in the fine tradition of right-wing rhetoric, isn't it completely normal to hold an entire population responsible for the actions of the more extreme 0.00001% of the people holding a certain set of beliefs? Alternatively, if you want to contend that those words have no influence, then please punch yourself in the face the next time you want to come screaming on here about some Muslim cleric who said something somewhere.
|
|
| | | 23 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:03
|
1st of all very little evidence if any that this shooter was influenced by Palin.
Thats not the point. For all we know he was not influenced by anyone. What is important is that people on both sides tone it down.
|
|
| | | 28 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:24
|
I mean, I just want to know why it's totally cool to hold some imam in New York responsible for the terrorist actions of some people from Saudi Arabia, but it's not OK to hold some radio hack from Florida or some political personality from Alaska responsible for the terrorist actions of some guy from Arizona.
If I said, using your exact logic as quoted above, that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh should be required to guarantee that nobody ever follows her Twitter account or listens to his radio show watches her speak who holds the same beliefs as the Arizona gunman did in order to continue to be allowed to speak, would you be OK with that? Seems like a precisely analogous situation.
|
|
| | | 29 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:26
|
Awesome, can someone tell me why the post quoting J-Bar from the mosque thread was deleted? I assume that it's not a violation of civility to quote someone saying X when they say "I never said X".
I am guessing it's just part of general cleanup, because I'm quite certain I said nothing personal.
|
|
| | | 30 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:32
|
General cleanup. You wanted a specific post cleaned out, and then posted a direct response to that post - which made no sense out of context.
You can't have it both ways. I simply cleared out the entire pissing match.
|
|
| | | 31 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:39
|
Fair enough. I was trying to respond to the one part of it that wasn't insulting. I'll try again, without quoting that:
J-Bar, in post 112 of the mosque thread, you said:
"So I guess in your opinion the Imam is able to guarantee that no one that espouses the same beliefs of the criminals (the perp in my example) of 9/11 will ever set foot in his mosque."
This is the quote I was referring to in post 28. It certainly seems to imply that you think that should be a necessary condition for letting that imam build his mosque. (Go read it in the context of the discussion.) I think finding out why you think he should be held responsible, but that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and that ilk shouldn't, is a very relevant question.
|
|
| | | 32 | J-Bar
ID: 23054917
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 20:55
|
re 28 Again if you would go back and read the thread that you took my quote from I was not saying that the Imam was responsible for anyone's actions but you just keep on with it so that you can feel good about the correlation that you are now espousing. Back to the regularly scheduled thread.
It is a great thing that Dwetz now sees the ridiculousness of blaming someone personally, without proof, of contributing to the irrational actions of an unstable person. We are in agreement.
|
|
| | | 33 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 21:23
|
You really are kidding, right? 1st of all very little evidence if any that this shooter was influenced by Palin.
no, i'm not kidding.
Palin and her target cross hairs are a specific example to a broader point.
it's not that he was influenced by Palin. it's that those words are influential. and the wrong person can take them the wrong way and make a VERY wrong decision.
With that logic no speeches would ever be given especially those of the motivational type.
um. you don't believe the type of motivation is important. it's one thing to motivate your constituents to vote. it's another to motivate them to violence.
|
|
| | | 34 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 21:32
|
J-Bar, that's quite clearly not what you were saying, else you would never have brought it up in the context of why you thought the mosque should not be built.
But it's nice that you want to spin it that way now, and I'm glad that you now (finally) agree that we're in a country where it's at least as OK to freely exercise one's religion as it is to allude to shooting people we disagree with politically. Thanks for coming around.
|
|
| | | 35 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 21:34
|
Palin and her ilk, just like everyone, are responsible for their own words.
There are lots and lots and lots of yahoos in this country, many of them (like this one) seemingly apolitical (but, like many, harvesting a deep persecution complex which resonates with the language of the Far Right).
So when many on the far right continue to use militaristic language, put cross hairs on their political opponents, demonize them, intentionally use confrontational language, and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them, they contribute to a lowering of the conversational tone, and make it just that much more easy for the wacko to take that next step and pull the trigger.
I guarantee you that if it was the Far Left using this tone for over two years to deliver its political message, it would have been a Republican Congressman who was shot.
Yes: Palin and the Tea Partiers didn't pull the trigger, but they unapologetically continued to speak in language and with tones which allowed a crazy person to follow through on that lead. Of course the Tea Partiers are responsible for their own language and choice of words.
|
|
| | | 36 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 22:03
|
The Communist Manifesto" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf" were among the favorite reading materials of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in today's fatal shooting that reportedly left six dead and gravely injured a U.S. congresswoman.
Lougher, 22, listed those tomes among his favorites on his YouTube channel
One user on Twitter, Caitie Parker, wrote she went to high school, college and was in a band with the gunman. She said she hadn't seen him since 2007.
Parker wrote of Lougher, "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."
She also described him as "more left."
Assassin's politics lean 'left wing, quite liberal'
Parker was interviewed today on ABC's "This Week," yet the network did not even ask Parker about Loughner's political leanings.
Media covering up alleged shooter's liberal politics?
Shortly after news broke of the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., the left-leaning blog Daily Kos was swift to scrub its post from a Tucson writer explaining how the congresswoman was now "dead to me."
Look who else put 'bull's-eye' on Giffords
Moulitsas, however, had also posted what he called a "target list" identifying Giffords. In a 2008 Daily Kos post, Moulitsas listed Giffords as one of dozens of representatives with "a bull's-eye on their district" for being a "bad apple" Democrat.
The "dead to me" diary has since been deleted from Daily Kos, while Moulitsas' "target list" is still viewable.
Yup, all Sarah Palin's fault.
|
|
| | | 37 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 22:07
|
And thanks for the guarantee.
|
|
| | | 38 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 22:35
|
Because the perfectly normal phrase "dead to me" is CLEARLY equally as inflammatory as "exercising our second amendment rights on people". (/sarcasm)
Really, you want to try to make that equivalency?
Also, lest we assert that "it's always been this way, I'm sure the left did this same exact stuff to Bush", http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
"Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service."
Moral equivalence THAT.
|
|
| | | 39 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 22:37
|
Also, excellent job using as a source someone who hadn't had any contact with him in four years. I'm shocked you didn't remember to delete that line, frankly.
|
|
| | | 40 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 23:09
|
Yup, all Sarah Palin's fault.
again. no one is blaming Palin, but rather the rhetoric, tone, and symbols she and many of her ilk use.
then again, you've stated that you accept the reasons why people murder abortion doctors, and that you support criminals as long as their methods expose liberal causes as "frauds".
seriously - try reading what people here are posting. it's the language - not who is speaking it - that is being questioned.
|
|
| | | 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 00:05
|
A nine year old girl was killed. And Boldwin's posts consist of (1) Laying the blame for this act on the "left" and (2) calling out another gurupie for being slanderous.
Is this another example of Jesus' "opinion" we see? I'm certain that Jesus would want to make sure we all first understood that the Left is to blame. And no word for the souls of those taken by this madman.
As the father of a little girl maybe this is hitting me more than someone like yourself, Boldwin. Perhaps I lack some kind of neutral point of view you are using which allows you to post on this tragedy without even a sentence of dismay or even a mention of the victims (remorse, of course, is beyond you, since that involves self-reflection as to tone, spirit, and moderation and your self-righteousness prohibits that). Are your posts really how a Christian is commanded to act?
Another moderator can feel free to delete the paragraph above, since it probably steps over the line as to civility. But really--a nine year old girl shot dead, and you go all partisan on us? Is your soul beyond saving?
|
|
| | | 44 | astade
ID: 78462922
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 00:24
|
This event is horrific. Sad to hear about the brilliant lives affected and how unnecessary these actions seem. It sounds like Giffords still has an uphill battle but I wish her the best (disregarding her political leanings) so she can one day assume her position as a congresswoman.
On a side note, I read the most recent update on Yahoo! and a frequent poster on this forum came to mind: link
Anyone else see the connection? The poster has attempted to do it to this forum, but hopefully it doesn't manifest itself otherwise.
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 02:38
|
An entire thread laying this at the feet of the right when in actuality it was a liberal who did it.
An entire thread trying to tie this to Palin's bullseye comment when Daily KOS has this Democratic congresswoman in the crosshairs...
And not one of you catches your reflection in the mirror when you learn the truth.
Pass the garlic.
|
|
| | | 47 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 06:23
|
Actally it's a thread that lays much of the blame on the vitriol and hate speech that has become our national political discourse. You're defensive because most of us are unafrqid to point out that the majority of that stuff comes from the right and because you are on record in strong support of much of that speak.
That this loon isn't a conservative is irrelevant. He obviously has no handle on or at least no interst in left/right politics and his rantings display no continuity anlong any consistantly political ideology. But when metaphors that tease the use of gun violence against our elected officials become common and fashionable among not just citizen activists and bloggers but mainstream pundits and "journalists" and actual major party political candidate and elected officials - and then someone comes along and commits an act that matches thy very rhetoric, it's time for some self reflection on the part of the people who talk that way.
Honestly, how is a phrase like 'if ballots won't work, maybe bullets will' any different from hard core rap lyrics that glorify gun violence? Because it's a safe enough bet that young people aren't going to be interested in or susceptible to political speech? Tell that to the families of the shooting victims.
Of all people, it was Olberman who stepped up.
|
|
| | | 48 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 06:47
|
A backhanded apology at best by Boy Blue at Daily Kos.
At least he goes as far as to offer this, which is probably far more than Sarah would ever consider:i fully apologize to all the victims in this shooting, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, for my poor choice of words in that diary.
i fully and respectfully apologize to this blog and to Markos himself for the bad publicity amongst the right wing this has caused, including the NYT.
i apologize to the DailyKos membership and readership for being maligned by the far right blogs.
|
|
| | | 49 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 07:23
|
FNC in full court press denial mode. The shooter had a tent in his yard with some candles and skulls set up in an occult-like arrangement. So obviously none of the onslaught of violent political speech/metaphors over the past 2+ years could possibly have had any influence that contributed to this.
I guess the message is to resume your hate at will. Who do we line up in the scope sights next?
|
|
| | | 50 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 08:37
|
Perhaps FNC in full court press denial mode.
Perhaps FNC did not realize that ....none of the onslaught of violent political speech/metaphors over the past 2+ years could possibly have had any influence that contributed to this.
Perhaps FNC sends the message to resume your hate at will.
Perhaps FNC is asking who do we line up in the scope sights next?
Or, perhaps FNC is just reporting that ....The shooter had a tent in his yard with some candles and skulls set up in an occult-like arrangement.
|
|
| | | 51 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 08:54
|
I also think easy access to guns, especially by the mentally ill, is a big issue here. Mentally ill folks are also more susceptible to vitriol, and it'd be nice if there was a lot less vitriol in politics, no metephors to arms and targets and reloading, and a ton less guns. It's a recipe for disaster, and here we have one, and we will have more (and we have many every day, that are not reported). I have a child about the same exact age as the kid who was shot. This is just America on steroids with its anti gun control laws and our neanderthal political discourse.
Two relevant reads:
Collins: NYT
Krugman: NYT
|
|
| | | 52 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 09:06
|
Or, perhaps FNC is just reporting that ....The shooter had a tent in his yard with some candles and skulls set up in an occult-like arrangement.
When Brian Kilmeade tells the viewing audiance over a still shot of the shrine that it's absurd to think that any political speech could have made him do this, I'm pretty sure the message is that none of the onslaught of violent political speech/metaphors over the past 2+ years could possibly have had any influence that contributed to this.
Maybe I'm assuming too much?
|
|
| | | 53 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 09:06
|
post 47 is right on. it's the language used that is at issue here. and as MITH pointed out, much of that language comes from the right.
the left is not without guilt despite the blinders of some here. early in this thread both MITH and myself mentioned pundits on the left, not the right.
it's a bipartisan problem from both sides, but there is little question that the non-stop barrage and the majority of that sort of language comes from the right.
|
|
| | | 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 09:42
|
The Right, as usual, is desperate to determine where on the political spectrum the shooter is in order to avoid the splatter.
As usual, since they seen the world now through extreme partisan politics glasses, they miss the point.
|
|
| | | 55 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 09:56
|
Look at the front pages of the National Review and the Daily Caller. Not even a hint of sugestion or acknowledgement that maybe everyone could tone it down. How sad.
|
|
| | | 56 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 10:29
|
I don't suppose there is a liberal alive with enuff of a conscience to wonder if it was ethical to insist on a socialist revolution. After countless gulags and mass murders ... it just might be bad for someone's health. Ya think? After the existing socialist countries couldn't even guarantee sterile needles to their hospitals did you think it was ethical to try the experiment all over?
And can you really guarantee a bloodless coup? If you can't are you guilty if you insist on change?
|
|
| | | 57 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 10:38
|
Sociial revolution? I just want pundits and pols to rethink the ease with which the publicly muse and joke about shooting people.
That you cannot get on board with that simple no-brainer is astounding to me.
How in the world can you condemn muslims for not speaking out against the violent rhetoric from within their own ranks when you refuse to do the same, even after someone has emulated that very rhetoric in a bloodbath?
|
|
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 10:43
|
I don't think it's the labels that are dangerous. I think it is the reality that is dangerous.
|
|
| | | 59 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 10:44
|
Yeah reality imitated labels on Saturday. The distinction in this regard is no longer so clear.
|
|
| | | 60 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 10:51
|
For many on the Far Right, there is no difference between the labels they put on people and the then-generated reality. In fact, many on the Far Right are simply unable to function without first placing a label on a person or thing in order to deal with it based upon pre-written responses.
|
|
| | | 61 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:00
|
Saul Alinsky rule for radical #11: Industrial size dymo labeler. Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Knuckle-dragger Knuckle-dragger Knuckle-dragger Knuckle-dragger Knuckle-dragger Knuckle-dragger
As if you guys could think if we took away yer labeler.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:05
|
Typical Rovian tactic: Accuse your accusers of the very thing you are doing. And never apologize for your behavior.
|
|
| | | 63 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:06
|
Nice example of projection, PD. Classic.
|
|
| | | 64 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:09
|
lamentful exhale.
|
|
| | | 65 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:12
|
Industrial size dymo labeler.
Says the guy who idolizes someone who claims,
"Liberals are traitors."
You certainly are.
|
|
| | | 66 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:14
|
Re: 61,
Thanks for the sincere lesson in why labeling is bad. We'll take this to heart.
Sincerely,
the traitorous Moslem communist terrorist Alinskyite socialist anti-business granny-killing slandering murderers at ACORN.
|
|
| | | 67 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:25
|
Words are indispensible when accurately used.
|
|
| | | 68 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:32
|
And indefensible when they're not. Learn the difference, and come back when you can play well with others.
|
|
| | | 69 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:41
|
Words are indispensible when accurately used.
You mean like these? "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action." - Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
|
|
| | | 70 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:47
|
I would say that describing an attack by a liberal, on a liberal as inspired by Palin would be self-evidently inaccurate.
|
|
| | | 71 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:49
|
It is. Just not for the reason you want it to be.
|
|
| | | 72 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:50
|
PD #60.
|
|
| | | 73 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:00
|
Sarah Palin irresponsibly fosters political rhetoric and tactics that lend itself to the possibility of violence.
No one expects you to understand or comprehend that, because your entire thought process is hard-wired liberal=bad/conservative=good dynamic, which is why it's so important to label Laughner a liberal. Had Laughner shot a conservative who had been put in crosshairs by, say, George Soros, your reaction would be entirely different.
|
|
| | | 74 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:34
|
I would say that describing an attack by a liberal, on a liberal as inspired by Palin would be self-evidently inaccurate.
i would say post #70 and the statement above shows how shockingly lost you are on this topic.
this isn't about blaming Palin or any other individual - it's about blaming the tone, language, and symbols being used is during political discourse in this country.
Palin has responsibility. Beck has responsibility. Olbermann has responsibility. I do. You do. MITH does. PD does. WE ALL DO.
and all of us posting here acknowledge and recognize that. except, it seems, for you, who prefers to ramble on about "Socialist Revolution", Alinsky, and liberals.
|
|
| | | 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:44
|
I have no idea where the idea that this guy was a "liberal" comes from (nor, frankly, do I care).
It is a little funny (to me) that Boldwin goes on and on about reality, then uses the reading list of this guy to call him "liberal." The one thing about the books on that list is pretty much all of them deal with the idea of reality being controlled and manipulated by higher powers (not unlike the reality of the Tea Party being manipulated by FOX and others in the conservative media, actually).
Also, it needs to be said, that if this particular forum is crawling with liberals, then Boldwin's continued responses on this board is proof of his liberalism. According to his logic, anyway.
|
|
| | | 76 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:46
|
Meanwhile, a Tea Party leader uses the reaction of the shooting to call the left "evil."
|
|
| | | 77 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 13:01
|
Awfully strange for him to get all hot and bothered about meaningless words which clearly have no effect on others. You'd think someone threatened to kill him or something.
|
|
| | | 78 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 13:11
|
This was posted on another forum I frequent, and I think this says it about as well as I'd ever hope to, so I'm just going to quote it here:
"The problem is that it's never as simple as anyone ever really makes it out to be when it comes to this sort of killing. People are used to distilling crimes down to simple motives: guy's wife cheats on him, he takes a bat to her, or whatever, because it makes the crime, while not excused, at least comprehensible.
That sort of logic will never work when it comes to the action of this sort of person, or really any person that would do something like Loughner did (presuming he acted alone and wasn't directly manipulated by someone less insane).
Some people shrug their shoulders, laugh it off as "crazy gonna crazy", and dismiss it as completely inexplicable and unavoidable damage.
Some people use the amorphous motivations of an action like this, or of, say, the Columbine shootings, to go after a pet target and morph it into that target's fault (for example: video games).
Others attempt to examine in full the context of the action and try to determine if there are factors in that context that might be modulated and better controlled to either reduce the probability of these sorts of incidents or reduce the degree of harm that happens when they do occur.
The possibility of restricting the access to a firearm is one potential form of modulation.
The reduction of the degree of violent/intimidating rhetoric in our political discourse, the language that explicitly calls for violent solutions to political differences ("If ballots don't work, bullets will!") is another.
(Yes, you have a First Amendment right to go a very long ways in your speech, but all the First Amendment guarantees is that you can't be arrested or sued for protected speech, not that you can't be shunned politically or metaphorically or literally booed off the stage for it).
It may end up that this guy shot Gabby Giffords in the head primarily because he's a complete nutjob and had visions of Zooey Deschanel in his head that told him to do it. What that doesn't mean is that examination of the larger context of the action is completely off the table.
The simple fact is that the Teabaggers - not just the fringe nutjobs, but actual politicians with considerable popularity - have amped up the use of this sort of violent rhetoric and intimidating speech to 11, they have been called out on it repeatedly and by people on a great many sides of the political spectrum (including, let's not forget, Gabby Giffords herself), and that context matters. To a crazy person, it matters much more than it does to you or I.
If your first instinct after a congresswoman, one who represented a district that has been a particular hotbed, is shot in the head, is to dismiss the relevance of that speech, chances are extreme that you're an incurable homer that would defend Sarah Palin if she was caught on tape beating a puppy to death with a tire iron.
It's relevant even if it wasn't the specific lightning rod motive for this particular shooting. It's relevant even if there was no shooting. It's an alarming and relatively new trend in American politics that is better suited to third world thugocracies. That some people have taken this shooting as an opportunity to highlight it - well, duh. She had a god damn crosshairs over her."
|
|
| | | 79 | CJ
ID: 5311491012
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 13:51
|
#6
Seriously...I am disgusted and sickened as into the thread we have Tree trying to play politics. There is no way a political campaign season is the net result of this shooting. It is ridiculous to even suggest and even in a matter of 6 post...ha ha ha...but really do we expect anything else from the far left...NOPE!
|
|
| | | 80 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 14:12
|
1. It's a politics forum. Shockingly enough, a congressperson getting shot at a political event probably ought to be discussed here, and it's not like Tree (or anybody else) magically transformed this non-political happening into a political event.
2. Why you picking on Tree? He wasn't the first to introduce it into the thread.
3. Other than popping in to randomly personally insult someone while being factually incorrect (which seems to be a common theme here from our right wing comrades, we're 3 for 3 so far), do you have anything intelligent to attempt to add?
4. I'm guessing that if you're sincerely sickened and disgusted, not by half a dozen people getting murdered, but by Tree (not really, but we'll pretend) bringing politics into this thread, you really ought to maybe reflect on that just a bit.
|
|
| | | 81 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 14:45
|
Seriously...I am disgusted and sickened as into the thread we have Tree trying to play politics. There is no way a political campaign season is the net result of this shooting. It is ridiculous to even suggest and even in a matter of 6 post...ha ha ha...but really do we expect anything else from the far left...NOPE!
i was reporting what has been reported in numerous other news outlets.
and the fact that Giffords herself was concerned about being placed in Palin's crosshairs makes it absolutely relevant and newsworthy.
in fact, i was very clear to NOT blame Palin when i said it is probably just an unfortunate coincidence. but in this day and age, we need to be careful with the words and language we choose.
it's interesting how posts from yourself and Baldwin play right into the larger discussion being had, without you guys even realizing it.
kind of sad, actually.
|
|
| | |
| | | 83 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 14:52
|
this isn't about blaming Palin or any other individual - it's about blaming the tone, language, and symbols being used is during political discourse in this country.
Palin has responsibility. Beck has responsibility. Olbermann has responsibility. I do. You do. MITH does. PD does. WE ALL DO.
I couldn't agree with this less. Imagery is imagery. Its everywhere and in nearly every aspect of life. And it comes from both sides.
There has to be a major disconnect in this guys brain to do what he did. There has to be a major disconnect between this guy and reality to see (for example) an ad for a political campaign with a target over Giffords' picture and think somebody was telling him he should shoot her.
Imagery is a part of everybody's life. We as people have to learn to sort thru it and process it correctly.
I also want to look at dwetzel's post in 78 (and make it clear he is quoting somebody else so these are not his words): Whoever was quoted is simply a hypocrite.
Starting at the quoted part, look at paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. He discusses how people want to use this incident to support a pet project or somehow turn it on the opposition and attack them and he seems to be denouncing this stating it doesn't work (I agree).
Then look at paragraph 10 starting with "The simple fact is that the Teabaggers..." He turns around and does exactly what he just denounced. Hypocrite. Plain and simple.
Face it, a political ad with a target over an opponents face says, "Like a hunter, we're after our prey. We want a victory over that person and want to knock them out of the race." Thats it. It does NOT say, "hey, like a hunter, go get a gun and shoot this person."
If somebody cannot make that distinction in their mind, then *they* have problems. The one putting the imagery up there is NOT responsible because somebody else has problems and takes it the wrong way.
Don't get me wrong here; if somebody says, "you know what, just shoot the person. Really. Just shoot them" even if they are being rhetorical or hyberbolic that person is an idiot. Especially if they have a national audience like a Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity. But a comment like that is more direct and has no imagery in it.
I'm just so tired of people on both sides turning this into a political debate. Its not. Its a debate about some whacked out person going off the deep end. He had his reasons. He had his motivations. Ultimately no matter what, HE is responsible and nobody else.
Don't hold imagery responisble for a whack job.
|
|
| | | 84 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 14:57
|
I agree with Tree here. Folks are pretty quick to blame the other side, when it's painfully obvious that the majority of violent metaphors spoken about on TV and on the internet come from one side. Both sides mock and argue, and get nasty, but it seems that one side is crying tyranny and call to arms in a chicken little way to invoke fear and action on behalf of their constituents. This behavior has unintended consequences. No responsibility taken for such behavior though. No, no. "We did not intend... we did not mean..." Well, you take a risk with metaphor and vitriol, and these are the potential outcomes.
I think it's also important to note which side is gung-ho about guns, and which side is wimpy about gun control. I think it's far sadder that this issue is entirely overlooked, and you still have folks saying: "Well, if there was a policeman with a glock on-hand, then the situation could have turned out much different." How about: "If there were no freakin glocks (guns), the situation would have turned out much different"...?!?
Palin's crosshairs and other violent metaphors do not help, and are only meant to rile up folks, but being so extreme, have the risk to really rile up folks who lack common sense, or to feed paranoid thoughts and actions of mentally ill folks -- who can easily get their hands on hand guns. Add it all up, and our great, dumb approach to gun safety coupled with macho political discourse was and is incendiary.
|
|
| | | 85 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:01
|
Khahan, it's not black & white. Violent metaphors in poli speech and blogs don't cause folks to act violent...but digested by folks who are unstable, provide more fuel to the fire of their thoughts. It's like this could have happened anyway, or the individual could have chosen another issue from which to get incited, but it'd be nice if our supposed lawmakers and political experts did not help contribute to the sea of rhetoric. It should be the opposite.
And, the guns thing.
|
|
| | | 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:14
|
I, for one, am not blaming the Tea Party, or Palin, for the shooting. I'm blaming them for militaristic rhetoric which allows a wacko to feel enabled.
|
|
| | | 87 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:15
|
Khakan, FWIW, I partially agree with you (FWIW, to make it clear, absolutely throw the left-wing equivalents in the same category).
However, to say "oh, both sides are doing it (see, here's a few counterexamples), so how dare you point out the people that are doing about 90% of it as the primary people to prove your point" is, well, not particularly close factual. Perhaps you missed the fact that death threats against the President are up 400% over the numbers Bush faced. The incontrovertible fact is that the undercurrent of violent rhetoric has risen rapidly, and the solid majority of it is coming from the rightest of right-wingers. This isn't even a debatable point. It's a whine about it and call your opponent's names about it point at best. When you (and this is not a literal you, if it's not obvious) make that point by calling your opponents "evil" and "scumbags" (see post 76), it sort of drives the point home, doesn't it?
And yes, I think everyone in here understands that most rational people, even those that talk about putting people in the crosshairs and the like, don't literally wish death upon their political opponents. But when you deliberately and repeatedly give every signal off to the whackjobs that their violent impulses are shared by many people, are normal, are right, when there's a perfectly reasonable way of doing things that doesn't give off those same signals ... well, it sure seems like a relevant question to bring up, at the very least.
I mean, if you think the words have no effect and aren't relevant, then we really ought to stop blaming Muslim imams in New York for terrorist acts that happen thousands of miles away from those people. After all, those are just words -- that random whackjobs happen to take those words a little too much to heart can't be their fault... right?
|
|
| | | 88 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:24
|
FWIW, the Palin thing was probably about a 4 or 5 out of 10 on the scale of stuff that was pretty obviously unacceptable. Sharron Angle's comment was about a 9.5/10:
"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.”
“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
I think people pick on Palin because she's a highly visible politician, and has some small air of legitimacy to her, but
there sure seems to be a pattern developing, in case you've forgotten.
Words do matter.
|
|
| | |
| | | 90 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:43
|
My guess is he saw the crosshairs advertising, bought a gun, and then did the shooting. He never would have had an idea to do the shooting,but the crosshairs advertising gave him the idea, so he did it.
They were looking for a 2nd suspect. My guess, is that he will go the way of John Doe #2, the 2nd Ft Hood shooter, or the man on the grassy knoll, etc. I also suspect we will find out that he was taking Prosac or something similar like these other disaster shooters. It says he was into mind control. Yes, his mind was probably under control by someone else.
|
|
| | | 91 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:47
|
They were looking for a second suspect but found him and dismissed him as a suspect. Apparently he was the cab driver, who went into the store with the shooter because he didn't have change.
|
|
| | | 92 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:58
|
I couldn't agree with this less. Imagery is imagery. Its everywhere and in nearly every aspect of life. And it comes from both sides.
yes. which is precisely while i listed people with several different political opinions.
imagery empowers. did the Swastika not matter? heck, for that matter, the Cross, the Crescent, the Star of David. they all matter, they all make impressions, and how we use them can embolden, endanger, excite, incite, overwhelm, and any number of things.
this is a call to be careful, to understand the implications and potential consequences, which is something Giffords had said all along.
|
|
| | | 93 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 16:11
|
Perhaps you missed the fact that death threats against the President are up 400% over the numbers Bush faced. The incontrovertible fact is that the undercurrent of violent rhetoric has risen rapidly,
Here's the problem Wetzel - those are distinct facts with no proof of relation. I'm willing to bet a good number of death threats against Obama are based on the fact that he's black and the fact that many people think he's a muslim.
Neither of those have anything to do with the 'violent rhetoric.' There is no direct correlation.
I don't think Palin's stuff was unacceptable at all. Its unrelated. Though I agree 100% that Ms. Angle's comment is exactly the kind of thing that crosses the line from rhetoric and hyperbole to just plain straightforward and unacceptable language.
And Tree, your examples are simply way off base. Yes the swastika, star of david, cross, iron star etc are all very powerful. However they are also assigned very specific meanings and go beyond mere imagery. They now are symbols representing specific ideals. That is far, far different from what is being discussed here.
Regardless, hold the person responsible for this responsible. Him and only him. He pulled the trigger. There is no excuse for his actions. None whatsoever. He murdered 6 people in cold blood. Nobody else, regardless of the rhetoric they spit out is responsible for this guys actions. There is no evidence to the contrary. Hold this guy fully, 100% responsible and do not make any excuses. Hold him responsible.
|
|
| | | 94 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 16:17
|
There has to be a major disconnect between this guy and reality to see (for example) an ad for a political campaign with a target over Giffords' picture and think somebody was telling him he should shoot her.
Let's speculate for a minute and say the person(s) who committed an act of violence against Giffords after her health care vote last year is not connected to Laughner. This act of violence against property was the incident that prompted Gifford to state:
"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."
So, what about that perpetrator? Was there a major disconnect between this guy and reality?
Was there any response from Palin denouncing attacks on the offices of congresspersons she'd put in crosshairs? Any denouncing of death threats against congresspersons she'd put in crosshairs? Any response at all except to continue to foster a political climate of anger and matyrdom along with a worship of guns?
Did Sarah Palin suggest people shoot members of Congress with whom she disagrees? No. Did she expressly direct her followers that violence against person and property was despicable and evil? No. She expressly directed her followers to target supporters of health care reform as anti-American socialists with the agenda to destroy the country, even if they were married to an astronaut in the military service of our nation. Is this the type of person this country really wants as one of our political leaders?
|
|
| | | 95 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 16:33
|
"I'm willing to bet a good number of death threats against Obama are based on the fact that he's black and the fact that many people think he's a muslim."
Good. We're getting somewhere. So you do think that already warped people can be influenced by the words of extremist politicians and radio hosts into thinking that he's a Muslim, and that therefore it's OK to threaten death to him, but you don't think they can be influenced by extremist politicians and radio hosts into thinking that it's socially or morally acceptable to bust a cap in a congresswoman, a judge, and a 9 year old girl?
|
|
| | | 96 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 19:03
|
Stopping violence. By any means necessary.
HT: The Daily What.
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 19:46
|
Still and all, some nominal expression of sadness for the victims would go some ways toward eliminating the feeling, after years of mean-spirited posting, that you are, at heart, simply a creep.
I'm holding out hope that you are willing to allow your online persona to reflect a tiny bit of your real persona.
|
|
| | | 99 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 19:56
|
Brutally honest is not mean spirited. It is merely cutting thru the crap efficiently.
Honestly I haven't even read the particulars of this liberal shooting spree, I don't know the personal stories of who was killed and I'm not going to make a showy display of emotion to please you.
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 19:59
|
But I am surprised by one thing. Liberals around here clearly thot every right winger owed the world an apology when they thot this was a right inspired, right committed crime.
So why aren't liberals falling over themselves to apologize?
|
|
| | | 101 | J-Bar
ID: 55001019
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:01
|
Ridiculous, I still haven't heard anyone here express their disdain for this sheriff that acted way more like apolitical hack than a law enforcement officer. Maybe I just missed it though. targets used by both sides
|
|
| | | 102 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:08
|
To be fair it looks like he was more motivated by her rejection of him and his 2012 theories. Very early call there. But the right was supposed to take the blame based on sheer whimsy, no connection established. So let's hear some mea culpas.
|
|
| | | 103 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:15
|
just got off work and trying to catch up:
roflmao at #64 (Yes, I saw SZ's post yesterday)
|
|
| | |
| | | 105 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:28
|
...the criminals would be outgunned in nearly every crime.
|
|
| | | 106 | walk
ID: 517172117
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:31
|
That assumes that the element of surprise does not exist. What are you, quickdraw mcgraw? That's fantasy level thinking. It'd be more like a Coen bros movie where everyone starts fumbling for their weapons, and those who do manage to "draw," shoot each other, so "we all fall down." Great solution. Wild west. At least it'd make for some wild You Tube videos.
|
|
| | | 107 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:32
|
So you do think that already warped people can be influenced by the words of extremist politicians and radio hosts into thinking that he's a Muslim, and that therefore it's OK to threaten death to him,
We're not getting anywhere because you are putting words in my mouth. I'm curious where you get the idea that I think its ok for a person to threaten Obama because that person thinks Obama is a muslim?
And PV - I believe that the current attempts to pull Palin into this and past attempts to pull Palin into this based on a target over a state are political ploys. Nothing more. No more of a ploy to discredit her opponent and gain more favor with her supporters than Palins ploy was in showing the crosshairs to begin with.
There's a lot of leaps of faith people are making. I'll even admit many of them seem rather logical. But that does not mean they amount to a corrollary truth.
There is no evidence presented anywhere at any time that this guy followed some sign or message (correctly or incorrectly) from Palin or from any message by a radio host.
All evidence points to the fact that the kid was disturbed, plain and simple. In fact in the article posted in 82 it seems very unlikely he'd pay any attention to Palin or a Limbaugh/Beck type radio host. Rather it appears he was a follower of Giffords.
The whole attempt to grab some connection between the campaign rhetoric and this shooting is itself nothing more than a political ploy to try and discredit one side or the other. And now we have Mark Meckler from post 76 using the lefts reaction to his own political advantage. His message is good, but honestly even that smacks of playing political games.
There is no connection. This guy is fully 100% responsible for his actions. So stop this nonsense about the imagery and campaign rhetoric.
|
|
| | |
| | | 109 | walk
ID: 517172117
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 20:36
|
I don't think it's so black & white, Khahan. One cannot discern cause & effect or correlation, until we (ever) hear what the shooter has to say about his influences. I believe he is mentally ill, but like non mentally ill folks, he could have been inspired by some thing or things...I would not discount so early on what influenced him. I also don't think this happens as much if guns were not so readily available.
|
|
| | | 110 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 21:54
|
Khahan,
Is that your response to the fact that Gifford's Tucson office was feloniously assaulted after Palin's crosshairs posting and Gifford's subsequent vote for health care reform? That it's a political ploy? Let's not consider the shooting for a moment.
What's the message if someone shoots out the windows in your office? Maybe, "You're in our crosshairs?" Obviously, Giffords was shook up enough to mention the crosshairs on national TV in an attempt to restore some type of sanity to the political arena. Alas, to deaf ears.
Following the shooting, every right wing blowhard, and you, completely ignores that Giffords has already been a victim to political violence.
Perhaps our resident right wing apologist can explain how the first liberal shooting spree, thankfully with no loss of life, wasn't incited by politically irresponsible rhetoric.
|
|
| | | 111 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 21:56
|
From the troll twins who keep calling me a lying terrorist daily.
you're not a victim. nice try, but you're not. also, i don't recollect you being called a terrorist on a daily basis - if so, i'd like to see links. if not, then i think that part about you being a liar certainly comes into play.
you have been far nastier in your tone and language than anyone here. period. there really isn't even a question there.
But I am surprised by one thing. Liberals around here clearly thot every right winger owed the world an apology when they thot this was a right inspired, right committed crime.
i swear, it's like you don't read anyone else's posts in any thread.
numerous people here have called for the harsh language and violent imagery to be toned down on BOTH SIDES, yet all you can do is jump and up and scream "LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL!"
|
|
| | | 112 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 02:05
|
I can trace the logic of OBL and the abortion clinic bomber as well.
You have the audacity to claim I agree with one of them because I understand their logic.
The civility police have the audacity to allow that charge to stay posted as it is made nearly every day by you, Tree.
|
|
| | | 113 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 07:20
|
and still, no one has called you a terrorist.
|
|
| | | 114 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 08:06
|
I don't think it's necessary to draw any direct correlation to find this a good reason to tone down the violent hateful speech.
I understand why the political right is so afraid comply with that notion, because in their minds they believe they'd be admitting some amount of culpability if they do go along with it.
It's petty and sad and it's the opposite of accepting personal responsibility with the understanding that the words of our leadership can influence people, especially those who arre suspectable because they are unbalanced. We know that to be a fact, whether it was the case on Saturday or not.
|
|
| | | 115 | walk
ID: 348442710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 08:26
|
Excellent post, wise MITH, #114.
|
|
| | |
| | | 118 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 08:51
|
The hope is that even if the right is too vane and prideful and enslaved to their poll numbers to join the call for turning it down, they will do what they know is right - especially in light of Saturday's shooting - and they will turn it down anyway. And then hopefully we'll calm down for a while and the next campaign season in 2012 won't be nearly as vitriolic.
And if not, that moderate voters rise up and reject it officially, via democracy.
|
|
| | | 119 | walk
ID: 348442710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:14
|
From the first debater in the article linked to in #116:
Only one thing seems certain in trying to understand the gap between rhetoric and action in our national discussions about violence in America: the ease with which perpetrators can acquire the means to commit mass murder. However often we lament the horrors committed by deranged killers, we seem incapable of reining in the capacity of the murders' ability to acquire the handguns, automatic weapons, and rifles they use to create such mayhem. Why public officials and courts don't at last insist on common sense gun control is a more important question than how much all the overstated speech facilitates violence.
|
|
| | | 120 | walk
ID: 348442710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:22
|
Another money quote:
Mentally disturbed individuals may take incendiary rhetoric as reason to attack public servants and political activists. But even without violent consequences, the kind of political acrimony that we have witnessed feeds a dysfunctional culture where citizens and politicians turn their opponents into enemies and vilify those with whom they disagree. This creates the potential for dangerous actions and, at a minimum, makes political dialogue impossible. The fact that so many people instantly wondered about the connection between political speech and the shootings in Tucson suggests that something has gone wrong in the way that we debate political issues. Too much is at stake, and the risks are too high to continue with this kind of toxic political culture.
|
|
| | | 121 | walk
ID: 348442710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:34
|
The New York Times has several articles and editorials on gun control today. I think that is really the central issue here. Not really sorry to move the debate to this poli issue cos it's the crux of the matter. Sure, there are other ways to commit mass destruction, but easy access to guns and rifles and automatic weapons is "the easiest." Maybe if these products were inaccessible, we'd have a lot fewer of these stories? I'd like to hear (polite) talk about enacting some of those laws/revising that amendment.
|
|
| | | 122 | Great One
ID: 45012311
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:50
|
Canada doesn't allow handgun ownership, right? Does that seem to cut these types of things down? do they have strict penalties if you are found to have a gun there?
|
|
| | | 123 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:50
|
Actually since Obama was elected and along with it the likelihood of renewed gun restriction laws, enuff panic set in among the RTBA half of the population to push gun sales thru the roof. Enuff to arm many countries entire militaries.
Along with those purchases came a drop in crime. Like a stone.
I don't think those purchasers will be polite about giving them back.
|
|
| | | 124 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:53
|
AZ gun laws are pretty lax, yes? I know one of the people who tackled the shooter was carrying. Didn't stop the shooter from injuring or killing 20 people.
He wasn't taken down until he had to reload, just like Colin Fergusen, who shot up a Long Island Railroad commuter train in the 90s. 2nd Amendment advocates have been blaming NY's tough gun laws ever since for the fact that no one took down Fergusen until he had to reload.
|
|
| | | 126 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:56
|
Amazingly the gun This guy used was legally purchased despite an official record of mental instability I seem to recall. Worth looking into deeper, but I'll leave that to others.
|
|
| | | 127 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:58
|
Not BS
|
|
| | | 128 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 09:59
|
... and along with it the likelihood of renewed gun restriction laws
I would correct this to " and along with it the self-inflated fear on the Right of renewed gun restriction laws despite no evidence of such..."
Crime rates have dropped (thank goodness). Now, we're only very high compared to the rest of the world.
#122: Canada does allow handgun purchases, though they are more restricted. They do not allow the purchase of handguns strictly for self-defense purposes, for example.
The fact that the US has much more free handgun laws along with high rates of crime (particularly high rates of violent crime which use guns) is one of those funny things about our country. Like the "fact" that we have the "best health care in the world" yet have extremely high infant mortality rates.
|
|
| | | 129 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:02
|
Money quote:Stories of skyrocketing gun sales dominated the headlines earlier this year, with the number of gun-purchase background checks in the first six months of 2009 soaring 25 percent over the same period in 2008. Yet as the NRA points out today, murder in the U.S. has plummetted to a 46-year low (with the largest year-over-year drop since the 1960s) even as gun ownership has risen to an apparent all-time high. Hey, lowest murder rate in 46 years? Give peace a chance, I say. Sign me up for that deal.
|
|
| | |
| | | 131 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:08
|
"Amazingly the gun This guy used was legally purchased despite an official record of mental instability I seem to recall. Worth looking into deeper, but I'll leave that to others."
Correlation doesn't apply causation though, right?
|
|
| | | 132 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:13
|
"Honestly I haven't even read the particulars of this liberal shooting spree"
So, you haven't read the particulars, but you've already determined he's liberal.
Cool story bro.
Had you actually bothered to read details like the link in post 81, perhaps you wouldn't be guilty of exactly the thing you're accusing others of doing.
Oops.
|
|
| | | 133 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:19
|
"We're not getting anywhere because you are putting words in my mouth. I'm curious where you get the idea that I think its ok for a person to threaten Obama because that person thinks Obama is a muslim?"
Well, you didn't seem to think there was any effect from people's words, yet clearly there's a definite effect from the people trying to paint Obama as a (insert Boldwin Buzzword Bingo here), and since that stuff is the root cause of why you think they're calling in death threats at four times the previous rate, duh, there's clearly an effect. So I'm curious.
And, for about the fourth time, I'll ask: if you think it's OK to assign violent political rhetoric zero impact in this case, then why are you (you = roughly 99% of the people who feel this way) assigning greater than zero impact to random Muslim clerics? I mean, they're just words, right? Nobody thinks that when they say "Death to America" that anybody's actually going to do it, and if they do, well, those people were just wackos anyway who were going to kill regardless. Any logical fault in that argument?
|
|
| | | 134 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:20
|
I've read up on the issues and evidence pertaining. I have not read the sob stories. Too many sad stories in this day and age. I don't want to know victim X will miss what would have been her first part in a play next month.
|
|
| | | 135 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:21
|
Re: 101 -- "Ridiculous, I still haven't heard anyone here express their disdain for this sheriff that acted way more like apolitical hack than a law enforcement officer. Maybe I just missed it though. targets used by both sides"
Okay, I wasn't aware of its existence, but yes, I'd also prefer that that not be used in that context either. Happy?
|
|
| | | 136 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:23
|
And that's while acknowledging that it's a pretty ridiculous comparison in general for you to be making, and a pretty obvious case of "let's grasp at straws to attempt moral equivalence, even though there's nothing remotely close to equivalence actually there", just as I predicted would happen in post 87.
|
|
| | | 137 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:31
|
I echo that hope, Mith. The irony here is that Gabby Giffords isn't a liberal. Attempts to characterize Laughner as either liberal or conservative are exercises in futility, as it appears his political views are a warped combination of radical elements that can be associated any way that radical interpreters wish to spin it.
I don't expect the leading radicals of the right to ratchet down their rhetoric in the aftermath of this tragedy, since, in their minds, the recent election confirmed these tactics as successful. But as we all know, politics are fickle, and this incident will very likely move the electorate back to the middle, benefitting moderates of both parties.
|
|
| | | 139 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:34
|
"I've read up on the issues and evidence pertaining."
Once again, no, you haven't. If you'd bothered with my link in post 82 (did you?), you'd read something a wee bit more recent than four year old stories of books he owned. Money quotes include:
"Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people's buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner's mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.)"
and
"Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: "It wasn't like he was in a certain party or went to rallies...It's not like he'd go on political rants."
So, calling him a liberal is, well, inventive hogwash used to justify... something. And, as been pointed out by many others herein, missing the point as well.
|
|
| | | 140 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:43
|
I will agree it is a stretch to say liberalism caused it as well. Could be occultism. Could be purely an interpersonal relationship gone wrong. The guy had done one stint as a campaign worker I believe I read. He was one of only two links SHE linked to in her facebook, tho maybe she or a staffer just wanted to be able to easily keep tabs on him. Who knows why he was so worked up over her rejection of his theories? Could be so convoluted it just can't be pigeon-holed anywhere but mental illness.
I don't think the hysteria on the left in this case can be so easily minimized. I see suspiciously quick political opportunism to score points against enemies, stifle free speech, ban guns, demonize people completely disconnected from the event.
|
|
| | | 141 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:51
|
I see suspiciously quick political opportunism to score points against enemies, stifle free speech, ban guns, demonize people completely disconnected from the event.
An extremely clear example of your thought process...or lack thereof.
|
|
| | | 142 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:51
|
Good points Boldwin.
[Did someone else start using your computer while you were away from it? :) ]
|
|
| | | 143 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 11:50
|
And, for about the fourth time, I'll ask: if you think it's OK to assign violent political rhetoric zero impact in this case,
Yes I do. But I bolded the important part. Its important because I believe in looking at each case and each person individually and on their own terms and merits. And in this case there is no evidence that any political rhetoric motivated this. So why keep harping on it?
then why are you (you = roughly 99% of the people who feel this way) assigning greater than zero impact to random Muslim clerics? I mean, they're just words, right? Nobody thinks that when they say "Death to America" that anybody's actually going to do it,
In this case there is no evidence that any specific political discourse had an effect on the shooter or his actions.
In the case of 'random' Muslim clerics there are different things to look at. Maybe take into account that portion of the Muslim community that is honestly on a Jihad. Maybe take into account the fact that those people on a Jihad take comments from religious leaders very seriously and use them as justification. And maybe take into account that those on a Jihad are an organized group with a specific definable numbers and organization. As opposed to some fringe whacko who a faceless drop of water in the sea.
In other words, there is no comparison between the 2 scenarios and if you would take the time to look at those scenarios on their own instead of trying to draw ridiculous non-existant correlaries to prove a point we wouldn't have to have this conversation.
Now, if Glen Beck starts preaching to take over America by force knowing that there is a large audience of militia out there waiting to do just that...he's in the same boat as the 'random' Muslim clerics preaching hate and destruction to those who on a jihad. THAT would be a parallel situation. THIS is not.
|
|
| | | 144 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 11:57
|
And let's not set those vibrations floating in the air. Glenn Beck isn't.
|
|
| | | 145 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:02
|
I'm going to expound on #141, in an attempt to explain why Boldwin's list of things he sees are reactionary, not conservative.
I see suspiciously quick political opportunism to score points against enemies
I refer to post #36, posted Sunday.
stifle free speech
Who is trying to stifle free speech? Maybe Rush Limbaugh?
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told ABC News that Limbaugh is "irresponsible" in the rhetoric he uses against elected officials.
"The kind of rhetoric that flows from Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information," Dupnik said in the interview. "[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences."
Dupnik added that "the vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about. You can say, ‘Oh, no it doesn't,' but my opinion is that it does."
Limbaugh railed against Democrats who would draw a link between the shooting and political rhetoric, and the conservative talk show host said Dupnik "made a fool of himself" for making that same connection.
"Don't kid yourself," Limbaugh said. "What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it."
Isn't the Sheriff entitled to his opinion? Where does Dupnik say anyhing about shutting down any and all political opposition or criminalizing it?
Who is kidding who? Limbaugh can't handle being criticized, so his paranoid overreaction is as transparent as his claim that EIB network is really a network(it's Clear Channel).
ban guns
Did I miss something? Has the Arizona legislature or the US Congress started some secret emergency legislation? What you're really saying is that you don't want any discussion at all on the sensibilities of selling guns to people who have displayed such weak mental capacity that in order to re-enter community college, they need a mental health release.
demonize people completely disconnected from the event
Who's trying to stifle free speech now? Having a discussion about the wisdom of putting political opponenets in crosshairs is demonizing? Why are you in favor of shutting down any and all political opposition?
Let's be honest. You don't want these things discussed. You much prefer making provocative charges to satisfy your own need to demonize.
|
|
| | | 146 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:17
|
Not BS
there's nothing in that article that indicates crime rates dropped because gun purchases went up.
for starters, it just mentions murder rates, which have decreased anyway over the last decade.
|
|
| | | 147 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:21
|
Pete King has proposed making it illegal to have a gun within 1,000 ft of a government official and I saw another rep on FNC yesterday who wants to extend the law banning violent threats against the president to members of congress.
|
|
| | | 148 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:26
|
Violent threats against the president are already investigated by the Secret Service.
I'm a little worried that the reaction of this will simply be to restrict far more than necessary. [Though I did enjoy Chris Matthews takedown of the Tea Party Leader: "Why bring a gun to a political rally?"]
The problem isn't guns themselves. It is that people who shouldn't have them can get them very easily (and their "right" to get them are held to be sacred). And that the political Right wallow in violent rhetoric as an ongoing campaign device, which enable wackos.
|
|
| | | 149 | Boldwin
ID: 29059920
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:27
|
PV
All those liberal agenda items are just sitting in various congressmen's desks already written into legislation just waiting to be introduced on the floor when the right incident occurs and the right public hysteria has been generated.
The attack program you all picked up from the left wing blog-o-sphere and ran with, was just a trial balloon. Killed prematurely when you hit a little snag. The shooter wasn't following Palin's tweets. He was a whacked out liberal if he wasn't just plain whacked out.
|
|
| | | 150 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:31
|
Joe Scarborough had some good words about this whole thing
among them:
“Nobody can find a direct link to a Sarah Palin ad or a Michele Bachmann statement or the extreme rants from the left,” he says. “But it serves as a very clear warning to everyone involved in politics that there are unbalanced people out there who may seize on any words they hear and the consequences may be devastating.
and
“Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”
-------------------
this is not different from pretty much everything being said by those on this board who lean left.
|
|
| | | 151 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:37
|
"All those liberal agenda items are just sitting in various congressmen's desks already written into legislation just waiting to be introduced on the floor when the right incident occurs and the right public hysteria has been generated."
Kinda like invading foreign countries, eh?
(Too easy?)
|
|
| | | 152 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:43
|
"The attack program you all picked up from the left wing blog-o-sphere and ran with, was just a trial balloon."
I don't read the left wing blogosphere, sorry.
"He was a whacked out liberal"
Wrong, as you even yourself conceded, I thought. Please pick a lane, you're swerving all over the road.
"if he wasn't just plain whacked out."
Unquestionably he was whacked out. Are you saying that whacked-out people can't be influenced by others?
|
|
| | | 153 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 12:51
|
Hysteria? What is more hysterical than Rush Limbaugh claiming,
"What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it."
Your reaction?
All those liberal agenda items are just sitting in various congressmen's desks already written into legislation just waiting to be introduced on the floor when the right incident occurs and the right public hysteria has been generated.
Your paranoia is fascinating in its complete lack of detail. Now, had you been talking about the Patriot Act, sitting in various desks waiting for the right incident, I'd be more apt to take it seriously.
|
|
| | | 154 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 13:19
|
I know one of the people who tackled the shooter was carrying. Didn't stop the shooter from injuring or killing 20 people.
indeed, one of them was carrying. and by his own words, he was "lucky" to not shoot an innocent man.
As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," (Joe) Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."
|
|
| | | 155 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 15:02
|
I think it probably goes without saying, that the more people packing, the more likely innocent people will get shot.
Not just a person disarming the original shooter being mistaken for the villain by someone like Zamudio, but a cop or the next armed guy to come along mistaking him for a bad guy, etc.
Not to mention innocent bystanders either in the crossfire, or being hit by missed shots.
|
|
| | | 156 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 15:13
|
I think it probably goes without saying, that the more people packing, the more likely innocent people will get shot.
well, yes, you'd think that was common sense. alas, it's not.
just yesterday, a plainclothes Baltimore cop was shot and killed by his fellow officers when he responded to a call of a disturbance at a night club, and they mistook him for an "unknown" gunman.
|
|
| | | 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 15:18
|
I'm all for gun ownership rights, HOWEVER:
the untrained are ill prepared, to engage in a gun battle.
The avg LE 'fire fight' occurs at ranges of less than 20', yet 70- 80% of the shots fired...miss their intended target. Those are shots fired by TRAINED officers. Give your avg 'joe' on the street and handgun, then shoot AT him? See how many shots he can get within 10' of you, let alone IN you.
Where did all the bullets go?
No small part of the problem, is that this shooter WAS legally entitled to own a weapon. To be prohibited, requires a finding of mental incompetency. THAT, requires a Judge, ergo...a legal proceeding must occur.
My 'solution'?
1) Nobody can buy a gun, without FIRST going through an 'operators' training program.
You cant hit the broadside of the barn from INSIDE the barn? Sorry, you dont get a handgun....ever.
2) ALL firearms must be registered. NO exceptions.
NOT for purposes of 'reclaiming' upon banning (the 2nd amendment precludes banning), but to ensure that ownership is competent to use them. Annual trips to the range, to demonstrate basic competency must be undertaken, with an appropriate license issued (we have to do something like this to have a car, right?), in order to KEEP the firearms. Failure to pass/complete the annual requirement and you have 60 days to correct said failure, or your weapons will be stored at the local PD lockup until you DO complete said testing. Storage, not necessarily 'free' of a daily charge/rate.
3) SOMEHOW, an I do not have this answer, something has to be worked into this which would expand both reporting AND treating the mentally unstable. A nutjob, could well be a crackerjack shot, even under stress.
|
|
| | | 158 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:02
|
Hysteria? What is more hysterical than Rush Limbaugh claiming,
"What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it."
Your reaction? Cass Sunstein wrote a whole book about how to censor the right out of the media and Obama rewarded him with the office that would logically administer such censorship so it isn't remotely hysterical or illogical at all to keep a sharp eye on that front.
|
|
| | |
| | | 161 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:30
|
That article is a year-and-a-half old, and is awfully light on anything other than speculation. What is the update? Surely such an insidious plan has some demonstrable and concrete results, yes?
Or is this another example in which no evidence is proof that "they" are just good at burying things?
|
|
| | | 162 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:54
|
1st ine from your link B:
In the past, we have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to chill any sort of scrutiny or criticism of him.
Now as an example, substitute Sarah Palin where it says Barack Obama and her where it says his/him. Now, is that statement then true or false?
In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Near as I can tell, the 2010 mid-term elections, the informative link PD provided re the misinformation contained in poli-ads, and Fox; have well established this contention as fact. Not speculation.
Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."
Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.
Often bloggers raise issues to encourage others (perhaps with more resources) to further investigate issues.<.i>
A) I have no issues with requiring proof of allegations. Do you?
B) I think it equally if not MORE often, that bloggers make false allegations vs a candidate, knowing that the rumor will spread and damage that candidates odds of election, and there is insufficient time for the candidate to do anythng about it BEFORE the election.
Does not that potential scare the bejesus out of you??
|
|
| | | 163 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:59
|
What got buried was an uber-liberal house to impliment it. But to the extent they can do it thru executive action and to the extent the new House can't prevent them...
The other pieces are in place too. Marxist Mark Lloyd as 'diversity czar' of the FCC to force local marxists onto the air and conservatives off the air.
Early adopters like Al Sharpton gearing up to intimidate conservative media with the tools Sunstein and Lloyd give them.
|
|
| | | 164 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:05
|
Sharpton appears on O'Reilly's and Hannity's shows quite often. Be sure to let us know when they show signs of being intimidated by him.
|
|
| | | 165 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:07
|
Because the public 'has a right not to be offended'.
|
|
| | | 166 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:13
|
Al Sharpton demagoguing it up in front of local panels full of acorn radicals bussed in to decide if the local station gets to carry Limbaugh does in fact scare me.
|
|
| | | 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:22
|
So does imaginary plans by "liberals." But stay focused here.
|
|
| | | 168 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:29
|
we're only a few dozen posts away from Saul Alinsky himself implanting the idea of assassination into Loughner's head, with Al Sharpton buying the gun, Barack Obama buying the bullets, and Bill and Hillary Clinton providing him a ride to the supermarket.
meanwhile, there is more skirting in this thread than i ever could have imagined.
|
|
| | | 169 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:34
|
PD
It's only one incident away. But not this one.
|
|
| | | 170 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 18:13
|
The Left has been blessed by gentle opponents, because God knows they've been provoked.
The idea of shutting down Garafalo, Whoopi and Oberman in response is kinda funny. The right has been blessed by unpopular opponents.
|
|
| | | 171 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 18:15
|
Al Sharpton demagoguing it up in front of local panels full of acorn radicals bussed in to decide if the local station gets to carry Limbaugh does in fact scare me.
Does Sarah Palin demagoguing it up in front of pistol packing tea party radicals bussed in to decide which Democrat should be put in crosshairs scare you?
|
|
| | | 172 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 18:57
|
How crazy is it that in this political climate the right & left can't even agree that a violent subtext in your message is wrong.
|
|
| | | 173 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 19:07
|
PV
Not as much as marxist czars actually in power in America.
|
|
| | | 174 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 19:19
|
Not as much as marxist czars actually in power in America.
when that happens, please let us know. until then, no one based in reality is worried.
|
|
| | | 175 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 22:26
|
Some of the ramblings of this guy Loughner include ideas about not being able to trust the government, that it engages in mind control. A fixation on grammar conspiracies, currency and the "second United States Constitution", his assertion that he would not "pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver", that the IRS and Federal Reserve is being run by secret, powerful elites. These elements are often found among people who usually are considered pretty far to the right.
If memory serves correctly, I've seen similar things being espoused right around here somewhere.
To classify him as a liberal would seem to take someone who resides in a pretty extreme place indeed.
|
|
| | | 176 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 23:19
|
marxist czars
I always get a laugh out of that. For the record, didn't the communists oust the last of the czars?
|
|
| | | 177 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 23:49
|
Quiet you, I just need Jeremiah Wright or ACORN for the bingo.
|
|
| | | 178 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 02:16
|
I've posted innumerable examples of Obama appointees praising Mao, Chavez or other iconic marxists. Often claiming that marxist as their favorite influence.
We must need a prize for how many days you guys can remember that fact. Can you retain the memory for even 24 hrs?
Hilda Soliz, Labor Secretary.
Van Jones, Obama czar when he isn't resigning over his latest marxist rant...Jones was a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. STORM worked with known communist leaders. The leftist blog Machete 48 (link:) identifies STORM's influences as "third-worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism)."
To be continued. As if you planned on adding it to your knowledge base. [prove it to me but I won't be listening when you do, just do the work]
|
|
| | | 179 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 02:29
|
Those commies should be shot!! What, too soon?
|
|
| | | 180 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 04:31
|
Juuuust lookin' for the right excuse to imitate Chavez' takedown of the media. I know you want to shoot the messenger [this one especially] but I thot you were now against that kinda thing.
|
|
| | | 181 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 05:50
|
PV#179
Oh I get it! You are pulling our leg!
Extreme rhetoric to prevent extreme rhetoric.
Kinda like screwing for virginity.
Or trolling for civility.
|
|
| | |
| | | 183 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:25
|
I coulda sworn McCarthy was dead already.
|
|
| | |
| | | 185 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:43
|
As long as the subject of Glenn Beck outing Marxists, commies and other subversives trying to destroy the country has been breached(though I'm having a hard time understanding what this has to do with the shooting in Tucson), we might as well examine Beck's investigation into his boss.
|
|
| | | 187 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 12:05
|
Blood libel? What does criticism of her aggressive rhetoric have to do with false accusations that Jews desire to kill Christian children in order to use their blood for superstitious rites? Isn't that what the term normally refers to?
|
|
| | |
| | | 189 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 12:07
|
Correct, bibA. That term in her narcissistic speech will likely cause quite a bit of consternation. A curious choice.
|
|
| | | 190 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 13:20
|
really Sarah Palin???
Blood Libel? Blood Libel. does she even have any clue what Blood Libel is? every think i think she can't top her own idiocy, she manages to do it.
|
|
| | | 191 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 13:27
|
Heh. She accuses "liberals" of doing the thing that she says does not happen: Making angry speech which can contribute to violence.
|
|
| | |
| | | 193 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 14:31
|
188: here is a little blurb from that article:
"In this environment, any entrepreneurial fear monger can use technology to build a following."
Hope Mr. Wright puts himself in that 'entrepreneurial fear monger' category. Because his whole article is bent on painting 'the other side' as being responsible for this atrocious act.
As for Sarah Palin, you take out her poor choice of words using 'blood libel' and the rest of the message is very good.
|
|
| | | 194 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 14:59
|
Except, as I pointed out in #191, making opposite points in the same statement.
Probably because she is simply unable to (1) take responsibility for her own words and (2) make a statement on anything without a partisan attack of some sort.
|
|
| | | 195 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 15:01
|
And, it should be pointed out, she did in fact use the term "blood libel." If your point was if Sarah Palin took out inflammatory language from her statements that she'd be less divisive and so on, we would respond with a big "No kidding. That's the point."
|
|
| | | 196 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 15:04
|
And, her message should have been to take a higher road, and more about the tragedy, instead of providing mere lip service...and then getting offensive/defensive. It was not classy, not leaderlike, and not presidential. It was in poor form and taste.
|
|
| | | 197 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 18:19
|
On illegitimacy
A nice piece, IMO.
|
|
| | | 198 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 00:44
|
AZ GOP District 20 Chairman Anthony Miller and district spokesman Jeff Kolb resign due to ongoing threats Miller from his own precinct committee members with local Tea Party ties.
Miller said when he was a member of McCain's campaign staff last year has been criticized by the more conservative party members who supported Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.
"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."
Huffington Post Other language was even less ambiguous. At an event in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., Miller said someone called out, "There's Anthony, get a rope."
|
|
| | |
| | | 200 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 05:47
|
Text of the speech.
Even The National Review's Rich Lowrey thought he struck the perfect tone and, despite their own refusal to use the tragedy as an opportunity to call for a more civil discourse, praised Obama for doing so in a (as Lowery puts in) non-accusatory manner. Unfortunately, much of the comments section does not concur (I can only imagine what was in the referred "scrubbed" comments) but I'll take the shred of progress and hope it helps lead to the stated goal.
But there's a lot of work to do. Over at The Daily Caller, the poll on the front page asks,
"In the wake of the Arizona shooting, should politicians tone down their rheotric?"
The results:
76% No.
23% Yes.
01% Not sure.
|
|
| | |
| | | 202 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 09:10
|
NYT, Kristoff: Regulate Guns
Some alarming stats, interesting ideas, and a notion that much more could and should be done here. No one really takes a big stand on this in our poli arena.
|
|
| | | 203 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 09:18
|
Save Carolyn MCarthy. Sorry Rep McCarthy!
|
|
| | | 204 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 09:22
|
I also think Gail Collins has some reasonable points on this issue.
|
|
| | | 205 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 10:09
|
As for Sarah Palin, you take out her poor choice of words using 'blood libel' and the rest of the message is very good.
I'm not sure what her message is. First of all, it seems disrespectful to pre-empt the President by releasing this video the morning of the President's speech.
She talked about how conflicts among politicians used to involve duels with guns almost like she longed for those days.
She put blame on the media, one of her favorite recurring themes, revealing a "I can dish it out but I can't take it" assault on free speech, as if she should be immune to criticism. Let's not forget that Gabby Giffords' office windows were shot out after Palin's crosshairs posting.
Let's not forget the multitude of death threats to Judge Roll and other Tea Party "enemies".
Let's not forget the violence and anti-semitism displayed by Tea Party opponents of Congressman Bob Filner on election night.
Srah Palin using this tragedy to paint herself as a victim....again....is hard to understand, at least as a saavy political move. Even Fox News pundits were shaking their heads trying to comprehend the content of this presentation.
|
|
| | | 206 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 11:10
|
Great recap, PV. And then there's the blood libel thing. Compared to Obama's (and Boehner's) words, her speech was really off the mark, on many levels.
|
|
| | | 207 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 11:41
|
Below is the status of the following topics:
crosshairs advertising
mental health care
gun control
right-wing vitriol
talk radio getting people riled up
2nd amendment rights
Last week: No crisis
This week: Huge crisis
I'll try to remember to update the status in a couple months.
|
|
| | | 208 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 11:56
|
PV, I cannot even respond. Some of the 'insights' are so obtuse I'm sure if they are on purpose or if you truly miss her point. Maybe its because you simply don't like her you will just twist anything she has to say to be a negative.
For the record, I don't like Sarah Palin. I think she was a horrible choice for a running mate for the last election and I hope beyond hope she does not get the nomination for the next election.
I also do not like Obama. Both Palin and Obama typically seem more interested in being a celebrity than working on our country. But both of them had very good messages about this tragedy.
Sure, Palin had 1 phrase that was poorly chosen in an 8min message. That invalidates the rest of her message?
And Palin is not using the tragedy to paint herself as victim. She is using the idiotic response that she is somehow partially responsible for this tragedy to point out that she's not at all involved and shouldn't be linked with it in any way shape or form.
But people like you just despise somebody so much you look for any link no matter how tenuous to denounce that person. Kind of like boldwin does with liberals.
Even after its pretty much been proven that no political rhetoric caused this, you still feel the need to bring up the crosshairs and unrelated events and try to link them to Loughners shooting spree. It just proves you have a burr up your butt about Palin.
When people rightfully knock her, well, she deserves it. She's done enough dumb stuff. But when she's attacked for no reason, I'll step up and defend her, even if I don't like her.
When will this country's politicians and citizens get back to judging politicians on politics and quite trying to sensationalize crap stories (refering to palins so-called involvement, not to the shooting itself)? (which is why I stopped listening to Rush almost 15 yrs ago).
|
|
| | | 209 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:09
|
One good thing: Palin's attempt to explain away her rhetoric as somehow "Founding Father-approved" while whining about a "blood libel" just about killed off her presidential chances, which weren't all that high to begin with.
Watching the videos of Palin and Obama back to back is jarring, to say the least. She is a very small person, staying small during this tragedy.
|
|
| | | 210 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:17
|
I agree with Khahan for the most part.
Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this shooting. Its becoming quite clear that this kid is not balanced and was acting on nothing more than his own delusional thoughts. I'm not sure he's even capable of understanding political rhetoric.
That said, it would behoove our country to stop using rhetoric that could effect those who are mentally stable. I don't believe Palin ever intended anyone on her chart to be shot but that doesn't excuse that the chart was created in poor taste. Its ok to say we want to "go after" those that we disagree with and make them accountable for decisions they make. But there's no reasons to use guns or crosshairs imagery to display that thought process.
Oh, and B7, your list is funny. If you really believe no one cared about any of the things on your list last week you are mistaken.
|
|
| | | 212 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:31
|
chart was not poor taste, but poor judgment. Taste is for food, drink and music.
I do not agree that Obama is also more interested in celebrity than doing his job. He got a lot of stuff passed in his two years, whether you agree with those policies or not.
NYT: Obama & Palin; contrast in styles
|
|
| | | 213 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:34
|
And Palin is not using the tragedy to paint herself as victim. She is using the idiotic response that she is somehow partially responsible for this tragedy to point out that she's not at all involved and shouldn't be linked with it in any way shape or form.
Why isn't she able to defend herself from these charges while also staying above the fray.
And more importantly, why is it too much to ask he to join the call to tone it down?
I'll tell you why - because it's the very last thing the majority of the hard right, including her, wants. Keeping us as polarized and angry at each other as we've been in my lifetime was a huge boon for the GOP, especially the hard right, last year. They aren't going to consider changing a winning formula.
Even after its pretty much been proven that no political rhetoric caused this
Is this a joke? How in the world can you possibly claim to know just what influenced this psycho? His motives were obviously political. Even if his politics were unhinged and displayed no sense of understanding the issues he raged over. His favorite books were mostly political or politiics-related. The rants were all about politics, at least as he hallucinates them. He didn't think up his distrust for the government or obsession over the gold standard without ever hearing those ideas someplace.
The notion that it's been proven that no political rhetoric was involved is 100% as foolish as the idea that we know for sure that it was 2 years of immersion in right-wing hate speech that drove him.
|
|
| | | 214 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:38
|
more interested in celebrity than doing his job.
This doesn't make any sense, either. He's very interested and invested in his popularity, just like every single other politician who believes he hasn't run his last political campaign.
The notion that he hasn't worked hard in his first term to effect is agenda, whether you like his agenda or not, is frankly absurd.
|
|
| | | 215 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:39
|
Khahan / Farn - This has been repeated over and over, everyone agrees that Palin had nothing to do with this killing. What has also been repeated, which seems to fly right over your head, is that lets use this as an opportunity to change the heated rhetoric. Everyone will agree that you cannot go into a theatre and yell fire. Why is it so hard to agree that political messages with violent undertones should be done away with.
In all likelyhood this guy was a nutjob and wasn't motivated by anyone's words. Does that mean we should just ignore it ? Personally I am hopefull that while Palin won't admit the crosshairs were wrong she will think twice before using such a message in the future. And not just Palin but the same goes for all politicians.
|
|
| | | 216 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:41
|
Word, MITH 213. The shooter is likely mentally ill, yet his outlet was a poli figure. Vitriol speech is not going to HELP defuse that outlet. Easy access to guns is not going to help that outlet, and a lack of proper attention in the insurance and medical and social fields to mental illness is not going to help that outlet. Morals, ethics, philosophical viewpoints, but the degree to which all of these things had an impact is not nothing, and not everything, but something. Accountabilities lie in many places, unlike what Ms. Palin says.
|
|
| | | 217 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:42
|
Palin will do exactly what her poll numbers drive her to do.
|
|
| | | 218 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 12:48
|
No, she'll do exactly what her handlers tell her to do, and read exactly what she's told to read.
Her poll numbers reached a high two days after she was nominated, and have been lower than eve since. But she has never changed despite the numbers: She's still got a persecution complex, and is highly sensitive to perceived class differences. Those are what drives her.
|
|
| | | 219 | Mith
ID: 4184572
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 13:01
|
I kind of assumed by the looks of it that her handlers are Todd and Piper.
I think I really meant that you won't see her alter her stance on the issue unless she takes the hit in her base.
|
|
| | | 220 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 13:04
|
But she cannot win with the base alone...That's the key.
It would be fab if there was good congressional debate without it being so partisan. I hope Obama's speech can have some impact...Not just a cooling off period, but a rally to restore sanity (cf. Stewart, 2010).
|
|
| | | 221 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 13:39
|
In re-reading Obama's speech, I still tear up at the end about the little girl.
The service itself began and ended with a poem by W. S. Merwin:
To the New Year
With what stillness at last
you appear in the valley
your first sunlight reaching down
to touch the tips of a few
high leaves that do not stir
as though they had not noticed
and did not know you at all
then the voice of a dove calls
from far away in itself
to the hush of the morning
so this is the sound of you
here and now whether or not
anyone hears it this is
where we have come with our age
our knowledge such as it is
and our hopes such as they are
invisible before us
|
|
| | | 222 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 13:44
|
another on the theme of 212:
As Obama urged unity, Palin brought division
The contrast between Obama and Sarah Palin was especially striking. Wednesday was a textbook example of how two politicians chose to handle a moment of national tragedy. Perhaps by an accident of timing, Palin put herself into the same news cycle as the president. After several days of silence, she offered her first extended commentary on the shootings.
Much of what she said was proper, but not all. Michael Gerson, who was Bush's chief speechwriter and has been no fan of Palin, observed on CNN Wednesday night that her speech was "seven minutes Reagan and 30 seconds Spiro Agnew." Her careless use of the charged words "blood libel" to criticize those who she believed had unfairly attacked her and other conservatives created more controversy, not less.
Obama has proven to be a polarizing figure in office, but on Wednesday he sought to unify. Palin ended up dividing. On a day of scripted messages, presumably carefully considered, Obama made the most of his. Palin did not.
i think, more than anything, these last several days have driven home a point to me that i basically already believed, but now feels irrefutable: that the hard right believes a "no apologies and take no prisoners" approach is the way to run this country, the way to bring people together, and, well, the *only* way.
there doesn't seem to be any reasoning. they speak in cliche and McNewsNuggets.
are they to blame for what happened in Tucson?
as has been said here repeatedly, likely not. Yet, somehow, they still act like victims of what happened, and argue that they are not to blame, when no one is making that argument.
it's a sorry state, with a silver lining that it appears that it is getting harder and harder for them to defeat Obama in 2012, and it wouldn't stun me to see the Republicans lose some seats in congress next election cycle.
|
|
| | | 223 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 14:04
|
Even after its pretty much been proven that no political rhetoric caused this, you still feel the need to bring up the crosshairs and unrelated events and try to link them to Loughners shooting spree.
Why do you you continue to ignore the fact that Giffords' office windows were shot out after Palin's crosshairs posting and Giffords' health care vote? Obviously Sarah Palin has, and, like you, refuses to make any type of acknowledgement that maybe it was her supporters responsible for that incident. Gabby Giffords herself went on TV and said[paraphrase]
Sarah Palin put me in crosshairs and somebody shot out my office windows
Until you address that incident that I have brought up numerous times, which I have always said from the beginning is what should be focused on regaring Palin, not the Laughner shooting, then I have to conclude you're posting without trying to comprehend what you're posting about.
|
|
| | |
| | | 225 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 16:21
|
thanks for that PD. an amazing article. wow.
|
|
| | |
| | | 227 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 07:10
|
After 4 years, evangelical conservative activist, Mark DeMoss is giving up on The Civility Project, a (now officially failed) initiative to get governors and members of congress to pledge to keep the political discourse civil.“I’m worried about where we’re headed as a country on the civility scale,” DeMoss said in the letter, dated January 3. “I’d be more worried if I were an elected representative at any level.”
DeMoss made clear he was referring to Americans’ growing apathy and frustration toward government, as opposed to concerns about violence toward politicians, like the shooting in which Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was wounded Saturday.
A conservative Republican who helped introduce former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to leading evangelicals when the Romney, a Mormon, ran for president in 2008, DeMoss singled out political conservatives for criticism in his letter.
“Perhaps one of the most surprising results of this project has been the tone and language used by many of those posting comments on our website and following articles on various media websites about the project,” his letter said.
“Many of them could not be printed or spoken in public media due to vulgar language and vicious personal attacks,” the letter continued. “Sadly, a majority of these came from fellow conservatives.”
|
|
| | |
| | | 229 | walk
ID: 348442710
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 10:55
|
Gun Control Limits Improbable
Erich Pratt, the director of communications for Gun Owners of America, said his organization and others were girding for at least a skirmish in Congress. “But I think after the November election it’s going to be very tough for Carolyn McCarthy and even the Peter Kings,” he said “Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves?” Mr. Pratt added: “These politicians need to remember that these rights aren’t given to us by them. They come from God. They are God-given rights. They can’t be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do: limit it two or three rounds. Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially if the police are not around and you need to be able to defend yourself against mobs.”
What if there is no god? Then what about these rights?
What biz does the gov't have in deciding how one defends oneself? Seems Saturday night live (special) level satire. Uh, well, sometimes self defense with guns leads to innocent deaths (injury), stolen weapons leading to deaths, domestic violence leading to deaths, and the freedom to buy weapons to defend unfortunately also allows for buying weapons to commit crimes. Seems exactly like something in which the government should be involved. The issue then is one of risk, and the risks to those who choose not to own, yet have to deal with a lot guns in society, and the increased probability of crossing paths with someone who has a weapon.
It's this thinking (tying rights to religion, selfishness, and a disregard for the incredible damage a gun can do) that I don't understand...at least relative to the relative lack of support from the gun control lobby (oxymoron?) or politicians. Seems backwards, but what do I know?
|
|
| | | 230 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 11:57
|
Uh, well, sometimes self defense with guns leads to innocent deaths
Very true, but sometimes it leads to preventing innocent deaths.
stolen weapons leading to deaths
Which actually supports the argument that restricting access to firearms from law-abiding citizens puts them at a disadvantage vs. criminals. They are criminals. They aren't going thru any legals means to get their guns. So laws prohibiting or restricting guns won't really affect them.
and the freedom to buy weapons to defend unfortunately also allows for buying weapons to commit crimes
Yes it does. But if somebody is going to commit a crime, its unlikely they're going to stop and say, "Oh wait, its illegal for me to own a gun so I can't get one and commit this other crime."
It's this thinking (tying rights to religion, selfishness, and a disregard for the incredible damage a gun can do)
I agree about tying our rights to religion. Especially when our rights come from the Constitution. But the comment about the 'incredible damage' a gun can do. We have the right to bear arms. Plain and simple. From the Constitution. If you want to limit the incredible damage guns can do, then go look at Sarges post 157 and pay special attention to his first suggestion.
There are other ways which do not tear apart our Constitution to address your valid concerns.
|
|
| | | 231 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 12:17
|
Why do you you continue to ignore the fact that Giffords' office windows were shot out after Palin's crosshairs posting and Giffords' health care vote? Obviously Sarah Palin has, and, like you, refuses to make any type of acknowledgement that maybe it was her supporters responsible for that incident. Gabby Giffords herself went on TV and said[paraphrase]
Sarah Palin put me in crosshairs and somebody shot out my office windows
Until you address that incident that I have brought up numerous times
I did address this much further up and multiple times. The 2 events happened, but there is no evidence they are linked. There is no (proven) causal connection between the two. Its a coincidence.
I'm seriously not going so far as to call it a large leap in logic. Crosshairs, gun shots. Yeah I think everybody sees that potential. There is a mental connection. But absolutely no proof that one occurred because of the other.
So no, I'll continue to not address it unless there is some kind of causal evidence to examine. You may want to check out "Res ipsa loquitur" and "prima facie" evidence and how they are applied.
|
|
| | | 232 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 12:21
|
Yet, somehow, they still act like victims of what happened, and argue that they are not to blame, when no one is making that argument.
Go talk to PV and Dwetzel. PV is still trying to make a connection w/out any evidence that there is one.
|
|
| | | 233 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 12:22
|
Khahan: I think you might be missing his point. He isn't saying that they are linked in that way. No one, in fact, is saying they are linked in the way you dismiss. He is saying that two different violent actions arose in a politically violent culture.
We've become a bit lazy in this country when it comes to political language, since real political violence, compared to other countries, is relatively rare. Like 9/11, this might be a bit of a wakeup call.
|
|
| | | 234 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 12:38
|
I think it's safe to say that 232 misstates my case.
Do I think that Sarah Palin (who, I'll remind you, I've already said that her stuff is pretty low on the "raising my ire" scale when it comes to violent rhetoric) had a direct, specific causation that led to the shooting? No.
Do I think that some of the stuff that actually really DOES raise my ire (Arizona's Sharron Angle's "second amendment remedies" comments and similar) actually had a direct and specific correlation with the specific event in Arizona? No.
Do I think there should be wacky constitutional amendments suddenly banning stupid right wingers from opening their fat stupid yaps? No.
Do I think that, probabilistically, a nation where that sort of talk is common by the fringe, and egged on by the non-fringe, is a nation that is going to have a lot more of these types of incidents than an otherwise identical nation where that sort of talk IS shouted down by the non lunatic fringe? As Palin would say, you betcha. That there's any dispute about this just means that a lot more people need to take psychology classes.
|
|
| | | 235 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 12:44
|
I think it's safe to say that 232 misstates my case.
Fair enough if I've been misreading your statements.
|
|
| | | 236 | walk
ID: 348442710
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 13:35
|
khahan, I am for a scorched earth on this. Repeal the second amendment. This is strictly my opinion on this, and does not represent the opinion of any others. I think that amendment was in a different spirit, and with a different intent (tyranny). Today, it is used to allow folks to play with their guns, or protect themselves from the many who now have guns, and who are unsafe and/or have criminal intent. If all guns were illegal, kinda like some other countries, there'd be far fewer deaths and injuries. I believe the Kristoff op-end said there are 80 gun-related deaths daily in this country. That is just unbelievable...and unnecessary. The cost-benefit of being able to have handguns does not equate, to me.
|
|
| | | 237 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 13:37
|
Go talk to PV and Dwetzel. PV is still trying to make a connection w/out any evidence that there is one.
not at all. they are saying that violent images can lead to violence. they are not saying that those violent images played a role in this particular incident.
and i believe that too. it really only is a matter of time before someone acts on this violent imagery, tone, and language. sure, that person may be a loon, but that's the whole point here.
|
|
| | | 238 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 13:48
|
#236: Like it or not, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, and SCOTUS has indicated (rightly, IMO) that the right includes handguns for self-protection.
The Second Amendment was originally put into place to protect the government from outside governments (i.e., a way to ensure that the citizens could be armed and that States would not restrict that right). [As an aside, the Founding Fathers would be absolutely horrified at the idea of a large, armed, standing army].
The fact that the idea of what the Second Amendment means has evolved really burns liberals up. But you can't say that the Constitution shouldn't evolve on questions of the Second Amendment, while requesting (requiring?) that the Constitution evolve on other areas like privacy (which gave rise to the right of birth control and limited abortion rights).
The two defining issues of the last generation are those of abortion rights and gun rights. No one seems to be mentioning that the way these rights are now understood have come about it pretty much exactly the same way.
So, like it or not, the way this country is set up means we are stuck with both gun rights and abortion rights. A better case for the need for good-faith political dialogue can't be made, IMO. We're not only stuck with each other, we're stuck with issues we will never resolve to our mutual satisfaction.
|
|
| | | 239 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 15:40
|
230 They are criminals. They aren't going thru any legals means to get their guns.
How did Loughner obtain the weapon used in the shooting?
|
|
| | | 240 | walk
ID: 348442710
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 16:39
|
Goldang it, PD, stop making sense in response to my personal political preferences (which clearly trump the constitution...or not). I get it, I guess my thinking is that the intent of the second amendment versus the way it has evolved, and the consequences, is not what our founding fathers had in mind. Nonetheless, I cannot be the one who can say he knows more of what they would consider off the rails or not. It is a like or not thing...I would not mind seeing some kind of curtailment though (I do not really want to repeal the second amendment, I want some kind of reasonableness included given how things have evolved...the consequences are severe). thx
|
|
| | | 241 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 16:41
|
bibA - I think that completely misses the mark. The point is, right now if I so desired I could go get a license and purchase a gun to protect myself as a law abiding citizen.
So can somebody with criminal intentions, legally.
Many of the changes to gun control being suggested or arguments to ban gun ownership leaves me, as a law abiding citizen with no means to get a gun, but leaves a criminal with the other means they currently have (black market, theft, smuggling in etc).
Net effect - I'm disarmed, the criminals aren't.
I again refer back to Sarge's post in 157 as a very acceptable and reasonable means to address concerns about guns without stepping on our Constitutional rights.
|
|
| | | 242 | walk
ID: 348442710
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 16:51
|
I'm okay with #157 suggestions. See? Bipartisan lawmaking right here, live & in color.
My preference is that all handguns are banned, cos I don't think there is a benefit that outweighs the costs...For a period of time, the bad guys will have them, and the good guys won't, but over time, that could go away. It won't though, because we let the gun industry flourish so that there are millions and millions of handguns, and there's too many to clean up! Oh well.
Anyway, I would be okay with Sarge's legislation, call it: "The Reasonable Gun Act."
|
|
| | |
| | | 244 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 19:24
|
We have the right to bear arms. Plain and simple. From the Constitution.
Try to think what arms existed when the Constitution was written. Single shot hand loaded muskets and cannons.
Does the possibility exist that if the founding fathers were alive in 2011 and writing the Constitution, there may be some heated debate as to the wisdom of allowing an easily concealed handgun with the capability of squeezing off 30 bullets in few seconds? Thirty bullets bought at the local Walmart as easily as if buying a loaf of bread?
The NRA and so-called strict Constitutionalists in favor of unfettered access to guns don't want that debate. In their view, any restriction on the right to bear arms equals banning guns, even though there's obvious restrictions in place that prohibit anti-aircraft, grenades, rocket launchers and such, much to their dismay.
Responsible gun owners with at least minimum safety training don't bother the huge majority of our citizens I'm guessing. Those obsessed with building an arsenal, or owning weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible scare me, quite frankly, especially since they insist that they have the blessing of the founding fathers. It's impossible to know what the founding fathers' position on many issues would be given the type of technology and the type of society that exists 230 years after the Constitution was written, but it's safe to say they wouldn't all be puppets of the special interest gun lobby, which just about every Republican politician seems to be.
|
|
| | | 245 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 20:41
|
so-called strict Constitutionalists in favor of unfettered access to guns don't want that debate
I don't think you're dealing with any of those people here.
For the rest of your argument, I'll simply refer back to PDs eloquent post 238.
|
|
| | | 246 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 21:12
|
The Second Amendment was originally put into place to protect the government from outside governments - PD
Well only half correct. It was just as much there to protect the people from tyrants internal as external. But otherwise a fine post.
|
|
| | | 247 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 21:26
|
No. The Founding Fathers put far too much emphasis in the document (and in the contemporary Federalist Papers) for that to be true. There is no "blood escape clause" in the Constitution in which armed transition of power is acceptable.
Trying to have it both ways doesn't work, so get off the fence. A Constitutional armed revolution is an oxymoron.
|
|
| | | 248 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 21:44
|
I don't think you're dealing with any of those people here.
Are you sure? I refer you to post #140:
I see suspiciously quick political opportunism to....ban guns..
I haven't seen that. I've seen suggestions to return to 15 bullet clips, to make it illegal to be within a certain distance from a member of Congress while armed, and several similar innocuous suggestions.
But any suggestion that puts any type of restriction on guns, no matter how steeped in common sense, is met with "they're trying to ban guns", followed by passionate claims of brotherhood with the founding fathers.
Is this common sense?
"Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," the GAO report states.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced legislation last year to prohibit people on the terror watch list, or who are known to belong to a terrorist organization, from purchasing guns. The bill would authorize the attorney general to deny sale or transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists. But it has been struck down by gun rights advocates who said it would breach citizens' constitutional rights.
To review:
The same people who urge that the Constitutional right to impeding the free exercise of religion be suspended for Muslims, also urge that some of the most radical of these Muslims be afforded the Constituional right to bear as many arms as they can afford at the traveling gun show, with bullets readily available at the local Walmart.
|
|
| | | 249 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:09
|
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. - Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. - Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993
Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem. - Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. - Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle
|
|
| | | 250 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:24
|
Aha! The real reason for the shooting! Arizona's immigration policy. - chancellor of UC Berzerkly
Why stop at merely eliminating Limbaugh and guns when you can try and extract the entire liberal agenda from the situation.
|
|
| | | 251 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:27
|
Surely there is a tie-in with government funded abortions if we spin hard enuff.
|
|
| | | 252 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:29
|
Can you dig up what Noah Webster and George Mason have to offer on the effectiveness of arming every man and woman in town with a hundgun against a dozen or so bomber sorties?
Or do you support (in contrast to Khahan's #245) your neighbor's right to keep an array of anti aircraft stinger missiles loaded and ready to fire from his back yard in preparation for when he must take up arms against the US Air Force?
|
|
| | | 253 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:32
|
I guess Founding Father Rush Limbaugh will have to answer that one, MITH.
|
|
| | | 254 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 01:41
|
I've found that the moment you corner 2nd Amendment romantics with the obvious rhetorical fallacy of "shall not be infringed," they run away from the discussion faster than a doe in the scope of their M61 Vulcan on a casual hunting trip.
|
|
| | | 255 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 02:04
|
I think it's a stretch to call an ICBM a common militia weapon.
|
|
| | | 256 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 02:11
|
And I also think limiting the militia to the type of weapon used in say the Swiss militia is totally sufficient to prevent local tyranny, because remember, a tyrant would have to consider whether his airforce would throw it's fate in with their relatives in the armed public also.
Not so sure what interpol would do however.
|
|
| | | 257 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 02:18
|
Not a doe.
|
|
| | |
| | | 259 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 03:41
|
I think it's a stretch to call an ICBM a common militia weapon
Huh? Who's talking about ICBMs? A volley of stinger missiles can be fired from a launcher you could mount on a jeep. A single stinger missile can be fired from a shoulder launcher.
But if your response is that "shall not be infringed" only includes what the Founding Fathers regarded as "militia weapons", you just conceded this 2nd Amendment debate retroactively to post 244.
because remember, a tyrant would have to consider whether his airforce would throw it's fate in with their relatives in the armed public also.
I guess you mean you'll be relying on Asimov's first law to save us?
|
|
| | | 260 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 10:59
|
Exactly why does 'our new globalist overlords are so well armed resistance is useless' fill you with such bliss?
|
|
| | | 261 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 11:08
|
Heh.
Gun nuts do love to twist the Founding Father's words to suit what they want to believe. The Bible, as well.
Putting aside the fact that the private right to arms was proposed and passed as a buttress against standing armies which threaten liberty and the government, most of the gun nuts completely overlook the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment, which has to do with training in arms. There was no difference, in the Founding Fathers' minds, between the necessity for citizens to be trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and to be trained in their duties and responsibilities as gun owners.
Crimes which involve guns (and the sharp rise in violent crimes in this country) are directly traced to a rise in irresponsible gun use. It all goes hand in hand. Sarge's proposal above (which he discussed at length in an earlier Second Amendment thread somewhere) is not only constitutionally valid, but (IMO) is constitutionally mandated.
|
|
| | | 262 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 11:29
|
Crimes which involve guns (and the sharp rise in violent crimes in this country) are directly traced to a rise in irresponsible gun use. - PD
Back that up.
|
|
| | | 263 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 11:30
|
Really, what do globalist overlords have to do with a 30 bullet clip as opposed to a 15 bullet clip? Do you think those extra 15 bullets before re-loading will keep the globalist overloads at bay?
Why not just admit that, like new house speaker Boehner, you don't want an intelligent debate on the subject because, like Democrats and labor unions, your party is so beholden to special interest NRA financial support.
I've got to wonder what kind of mindset insists on having a weapon that can squeeze off 30 bullets in a few seconds. Those that are mentally unhinged or radicals on terror watchlists come to mind before citizens concerned with self defense.
|
|
| | | 264 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 11:36
|
|
|
| | | 265 | Tree
ID: 24115767
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 11:42
|
Gun nuts do love to twist the Founding Father's words to suit what they want to believe. The Bible, as well.
the words of pretty much anyone or anything, for that matter.
|
|
| | | 266 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 12:06
|
PV says you don't want an intelligent debate on the subject, and the answer is post 264.
Guess you were out debated and put to shame, PV. Nothing like the use of ones intelligence and power to reason.
|
|
| | | 267 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:00
|
#262: Back that up.
This is genuinely funny. You believe people who use guns to commit crimes (thereby contributing to the rise of violent crime in this country) are acting responsibly?
What's next?:
PD: "People who speed and weave in and out of traffic are not acting as responsible drivers, and contribute to higher accident rates."
Boldwin: "Prove it!"
|
|
| | | 268 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:06
|
#244 is what I have been trying to say. I don't think the second amendment was written in the spirit for which it has evolved. We need(ed) better regulation and reason here, and we did not have it, and now we have "tons of guns" (cf. Gang Starr), and cannot go backwards.
|
|
| | | 269 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:11
|
PD
Prove that there has been a sharp rise in violent crimes in this country and that guns are responsible.
|
|
| | | 270 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:12
|
As you stated in #261.
|
|
| | | 271 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:42
|
why does 'our new globalist overlords are so well armed resistance is useless' fill you with such bliss?
This is why I should be allowed to sigh and point out your bovine excrement for what it is in the blunt terms it deserves.
Aware you are unable to keep up with logical responses to my exposing the increasing detatchment from reality in your posts, you resort instead to openly insulting my patriotism.
The fact is that the romantic notion of the 2nd Amendment as some failsafe from the tyranny of a modern military superpower (and every other modern military on the planet) is completely unrealistic and is the absolute last thing we should be basing such important national policy on. Might as well demand that we arm our citizens to fight cancer.
The best defense against a tyranical government is a well-informed electorate. Convincing them that the revolver in the night stand protects them from "Obama's brownshirts" is counterproductive to that end.
|
|
| | | 272 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:48
|
When we agreed to an armed, standing army, most of the political philosophy behind the Second Amendment had its legs cut out from under itself.
Its a little ironic, IMO, that most all of those strict constitutionists revere both the Second Amendment and the military--two thoughts that were at odds with each other in the Founding Father's minds. Which leads to even more evidence that the Founding Fathers would have absolutely no idea why the strict constitutionists deify the FF when they believe things the FF were absolutely against.
|
|
| | | 273 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 16:58
|
I don't know if one has to prove that guns has led to increase in violence. I think the issue is whether the # and availability of guns in the U.S. has led to increased deaths and injuries compared to other countries that have more restrictive laws. I think it's harder to hurt people without handguns.
|
|
| | |
| | | 275 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 17:47
|
I don't know if one has to prove... - Walk
Yeah, if PD is gonna make these pronouncements in his god/mod voice he's gonna have to prove them.
Always fun when I know he's completely wrong.
|
|
| | | 276 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 17:52
|
So, to be sure, you think if handguns were banned, we'd have the same approximate number of murders, suicides, and severe violent injuries per year?
|
|
| | | 277 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 18:59
|
Boldwin would have us believe (though dated articles long on speculation and short on facts he can use) that crime stats have absolutely nothing to do with guns when it "proves" his point, and everything to do with crimes when they don't.
An article about crime in England which talks about "disarming" them (as though they were ever armed) and the problem of thugs with knives really misses the point. And using it has the stench of a bad dodge. Instead of trying to answer a point, Boldwin appears to want to whine about the tone of my "pronouncements" (as if I'm answerable in any way to his reactions to it) and links to an article about a country unaffected by the Second Amendment.
This is not surprising, coming as it does from the starting point of such a muddied philosophical point. Just kinda sad. Throwing up links with a sneer and attitude doesn't make it more useful to a bad point, particularly among those of us used to a more hearty diet of facts and discussion.
|
|
| | | 278 | J-Bar
ID: 30151518
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 19:15
|
Just a question, but was it the far right that called the wars illegal?
|
|
| | | 279 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 19:59
|
PD would have us believe he can make any assertion he wants, be taken as an authority and exempted from providing links in proof.
You said "Crimes which involve guns (and the sharp rise in violent crimes in this country) are directly traced to a rise in irresponsible gun use."
Now back it up. Prove there's been a sharp rise in violent crimes and prove an armed populace made things worse.
|
|
| | | 280 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 20:02
|
Really I know that everywhere gun control has been tried, violent crime went up, and it's about time you did the research and discovered the uncomfortable truth that you are dead wrong.
|
|
| | | 281 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 20:06
|
And violent crime is down, it's been going down for a long time. So I am dying to see you prove your statement.
|
|
| | | 282 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 20:29
|
You sound like a gold bug, Boldwin. Willing to slice and dice the timeline to "prove" your point.
Here's the thing: You want to "prove" that citizens having guns lower crime rates. You want to "prove" this by demonstrating (desperately, I might add) that somehow criminals using guns don't make crime more violent.
Like linking to an article about the increase in knives in UK home invasions--you hope to get to your point through this circuitous route in rhetorical wilderness.
The fact that crimes with guns are, in fact, more violent then crimes without guns have escaped your notice. So has the fact that criminals using guns tend to commit more violent crimes.
Somehow you would have us believe that criminals are using guns responsibly, despite these two facts. And to "prove" your point, you would have us look at only a small sliver of crime statistics, and blur the line between all violent crimes in order to "prove" your point.
You want to challenge any of the facts I've presented then you are welcome to do so. None of this gets you any closer to your point. And all of it is a massive dodge, since your belief that crimes with guns guns = "responsible gun ownership" has nothing to do with how Loughner obtained his gun, a fact you refuse to address since it will make you look silly.
Keep to your strengths, then. Keep putting up self-righteous appeals to the Founding Fathers and asking people to prove self-evident points instead of the actual problem.
|
|
| | | 283 | Boldwin
ID: 240121420
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 20:55
|
I'm not dodging anything. You are.
Where the public is armed crime goes down. Where gun control is tried violent crime goes up. It isn't complicated.
|
|
| | | 284 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 21:28
|
I'm confused as to the methodology.
When Jared Laughner shoots 18 people(6 fatally), is that considered 1 crime or 18 crimes?
When the law that kept clips to 15 bullets expired in 2004,
murders in the United States jumped 4.8 percent last year, and overall violent crime was up 2.5 percent for the year, marking the largest annual increase in crime in the United States since 1991, according to figures released Monday by the FBI.
Robberies nationally increased 4.5 percent, and aggravated assaults increased 1.9 percent, while the number of rapes last year fell 1.9 percent, the report said.
Stats support that RTC(right to carry) states enjoy less violent crime, but some of those RTC states don't have numerous large metro areas, where violent crime is higher.
It's my opinion that RTC is constitutionally protected, and is a deterrent to crime overall.
However, gun owners should expect there to be restrictions as well as strict licensing criteria(training), background checks and, in some cases, a lengthy questionaire.
For instance, if some one put on their application the reason they needed a 30 clip hand gun,
"Fend off globalist overlords"
they should probably be denied.
link
|
|
| | | 285 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Jan 15, 2011, 21:37
|
Re #284. Sorry, that's confusing. Those stats are for 2005, the year after the law expired. Violent crime(except rape) went up the year after the gun control law lasped.
|
|
| | | 286 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 01:31
|
When Jared Laughner shoots 18 people(6 fatally), is that considered 1 crime or 18 crimes?
This is a fair question when dealing with stats. The national crime bureau stats typically would count this as 18 crimes.
How its presented is dependant upon your view. If you are for gun control, then you could have just prevented 18 violent crimes.
If the population is armed, you only have 1 crime to show that violent crimes are down when the population is armed and you are opposed to gun control (but I'm willing to bet if the population is disarmed you'll have 18 crimes that could have been prevented w/ an armed population).
This is exactly why I hate when people post raw stats and their opinions of them. Without the background to the stats (what questions were asked, what details were looked at etc) they are useless.
But knowing how crime stats are compiled and counted does help.
|
|
| | | 287 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 03:12
|
Homicides by weapon type...
while a little dated, this chart is interesting. the vast majority of homicides in the United States are via guns.
if we further restrict guns, i'm curious as to how this rate would drop. it's mere speculation, but it seems common sense that the overall murder rate would drop considerably.
there's a lot of interesting stuff in this article on Wikipedia..
among them:
The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used...
...with similar patterns in cases of family violence.
Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[60] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.
these sorts of numbers are consistent.
it's simple really - a lot more people are KILLED by guns, than are saved by guns.
|
|
| | | 288 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 14:21
|
Thanks Tree. I did not think was a difficult case to make. To me, the issue then becomes one of cost/benefit as I believe the intent of the 2nd amendment is not consistent with the metastasis of the proliferation of guns and gun-related incidents. The need to have a gun for protection (against what? whom? -- well, those with guns!) and the need cos it's fun does not outweigh the costs of so many people who suffer tragically from very preventable crimes. Guns make it all too easy and convenient to hurt and kill a lot of people in little time.
|
|
| | | 289 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 14:29
|
it's simple really - a lot more people are KILLED by guns, than are saved by guns
this is something we don't really have stats on and cannot be proven.
Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used...
This again proves nothing about restricting guns or abolishing guns doing anything. Will criminals just find another way? Are they crimes where a fatality was pre-planned anyway? The correlation simply is not there with the data being provided.
I'm not saying the correlation doens't exist. But the data you are providing in its raw form neither supports nor rejects either sides arguments.
|
|
| | | 290 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 14:33
|
NYT, Frank Rich: No One Listened to Gabrielle Griffiths
Have politicians stoked the pre-Loughner violence by advocating that citizens pursue “Second Amendment remedies” or be “armed and dangerous”? We don’t know. What’s more disturbing is what Republican and conservative leaders have not said. Their continuing silence during two years of simmering violence has been chilling. A few unexpected voices have expressed alarm. After an antigovernment gunman struck at Washington’s Holocaust museum in June 2009, Shepard Smith of Fox News noted the rising vitriol in his e-mail traffic and warned on air that more “amped up” Americans could be “getting the gun out.” The former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum took on the “reckless right” that August, citing the incident at the Giffords Safeway event. But when a Department of Homeland Security report warned of far-right extremism and attacks by “lone wolves” that same summer, Gingrich called it a smear and John Boehner demanded an apology. Last week a conservative presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty, timidly said it wouldn’t be his “style” to use Palin’s target map, but was savaged so viciously by his own camp that he immediately retreated. A senior Republican senator told Politico that he saw the Tucson bloodbath as a “cautionary tale” for his party, yet refused to be named. What are they and their peers so afraid of? No doubt that someone might reload — the same fears that prompted Gabrielle Giffords to speak up, calmly but firmly, last March. Unless and until they can match her courage and speak out too, it’s hard to see what will change.
|
|
| | | 291 | walk
ID: 517172117
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 14:35
|
Khahan, honestly, are you really saying that you are not sure about whether guns net save more lives than take? Do you need proof the boston red sox are better than the pawtucket red sox, even though they do not play head to head?
|
|
| | | 292 | Tree
ID: 60121615
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 16:12
|
it's simple really - a lot more people are KILLED by guns, than are saved by guns
this is something we don't really have stats on and cannot be proven.
yes we do. and plenty of them are in the article i linked.
This again proves nothing about restricting guns or abolishing guns doing anything. Will criminals just find another way? Are they crimes where a fatality was pre-planned anyway? The correlation simply is not there with the data being provided.
well, by that stretch, nothing proves anything.
there is data there - whether you want to accept it or not is another story. if you had read the link, you'd see further links to information that states the criminals would likely still commit the crimes, BUT IN LESS LETHAL WAYS.
that's an important, and telling, distinction.
|
|
| | | 293 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 22:17
|
The NRA Responds Predictably
Rand and other gun ban advocates were quick to push several schemes.
The most widely publicized is the proposal by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to re-impose the 1994 ban on new manufacture of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and to criminalize the transfer of existing magazines between law-abiding gun owners. These magazines are standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations.
Law-abiding private citizens? What about non-law-abiding citizens? Are these magazines really standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans?
Since we're talking crime stats, I'd like to see one incident where a 'law-abiding citizen' needed to fire 30 bullets in a few seconds in order to defend themself, much less tens of millions.
Law-abiding citizens. Standard equipment. Gun ban advocates. Schemes.
My head is dizzy from the spin.
Conservatives like to talk about common sense.
My common sense tells me that the majority of people who want these high capacity magazines are gangsters, drug cartels, anti-government militia types and basic paranoid lunatics.
My common sense tells me there's a big difference between sevely restricting magazines that can kill 30 people in a few seconds and banning guns. We might as well make grenades legal, since it's harder to kill 30 people with a grenade than with these high capacity magazines.
|
|
| | | 294 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 22:32
|
The other day, I linked an article which demonstrated that 70-80% of shots fired BY Law Enforcement professionals, in gun battles at ranges under 21'...miss their target. Since then, I have read countless assertions by multiple right-wingers, that had the crown in Tucson been armed, Loughner would have been down after firing 2 or 3 shots.
Possibly true. But using the low end of the missed rate BY professionals who have undergone training; and then applying that per centage to a "crowd" of say 100...
Loughner opens fire, and 100 people pull handguns, turn and return fire. 70 shots miss.
Where do they go? How many members of that crowd, just shot another member of that same crowd?
I've said before, I'm in favor of gun ownership. I've said before, I am in favor of STRICT licensing/registration and TRAINING requirements. Now I'll add, the only gun owner who NEEDS a 30 rd clip? Is one with a leaning toward mass murder. A 5-10 rd clip, is more than adequate for ANY hunting/target shooting need.
|
|
| | | 295 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 22:39
|
I'm in favor of gun ownership. I've said before, I am in favor of STRICT licensing/registration and TRAINING requirements. Now I'll add, the only gun owner who NEEDS a 30 rd clip? Is one with a leaning toward mass murder. A 5-10 rd clip, is more than adequate for ANY hunting/target shooting need.
And I'll add, self defense. Common sense.
|
|
| | | 296 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 23:21
|
Don’t you love how the Left takes a warped twentysomething …
Who went to a high school with curriculum crafted by Bill Ayers,
- Whose favorite tomes include The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf,
- Whose classmates describe him as a left-wing, weed-wafting, atheistic Beavis,
- Who had a human skull altar erected in his backyard,
- Whose hero list (according to Facebook) includes Barack Obama,
… and somehow, they magically wiggle their nose, tug their ear, and stomp their feet and poof, abracadabra, this punk instantly morphs into Newt Gingrich?
I have three words for such an amazing feat of mental gymnastics the Left is able to perform upon their own noggin and the accompanying boldness they have to trot out such balderdash to the masses that uniformly think such conclusions are crap-based. Those three words are: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Yeah, sure, Olbermann: “Loughner was a Tea Partier,” (wink, wink) who was “somehow put into a murderous trance by Palin’s hyperbole, Limbaugh’s bumper music and Beck’s excessive use of chalk.”...
Do you know whom I believe is responsible for this catastrophe in Tucson? Jared Loughner. Plain and simple. El D’bag is the loco loser who alone should swing for the brutal deaths and shootings that took place on that bloody Saturday last week in Arizona.
And with that said, I don’t think that anyone else should have to suspend their First or Second Amendment rights because of what this one demonic miscreant did to Giffords and the other victims. Indeed, I do not believe that because of one weed who committed unspeakable evil that 300 million people should not be able to use certain similes or should give up their Glocks. - Doug Giles for Townhall.com
|
|
| | | 297 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 23:51
|
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel
|
|
| | | 298 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 00:27
|
It would be hard to find someone more spiritually and intellectually bankrupt than former Christian minister Doug Giles.
|
|
| | | 299 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 01:22
|
post 297 is yet another example of taking a quote out of context, or, if you prefer, lying by omission.
here's the complete quote:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.
He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
as for the crisis he was speaking of, it's the economic crisis this country has been in the midst of for a few years now, and he was discussing it quite specifically.
the remark came the week after Obama was elected, and has nothing to do with what happened in Tucson.
nice try though.
|
|
| | | 300 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 03:34
|
You are of course slandering me in crude fashion by suggesting I am trying to say that was said yesterday in response to this. Par for troll.
Rahm's statement is alive and well however.
Immediately after Arizona, Obama insiders recommended they try the same tactic Clinton used on the militia movement after OK City, in this situation, against the Tea Party.
|
|
| | | 301 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 03:39
|
Why I have not and will not join the 'quiet while we socialize america' movement:When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
So screw you and your civil discourse.
Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.
So screw you. Really you have to stand back in amazement looking at the arrogant temerity of people who snicker out loud at you as a practicer of homosexual acts, [teabagging] while at the same time demanding that you also be civil.
|
|
| | | 302 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 03:40
|
Source
|
|
| | | 303 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 07:11
|
You are of course slandering me in crude fashion by suggesting I am trying to say that was said yesterday in response to this.
this thread is about Tucson, and thing related to it. your immediately preceding post was about the topic.
why post it, otherwise?
Par for troll.
at this point, you're the only one using this source of language. considering your reaction to what happened happened in Tucson, it's no surprise.
Immediately after Arizona, Obama insiders recommended they try the same tactic Clinton used on the militia movement after OK City, in this situation, against the Tea Party.
1. link?
2. and your point is? it's politics, remember? and, after all, members of the Tea Party have, indeed, shown up to political rallies with guns.
post 301 and 302 go a long way toward proving the point that the far right has zero interest in healing or even making a vague attempt at pulling this nation together, or even healing us.
there really isn't much more to say in regards to that other than it's sad and rather pathetic, and your posts continue to reveal the real you, not the pious destined for heaven image, you've tried to project on these boards.
|
|
| | | 304 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 08:54
|
When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
This account is dishonest.
The vulger use of the term "tea-bag" was first used in reference to the tea party movement by FOX News and actual Tea Party members boasting that they will "teabag the White House".
The fact is that the left successfully turned their own vulger term (which employed a notably more vulger use, for the record) on them.
So screw you.
The unintentional hilarity of a troll.
|
|
| | | 305 | Tree
ID: 60121615
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:09
|
egads..post 303 is filled with pre-coffee 6 am poor grammar and spelling...
|
|
| | | 306 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:20
|
And reallly, how can you help but snicker.
I think a snicker over the political opposition's new self-given nickname isn't quite the same thing as the mainstream right supporting and advancing the meme that the President is a foreign-born muslim, maoist terrorst-sympathizer determined to advance an aggressive radical communist, pro-islamist, black nationalist agenda through the intentional dismantleing of the national economy and discuss the solutions to stop the imminent certain tyranny with metaphors that evoke the use firearms against the political opposition.
But it doesn't matter at this point. The call for civility comes after all that stuff has already been sad and done. The call for civility rightfully goes out to both sides. Still, I don't think the flipping of the term teabagger on the self--annointed teabaggers really ranks among the left's notable civility sins. Interesting to see that got so far up Boldy's craw, tho.
|
|
| | | 307 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:20
|
Tree, you are maybe the only person who would actually research when Rahm said that. The rest of us knew that was an early statement and I expected everyone here was fully aware of the statement.
Why post it? Obviously this thread is, for me, about the actual dynamics of a liberal trial balloon to see if Cass Sunstein can get away with his, longstanding and published in book form, plan to destroy the first amendment and maybe even the left's longstanding desire to disarm america, So Rahm's statement goes exactly to the heart of why the sheep here are regurgitating these talking points at this time.
There is of course no comparison to Fox News discussing throwing tea bags at the WH, and what the libertine party was refering to.
|
|
| | | 308 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:22
|
At least you spelled egads correctly.
|
|
| | | 309 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:22
|
They knew exactly what they were saying when they said they would "teabag" the WH.
|
|
| | | 310 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:22
|
Post 291 and 292 walk and tree you guys need a refresher in the scientific method and statistics.
You guys can keep making these statements all you want and keep believing them. I'm not saying they aren't true. I'm just saying you are presenting them as absolute truths when they are not. They are theories and unproven by the stats you are presenting.
If you have the stats or research to prove it as a fact rather than theory, go ahead and post it. Maybe its my years working in insurance claims where I could settle on nothing less than facts and couldn't even present theories to support my decision. If I think the other guy ran a red light I couldn't deny liability. But if I had witnesses or a ticket I could deny liability.
|
|
| | | 311 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:27
|
Interesting to see that got so far up Boldy's craw, tho.
They could throw you guys in with the crowd demanding to screw the angelic visitors in Lot's house and I imagine you'd all get along swimmingly.
|
|
| | | 312 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:32
|
For the record, this sign from a 2/27/09 rally is the first known public use of the term.
What else could the designers of the signs (apparently a popular rightist publication and website) possibly have meant if didn't know exactly what the term means?
|
|
| | | 313 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:47
|
I stand corrected.
But don't you think that was a response to libertine party snickering already out there?
|
|
| | | 314 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 09:59
|
Don't get all chicken and egg.
|
|
| | | 315 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:11
|
Re: scientific method -- sure no problem. Please set up an appropriate control group in an identical country to the United States in every other way, and then we can change the one variable of gun availability there while holding everything else constant. The great thing about this is that after that experiment is done we can then use the same wiped-clean control planet to test global warming so you can have scientific proof of that.
Or, when you say "scientific method", did you mean something that doesn't mean scientific method but just means "I don't like the data presented"? Because otherwise, ALL data in the real world is going to be "tainted" by outside influences like socioeconomics and solar flares and pesky stuff like that. Which, yes, makes everything a "theory" in the scientific sense and not 100% proven. But asking for 100% proof is completely unrealistic, and I'm sure you don't ask for the same level of proof in the beliefs you hold.
|
|
| | | 316 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:25
|
Actually, the scientific method does require that those issues be addressed. They are variables that have to be measured and quantified. One of the uproars a with global warming data was the quantification methods used to calibrate measurement techniques. One of the most common ways to do this is multiple regressions and yes it can get very messy, but ultimately it can be proven.
|
|
| | | 317 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:26
|
#314 - lol
Guess I got sandbagged by those pre-printed signs. This is what you get when you invite goproud into the fold.
|
|
| | | 318 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:28
|
DWetz
This group is heavy with insurance actuaries who do in fact know how to do the math in this area. Unusually bad waters for you to troll.
|
|
| | | 319 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:51
|
Boldwin, I'm pretty sure that four years of college and a chemistry degree makes me reasonably qualified to discuss what the scientific method means, and certainly more qualified than YOU, but thanks for embarrassing yourself by attempting to troll me in return but just looking like an idiot.
Frick -- exactly, I agree -- the point being that "in the real world", and not in a controlled laboratory setting, one is ultimately going to have to account for those problems via data analysis and adjustment and assumptions. Which leads to two problems when people who don't understand that issue, or don't want to understand it, speak:
1. They completely ignore all those assumptions and just take the raw data as gospel, or
2. They argue that because a bunch of assumptions are being made that the whole thing's invalid because 'what if I just assumed different, that changes your whole argument, why can't you just use the raw data, lol scientists!'.
Frequently, when people say "scientific method" in normal conversation, it's code for the second one of these. Especially when they then say "show it as a fact and not a theory" -- well, once you've introduced various assumptions, AS WE ALWAYS DO IN THE REAL WORLD, you're not going to get fact. You're going to get theory which begins with "assuming that...".
Which may not be good enough for the insurance guy (and understandably so, in that line of work), but if 100% is your standard for real world data analysis and experimentation, and no assumptions (assumptions = "THEORIES") can be introduced, then you simply aren't being realistic about the standard of proof available.
|
|
| | | 320 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:56
|
Tree, you are maybe the only person who would actually research when Rahm said that. The rest of us knew that was an early statement and I expected everyone here was fully aware of the statement.
i realize you're opposed to research. that's your problem, and one we all deal with here.
it needed clarification, since you tried to pull it out of context and use it for a different means.
Obviously this thread is, for me, about the actual dynamics of a liberal...
blah. blah. blah. you feel every thread is some sort of liberal such and such, and yours to piss in freely.
you've been called on your lies and falsehoods before, and you've been called on your support for those who use those tactics. it'll keep happening as long as you do it.
i do like how you resort to name calling when someone calls you out for your tactics though. pretty much par for troll when you've got nothing else.
|
|
| | | 321 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:03
|
Your post is like having looked up the spelling of the word "the" hoping to catch me in a misspelling and wearing it as a badge of honor that you did so.
|
|
| | | 322 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:07
|
Well, if you couldn't manage to spell a commonly used three letter word correctly, yet would hold yourself out as any kind of authority on word usage or spelling, whose fault is that?
|
|
| | | 323 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:23
|
319 - 1. They completely ignore all those assumptions and just take the raw data as gospel, or
2. They argue that because a bunch of assumptions are being made that the whole thing's invalid because 'what if I just assumed different, that changes your whole argument, why can't you just use the raw data, lol scientists!'.
I think my posts pretty clearly indicate I'm neither taking the info as gospel nor am I arguing its invalid. In fact I pretty explicitly stated its a theory, not fact and I also clearly state, "I'm not saying they aren't true."
My point was that Tree and Walk seem to be falling into trap #1, taking the info (or their extrapolations from that info) as gospel.
But I can hardly post in any thread without you trying to disprove me, it seems. No matter what. Even when I post something that you apparently agree with. I never said, 'No theories,' to Tree. I said don't present theory as fact.
|
|
| | | 324 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:43
|
Then, Khakan, we actually agree to an extent. I'd probably suggest that the studies they're looking at probably have taken the appropriate adjustments into account -- but reasonable people can disagree. The raw data is what it is.
However, this belies you to some extent: "I said don't present theory as fact." As stated, if you insist on "fact" (and only fact, and no theories) as your standard of proof, then your standard of real-world proof is impossibly high.
Also, take it as a compliment that I'm "trying to disprove you". It's a refreshing change to have someone to disagree with that's actually willing to try to think rationally about stuff.
|
|
| | | 325 | walk
ID: 517172117
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:46
|
Khahan, I know I am not presenting stats and research. I'm going on intuition and common sense right now. (However, personally, I've taught research methods and statistics at the university level, so thanks for the tip.) I basically did not think such an argument required empirical evidence to support the point that more guns does more harm than less guns. I also think some of the unreferenced data included in the Kristoff op-ed to which I linked are pretty compelling. However, I think at this stage, it's really just denial and the perils of widespread guns, and the selfishness of gun owners to hold onto their guns, instead of realizing that the greater public good is more important.
|
|
| | | 326 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:48
|
Some stuff to digest from my daily dose of Newsmax from yesterday's e-mail. The first relates to gun crime stats:
Vermont’s Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy won no fans among gun control proponents by stating a simple fact: “Vermont has the lowest crime rate in the country, lowest or second lowest, and doesn’t have gun control.”
Leahy’s remark came Tuesday at an event in Washington after an audience member cited the Arizona shootings and asked: “In the wake of last weekend, do you think there should be more talk about gun control and do you see any legislative push for that on Capitol Hill?”
Vermont is one of the few states that does not require a permit for carrying a concealed weapon, CNN News reported.
Leahy did add: “I would not want Vermont laws to be in an urban area.”
The largest city in Vermont is Burlington, population approximately 40,000. A city of 40,000 isn't even a blip on the map in California or Texas. That's why national data on gun crimes and associated gun restrictions needs to be discarded in favor of examining distinct municipalities and their demographics and environments.
Then there's the Newsmax humour section:
Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said he would file a lawsuit against anyone in the media who tries to link him to the shootings in Arizona, as Chris Matthews did earlier in the week.
On MSNBC’s “Hardball” Tuesday night, Matthews essentially blamed Levin and talk radio host Michael Savage for creating a climate of hate that led to the Tucson shootings that killed six and injured 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Here is Newsmax's(and Levin's I suppose)definition of "essentially blamed:"
“What’s been the role of talk radio in fueling the heated language? I’ll mention a couple of names. People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example, who every time you listen to them, they are furious. Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk, and it never changes, it never modulates.”
Levin's going to sue Matthews for slander because Mathews pegged him perfectly? Here's a sample of Levin's show:
Some a-hole on MSLSD with no numbers, no ratings, no audience, no substance, no common sense making an allegation. We know without question that the murderer in Tucson was mentally ill, a liberal pothead and all the rest of it. We know this for a fact
Thanks for the comic relief, Levin.
|
|
| | | 327 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:51
|
Your post is like having looked up the spelling of the word "the" hoping to catch me in a misspelling and wearing it as a badge of honor that you did so.
if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
when someone condones lying and criminal acts as a means to an end, they should expect to be called upon the carpet when they take quotes out of context.
and there is no badge of honor here. just pointing out your mis-use of someone else's remarks.
you're the one who has made it his life's work to defy his religion and "educate" us here on this message board. personally, to me, it's just that - a message board. the badges of honor that i prefer are in the real world.
My point was that Tree and Walk seem to be falling into trap #1, taking the info (or their extrapolations from that info) as gospel.
of course statistics are subject to interpretation. but at some point, we DO have to accept them, or they're pointless.
|
|
| | | 328 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 11:58
|
We don't have to accept them as gospel, however, Tree. There are some studies which show a very different picture (such as the oft-quoted Gary Kleck survey). Now, I happen to believe that the Kleck survey has some fatal methodological problems, and doesn't really get to the heart of the problem of armed criminals (which is the bigger problem, IMO). But there is no denying that the threat of armed homeowners/potential victims lowers certain crimes without a shot being fired and that is where Kleck is most useful--determining crimes averted through the proper use of firearms as a deterrent.
The problem is that the aversion works best when the criminal is not armed with a firearm--the aversion is actually reversed when the criminal has a gun (in other words, criminals become emboldened when they have a gun). But that's a deeper argument than is being made here, I think.
|
|
| | | 329 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:04
|
Dwetzel, I'm not insisting on 'facts only.' I'm just asking if you present facts, then present facts. If you present theories, then present theories. Just don't present theories as fact.
Nobody is discounting the data Tree posted. I'm not even discounting his assertion that guns kill more people than they save. I, am, however, discounting his assertion as a fact.
Lets face it, thats an assertion that will always be a theory, and not an unreasonable one. I'm also going under the assumption we are dealing with gun violence by citizens, so discount any killings in war, by police (in the line of duty, off duty I'd think they'd be citizens) etc.
A friend of my mine was shot in high school (he survived) by another friend while they were riding in the car. Its accidental, but I'd certainly count that as a 'gun violence' event that could be prevented if those kids didn't have a gun.
But then they had taken the gun illegally. So would the ban have even prevented it?
How about when a robbery attempt goes awry and the clerk pulls a gun and shoots the robber? To me guns just saved an innocent life. To others its another act of violence or needless death that 'could have been prevented.'
At the Tucson incident its been documented that one of the people who took Loughner down was carrying. He apparently made the proper decision not to draw and shoot and was responsible enough. I think this points to Sarges solution of requiring training/classes on responsible gun ownership as a viable option.
PV's post 326 also has some good food for thought (prior to the discussion of the talk radio stuff). Especially the quote about Vermont laws in an urban area.
And Dwetzel, your last paragraph didn't escape me, thanks. :)
|
|
| | | 330 | walk
ID: 517172117
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:23
|
I'm not presenting theories as facts...when have I done that? It's okay to present theories, no? There have been other stats presenting. I certainly think the more guns is worse than less guns is a more parsimonious and plausible theory, too.
|
|
| | | 331 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622
Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 18:29
|
DaBears
|
|
| | | 332 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 07:55
|
keep laughing. a congresswomen is shot in the head, and you post cartoons and parody on the ensuing discussion.
i'm sure that punches your ticket to heaven.
|
|
| | | 334 | walk
ID: 348442710
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 14:29
|
Armed public: safer?
Sorry to resurrect; seemed like it hit the bullseye for some of the discussion (pun). Post #39 in the comments in revealing, too. Gotta love Holland.
|
|
| | | 335 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 07:57
|
Tucson strategy partII
Wherein an infamous radical who openly calls for violent protests thinks Fox should muzzle Beck for discussing her too much because it might lead someone to violently protest her.
Also in the running for chutzpa award.
|
|
| | | 336 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 08:37
|
Money quote from link in 334:
It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum. {emphasis added}
Precisely what I have said, along with many others, for a very long time now.
In response to 335:
C'mon B. Have you NO shame remaining at all? Any thread of decent honesty, still contained within your skin covered body?
From a link provided by MITH in the thread "The Cloward-Piven Strategy", post 59:
Beck says; "In one broadcast, Beck described Piven and Cloward as "the people who you would say are fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system."
Wrong. That would have been Graham, Leach and Bliley. But when Beck makes these comments, and then writes this, "Frances Fox Piven Rings In The New Year By Calling For Violent Revolution."
He IS inciting violent reaction. Regardless of any later denials he might make, his words ARE seen by the far right fringe as a call to action. That simple truth, MUST be acknowledged.
When a commentator flat out lies, there must be consequences. Beck, is a liar. And he has managed to turn in lies into a grand self-serving paycheck for himself. AT the cost of what? Decent human and social civility? But screw that,
"I'm rich now", is the posture he can take. Right?
|
|
| | | 337 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 09:35
|
A. As we have so often seen here, liberals have no idea when they are looking at a lie or the truth.
B. Pivens greatest wish is that she could foment the kind of violent deadly protests seen in Greece, right here in America. She has been very outspoken about this. It can't be denied. Beck is exactly correct.
Her fondest desire is a violent deadly marxist revolution and she spends all day, every day trying to convince every conceivable ally to perform that task for her.
|
|
| | | 338 | PV in St George
ID: 4603239
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 10:04
|
As we have so often seen here, liberals have no idea when they are looking at a lie or the truth.
When you say "we", that, in itself, is a lie. You speak for no one but yourself.
|
|
| | | 339 | Tree
ID: 24115767
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 12:41
|
A. As we have so often seen here, liberals have no idea when they are looking at a lie or the truth.
says the man who repeatedly puts liars and criminals up as his heroes.
B. Pivens greatest wish is that she could foment the kind of violent deadly protests seen in Greece, right here in America. She has been very outspoken about this. It can't be denied. Beck is exactly correct.
Her fondest desire is a violent deadly marxist revolution and she spends all day, every day trying to convince every conceivable ally to perform that task for her
even if this dreck were true, that would make violent threats against her acceptable?
|
|
| | | 340 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 13:34
|
337 cuts it then B. The answer to my query is apparently, "No sarge. I have NO shame left at all. Death to all of you who dare to disagree with me."
*shrug* Such is the apparent message, you would have us take away form your most recent (past 3-6) months of posting.
|
|
| | | 341 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 13:55
|
I simply reject completely the idea that Piven should be shielded from the consequences of her own violent rhetoric which is literal incitement to violence...
...by silencing anyone who catches her at it.
If yelling fire in a theater is wrong, why is yelling 'let's all kill the rich' such protected free speech that I should be denied my free speech? Only marxists and liberals should have free speech?
|
|
| | | 342 | Tree
ID: 24115767
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 14:00
|
threats of violence and death are wrong no matter who they come from, and you seemingly being ok with the death threats toward Piven is....i dunno...astonishing to me.
|
|
| | | 343 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 14:04
|
Let's see...
Piven is a Professor of political theory. She teaches various ideas, concepts and 'thought trails' if you will. By teaching a variety of ideas, you hold her as treasonous.
Beck, is an on air personality, for the single most idealogically biased broadcast network in our country. He incites, the most radical of that ideology. Those person, have issued death threats against an educator. Yet you hold Beck as "free from repercussions? while demanding that Pliven be held accountable for YOUR contentions of what she is.
Christian huh? Open minded and intelligent eh? Logical?
|
|
| | | 344 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 14:23
|
Anyone who sends a death threat has earned some close personal scrutiny from the authorities. Send in the TSA.
Anyone pointing out which people are plotting our bloody demise and getting paid for it with our tax dollars needs a medal.
|
|
| | | 345 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 14:24
|
And I want Piven to be given the FULL TSA exam for sending her death threats to us.
|
|
| | | 346 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 14:47
|
You don't need to send death threats to get your privacy violated by the TSA.
I do wonder why you don't say the FBI or Secret Service. Very telling, IMO
|
|
| | | 347 | Boldwin
ID: 17043236
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 15:25
|
Simply a metaphore for a really complete exam.
|
|
| | | 348 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 19:34
|
What your gun fetish is costing you.
Written by a liberal.
Published on Huffpo.
Go ahead. Read one of my links for the first time.
|
|
| | | 349 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 20:45
|
Go ahead. Read one of my links for the first time.
i feel pretty confident in saying that your links are read far more often than you read the links from others.
even so, after reading that article, i'm not really sure what it has to do with you condoning threats and violence against an old woman...
|
|
| | | 352 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 06:13
|
Ignore the lying slander in #349.
Liberals sure sell a lotta guns. Maybe they should find out what caused the '05 dip in sales.
|
|
| | | 353 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 06:38
|
#348
Not the least bit surprising. Hopefully this will lead you to finally accept the fact that there is and has been a growing pro-firearm-rights sentiment on the left and that the undenyable plurality of 2nd Amendment opinions there means that your broad-stroke "librurls will ban guns" brush doesn't quite mesh with reality?
|
|
| | | 354 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 07:51
|
Top suspected reasons for the May/June'05 dip in gun sales/inquiries:
Cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise
Rumors of a Spice Girls reunion
Cold Fusion experiment successfully replicated
The G8 announces the cancellation of the multilateral debt of eighteen of the poorest countries in the world
Jury finds Micheal Jackson not guilty on all counts
Murder weapon used to kill Leon Trotsky is purported to have surfaced in Mexico...not a gun
A hitherto unknown poem by Sappho was identified on an Oxyrhynchus papyrus by scholars of Cologne university, and published in the Times Literary Supplement
The Supreme Court of the United States decides 5-4 in the case Kelo v. New London that local governments can seize residential and commercial property for private development projects against the will of property owners as a "public use" under the 5th Amendment. [I'm guessing not]
Elderly former Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen was sentenced to 60 years in prison for the 1964 killing of three civil rights workers, the notorious crime that galvanized the civil rights movement and inspired the 1988 movie Mississippi Burning.
Japanese Sohgo Security Services announces a security robot GuardRobo D1
Oil neared $60 a barrel.
Mad cow disease hits USA
Billy Graham finishes long suck-up-to-power career onstage with Bill Clinton
Numerous countries approve same-sex marriage laws
The EPA says that a chemical used to make Teflon is "likely" to cause cancer.
No idea why that dip occurred. Included were prospective change agents that might amuse all sides
Search yourself.
|
|
| | | 355 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 08:04
|
MITH#353
I am perfectly aware liberals can harbor sane thots and positions. It's just so unlikely. Any RTBA liberals on this board? Sarge maybe?
Can we at least agree that when the 2'nd amendment dies the left will be doing the killing?
|
|
| | | 356 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 08:11
|
When the Second Amendment dies it'll be because the Right didn't like an election and talked themselves into finally taking things into their own hands.
[alternative post: You can't possibly believe that the Left if anti-gun and that they will be the ones killing when the Constitution is tossed out]
|
|
| | | 357 | Tree
ID: 60121615
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 09:46
|
Ignore the lying slander in #349.
if you can't back up your words, don't say them.
I am perfectly aware liberals can harbor sane thots and positions. It's just so unlikely. Any RTBA liberals on this board? Sarge maybe?
my ex-wife is the biggest liberal i know. she is a military vet, and believes in the right to bear arms.
i believe in the right to bear arms.
both of us believe there needs to be tighter restrictions on who can buy guns, and what sort of guns can be bought.
i don't believe buying a gun should be easier than getting a driver's license, and we need to close many of the loopholes, such as gun show loopholes.
|
|
| | | 358 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 09:50
|
Any RTBA liberals on this board?
I'm pretty sure I qualify by any objective standard unless RTBA necessarily means that I believe "shall not be infringed" holds that there can be no limits on the type and number of firearms a citizen may possess, no legal requirements to fulfil in order to obtain and possess them and no limits on the right of people who may be established as a significant threat to himself or others.
Or if RTBA means that I must necessarily sign on to the BS propaganda (like your cherry-picked crime statistics) dearly espoused by the wingnut set.
For the record, I accept SCOTUS' 2010 incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as the law of the land, meaning that the states and municipalities have had taken away from them the legal right to further restrict gun ownership - even though I thought we were better off allowing the citizens of state and local governments decide what is best for themselves.
|
|
| | | 359 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 10:46
|
Can we at least agree that when the 2'nd amendment dies the left will be doing the killing? - B
Killing the 2'nd amendment. My what sanguine imaginations you liberals have.
|
|
| | | 360 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 13:49
|
are you commenting on your own comment? biz-arr-o.
and a couple funny statements to begin with, considering that a couple of so-called "liberals" here, along with YOUR link, show that your perceptions on the left regarding gun laws is considerably off the mark.
|
|
| | | 361 | Seattle Zen in Forks
ID: 160552413
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 14:55
|
I'll go on the record by saying that whomever "kills" the Second Amendment, they will be heroic and all that is good, right or left.
|
|
| | | 363 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 15:10
|
are you commenting on your own comment? biz-arr-o. - Trxxx
I was explaining a self-explanatory sentence no one around here could figure out.
|
|
| | | 364 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 15:25
|
Don't worry, the liberals around here are very well versed in deciphering your ill-informed and illogical comments.
|
|
| | | 365 | Boldwin
ID: 100362317
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 11:30
|
I figured out the real goal here. Yes they'd love to follow Cass Sunstein's blueprint to censorship but that's not a realistic plan after the shellacking.
The people who are still freaking out over Nixon's 30 some long enemy list are going to seek public permission to create 'enemies of the people' lists consisting of anyone willing to describe the purpose of the constitution as protecting every possible barrier to tyranny from arising including the tyrants' fear of an armed populous.
The list is already being made. They want to build public fear and hatred against anyone on the list. As long as you are willing to concede that freedom may be entire lost at the ballot box with no recourse whatsoever you may escape the list.
They intend to make the following statements literally illegal speech."This war [between liberals and conservatives] has to be fought with the scale and duration and savagery that is only true of civil wars. While we are lucky that in this country our civil wars are fought at the ballot box, not on the battlefields, nonetheless this is a civil war" - Newt Gingrich
Pick just about any statement from the FF reguarding tyranny for illegal speech example #2.
|
|
| | | 366 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 12:07
|
Oh no. A "list."
Betcha it'll be a hidden list, too.
Such a thing, in internal memos, is also called "job security" by the conservative media.
|
|
| | | 367 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 12:08
|
They want to build public fear and hatred against anyone on the list.
I felt that was worth repeating.
|
|
| | | 368 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 12:12
|
Clear solution to the problem: ban anyone from putting together lists of people or talking about why the stupid stuff they're saying is bad!
The penalty could be jail, or it could just be a good ol' public bullet to the head without trial! That'll fix 'em.
|
|
| | | 369 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 12:52
|
Clear solution to the problem: ban anyone from putting together lists of people or talking about why the stupid stuff they're saying is bad!
I guess David Letterman is going to be in BIG trouble.
|
|
| | | 370 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 14:13
|
Only if he's talking bad stuff about Limbaugh.
|
|
| | | 371 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 19:52
|
Ann Coulter obliterates this issue.
|
|
| | | 372 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 20:03
|
You must have a different definition of "obliterates" than everyone else. You realize that the high capacity magazine the shooter used was banned until the House GOP resurrected them in 2004? By Coulter's logic ("A precedes B so A proves B") then the GOP is responsible for the shooter's ability to get off more shots.
Remember: The shooter was taken down because he had to stop and reload. A regular magazine means that he would have gotten off fewer shots before he had to stop and reload.
|
|
| | | 373 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 20:33
|
She obliterates every one of those arguments. Read it. With comprehension.
|
|
| | | 374 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 20:51
|
Did. Twice. She doesn't mention the previous ban. You must have missed that. Far from "obliterating" that argument, she doesn't even mention it.
I suspect she simply doesn't know those magazines were banned for ten years. Or maybe because both President Clinton and President Bush supported their continued ban, she simply couldn't frame it as a "liberal" problem and so just left it out of the column.
Regardless, thinking that someone "obliterates" an argument they didn't even mention is wishful thinking, at best.
|
|
| | | 375 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:03
|
She addresses whether large magazines matter. They don't. If you are in a gun-free zone and you don't fear resistance you can reload at your leisure as proven numerous times.
|
|
| | | 376 | astade
ID: 78462922
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:03
|
I particularly liked this statement:
"Some stop only when their trigger fingers develop carpal tunnel syndrome."
I wish I could ask Ann to provide background to this claim, but it would be like asking Boldwin to back up his crazy comments...pointless
|
|
| | | 377 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:05
|
Magazine size is irrelevant. Effective resistance, armed resistance is the only factor that matters.
|
|
| | | 378 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:10
|
high-capacity mags put a predator like Loughner at a disadvantage because they are so long, unwieldy and difficult to conceal.
Yet, he did, in fact use one. For Loughner, it did matter. Facts keep slapping Coulter around like rude strangers on the street.
|
|
| | | 379 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:32
|
And they didn't use them in Columbine. It makes no difference when you have all day to shoot unopposed.
|
|
| | | 380 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:57
|
Well, I agree with Baldwin. She does obliterate this issue.
On the other hand, for a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver. After the homeowner obliterates the cat, dog, fish, two of the neighbor kids and the mailman, said homeowner will still have a couple bullets left for the next invasion.
What this country really needs is to put these weapons in the hands of poor marksmen.
|
|
| | | 381 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 22:02
|
It's a good thing some citizen was able to shoot Loughner in Tuscon, because there's clearly no other way to stop a reloading gunman.
Oh, wait, what?
Never mind.
|
|
| | | 382 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 07:49
|
re 377....I will agree B. Mag size IS irrelevant.
And with the size of the magazine being irrelevant, one then has no grounds to oppose making EVERY firearm out there, a single shot piece, requiring reloading after each pull of the trigger. Since it doesnt matter, there can be no logical counter argument.
|
|
| | | 383 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 08:56
|
Following that backwards logic and noticing that it makes no difference if the guns used are black, 'there can be no logical counterargument' for banning black guns.
There is also no logical reason to do so.
|
|
| | | 384 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 08:57
|
so now you would argue that magazine size does make a difference?
|
|
| | | 385 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 08:59
|
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
|
|
| | | 386 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 09:07
|
B, either it matters, or it doesnt. If it doesnt matter, then single shot weaponry poses no concern, in that shot capacity is irrelevant.
So which is it? Does shot capacity matter, or not?
|
|
| | | 387 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 11:32
|
Irrelevant to the RTBA or irrelevant to stopping mass murder?
|
|
| | | 388 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 11:38
|
If your answer is a) then let's not subject the 2'nd amendment to a death by a thousand cuts.
If your answer is b) then let's not do stupid irrelevant things just to be doing something, and let's not subject the RTBA to a death by a thousand cuts.
|
|
| | | 389 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 12:27
|
Are you in favor of any restrictions on my ability to carry nuclear-armed rocket grenades in public, or is that another of the thousand cuts?
|
|
| | | 390 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 14:26
|
You won't get anywhere. He'll throw up a cheap puff of smoke or two and have no part of that nugget of plainly obvious. See #259 and the following discussion.
|
|
| | | 391 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 14:36
|
all day to shoot unopposed
That certainly wasn't the case in AZ. If Loughner had a smaller magazine, almost definitely fewer people would have been hurt and possibly fewer people killed. The same is true of Colin Fergusen, who was also tackled while reloading. The liklihood of seeing fewer killed in some situations being established as reality, it is absolutely appropriate to discuss limiting the size of magazines (or whatever you call them) that are legally available to the public.
|
|
| | | 392 | Boldwin
ID: 57152218
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 15:00
|
We don't have to guess.
As Virginia Tech and Columbine abundantly prove, regular magazines don't limit the damage.
As the school shootings which ended quickly with little or no deaths, the only factors that matter are an armed opponent who stops them or their own inclination to commit suicide.
|
|
| | | 393 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 15:08
|
"As Virginia Tech and Columbine abundantly prove, regular magazines don't limit the damage."
Um, no, they don't -- since we've just seen other examples where yes they did. But how very Orwellian of you to keep repeating the untruth.
|
|
| | | 394 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 15:17
|
I find this argument a bit funny considering that the largest mass killing in America was done with a box cutter and not a gun.
|
|
| | | 395 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 16:40
|
Boldwin, at Columbine there were multiple shooters. So one stopping to reload could not easily be approached and disarmed.
At Virginia Tech he had multiple guns iirc.
Loughner was over so quick, that even the guy on the scene who was armed realistically (and rightfully so) made the decision not to draw and fire back.
However I think that a columbine or v-tech type situation illustrates where an ordinary citizen armed could have potentially fired back and saved lives.
That, however, is exaclty why I don't like that argument. Because its too situational and too open to abuse by anectodal evidence. In just the past few years, both sides of the argument have had situations arise to support their cause.
As for 389 and 390, I actually believe that type of argument is the 'puff of smoke' argument. You take a stance and have to resort to hyperbole of the most extreme kind to make it.
The issue at hand here is guns. Not nuclear powered grenades.
|
|
| | | 396 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 16:51
|
It's obviously fairly hyperbolic.
At the same time, if you truly believe in the Second Amendment, the answer really ought to be "of course I support your right to carry those things without restriction". Shouldn't it? If the response to asking for gun restrictions is "nope, the Second Amendment says you can't infringe my right to a 33-bullet magazine, or a submachine gun" then it's a reasonable response to find out if that's really the stance (which if so, it's at least logically consistent, if highly impractical) or if that's really being used as BS cover.
I'm reminded of the old joke where a man goes up to woman and says:
- "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
- "Sure!"
- "Would you sleep with me for twenty bucks?"
- "Of course not, what do you think I am, some kind of whore?"
- "We've already established that, now we're just haggling about the price."
There may be any number of reasonable arguments to be made for why certain restrictions are or are not productive, but if you (this is the royal 'you') are willing to consider some but not others, at least have the decency to not pretend it's because of some holy protection of the Second Amendment and not just a simple disagreement of procedures.
|
|
| | | 397 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 17:11
|
Actually Dwetz, I'm arguing against the obviously hyperbolic because I'd rather focus my energies on the real situation, which is how does the 2nd amendment apply to gun control.
To me, the constant reliance on hyperbolic examples appears to weaken your stance. It also dilutes the discussion and takes time/resources away from the matter at hand, which is gun control.
It seems the high court has taken the second amendment seriously. Many invidivual city bans on guns have been struck down (as they should). But restrictions, regristrations etc are still in force. Its almost as if they are interpretting it as, "you can own a gun. just not this type. and you must jump thru this hoop first" I have no problem with that.
|
|
| | | 398 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 17:30
|
Well, then we're back to "what's reasonable and what's not", and that's a whole different (and much more productive) discussion.
I have no problem with the line of argument "that's a stupid restriction, because it won't prevent crime/will lead to other problems/is a horrible inconvenience for the amount of lives saved", even if I disagree with them on the details. Where I have a big problem is being okay with a bunch of restrictions and then saying "ZOMG Second Amendment!!!!1!11!!" when we get to ones that we don't like. That's fundamentally logically inconsistent -- even if the courts are doing it in the name of practicality.
FWIW, I'm quite certain that the Second Amendment doesn't mention the word "gun" once. Even if you're not okay with my carrying a nuke-grenade on the basis that they hadn't contemplated those, surely you're in favor of my right to wield a broadsword in public.
|
|
| | |
| | | 400 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 19:48
|
Actually, as a former student and instructor of the martial arts I fully support being able to have a sword. :)
I have a few of my own. As long as you comply with local ordinances about concealed/open weapons (or peace knots) go for it.
|
|
| | | 401 | astade
ID: 78462922
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 20:55
|
RE 399.
I'm confused...was that a post to suggest that inflammatory language from audience members at a political rally might lead to Thomas being lynched? Where was a politician inciting these types of claims?
Earlier, I thought this thread was about how politicians should be wary of their rhetoric and how it affects their followers.
Or maybe this is a way to get off the current topic of managing fire arms in our country?
|
|
| | | 402 | astade
ID: 78462922
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 20:56
|
hook.line.sinker.
i fell for the bait. he got me good.
|
|
| | | 403 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 22:32
|
As Virginia Tech and Columbine abundantly prove
Abundantly prove?
Four examples were cited; those two and Tuscon and the LIRR. In one half of those cases magazine size didn't matter much. In the other they were crucial factors in the number of injured/killed. A 50% rate among cited cases is your standard for proof?
Here's your logic:
It did not snow in NYC on two of the past four Thursdays. Ergo; we can reliably dismiss any notion that there is any liklihood of snow on January Thursdays in NYC. So lets establish the finer points of our inalienable rights based on that reliability.
I guess this is the best defense you can come up with in lieu of of an intellectually honest and logical argument.
|
|
| | | 404 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 22:49
|
Khahan
As for 389 and 390, I actually believe that type of argument is the 'puff of smoke' argument. You take a stance and have to resort to hyperbole of the most extreme kind to make it.
No, it is not a hyperbolic argument!
The hyperbolic-sounding examples cited in #254 and #259 are necessary to pin down Boldwin as he does his best to elude the specifically non-hyperbolic point - that the 2nd Amendment clause, "shall not be infringed" cannot be taken as literally as 2nd Amendment idealogues such as himself tend to insist.
Once you are forced to acknowledge that your neighbor should not be allowed to have heavy military munitions pointed at your daughter's bedroom window (which, unfortunately, is the extreme you sometimes have to go in order to get someone to acknowledge that there must be some limitations) then you are faced with the reality that a discussion about where exactly to set those limitations is going to be necessary from time to time. There's nothing hyperbolic about that.
If you know of a better way to pin down idealogues who cover their eyes and ears on that point than to display the frank absurdity of refusing to accept it, please be my guest.
|
|
| | | 405 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 00:37
|
MITH, when talking about gun control, how is bringing up nuclear handgrenades NOT hyperbolic arguments? Sorry, no getting around this one.
|
|
| | | 406 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 02:19
|
Clearly you aren't paying attention. I just explained to you exactly why Boldwin's obtuseness makes the point relevent.
If you feel such an extreme example isn't necessary for you to understand that a discussion about reasonable and apropriate firearm restrictions is necessary then that's terrific for you. In that case I'd point out that neither I nor Dwetz addressed you or brought up those examples for your benefit.
Like I said, if you think you have a less "hyperbolic" way to break through Mr. see/hear-no-evil's anti-reason protective shield, by all means, have at it.
|
|
| | | 407 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 08:44
|
"If you feel such an extreme example isn't necessary for you to understand that a discussion about reasonable and apropriate firearm restrictions is necessary then that's terrific for you. In that case I'd point out that neither I nor Dwetz addressed you or brought up those examples for your benefit."
Amen.
|
|
| | | 408 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 08:55
|
This thread, like almost all others here recently, highlights the lack of good debate. I wish there was a good way to measure people's views, but I don't feel that Boldwin represents the majority of conservative republicans. He might represent the loudest portion of them though. News coverage goes to the loudest most outrageous statements. Moderate statements or attempts at debate are ignored to concentrate on the more outrageous. This goes in both directions and is leading to angrier and louder statements, but not actual debate, just people talking past each other.
By concentrating on the extremes we are driving off the majority in the middle and creating a system where we swing violently on issues, compared to the past where change was gradual incremental. The 24 hour news cycle and speed of communication are driving this more and more. The speed and access to news and viewpoints is a good, but the unintended consequence is to give more extremist fringe elements more exposure and make them seem more popular than they are.
|
|
| | | 409 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 09:49
|
Thats a well-taken post, Frick, but a problem we've had here for years now is an inability to draw mainstream and moderate-thinking conservatives. When the oveerwhelming majority of the arguments from the right originate from a highly fundamentalist/reactionary point of view, keeping the discussion to moderate terms often enough just isn't a possibility.
|
|
| | | 410 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 11:15
|
Moderation is not only losing in politics, but entertainment and even sports.
Charlie Sheen is the top paid TV actor. Kim Kardashian and Snooki are superstars. F%$##$ing Snooki!
The biggest story in sports in 2010 wasn't the fabulous golf played by Graeme McDowell, it was the horrible golf played by Tiger Woods.
It's a little sad as the father of two teenagers that I prefer my kids watch "Jackass" than "Jersey Shore."
|
|
| | | 411 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 11:24
|
PV, you think the Shore is bad. Try an episode of "Skins". Don't try it with your kids around. Heck, I'd probably make sure the wife wasn't around either.
|
|
| | | 412 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 11:54
|
As far as moderation I find Khahan to be a reasonable conservative.
For entertainment, one may look at Baldwin.
|
|
| | | 413 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 12:12
|
weykool is a reasonable conservative as well, I think. A little grumpy at times [:)], but certainly not a guy to toe the party line just to toe the party line.
The difference is that those guys consider themselves conservative rather than partisan.
|
|
| | | 414 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 12:58
|
Thanks bib. And Frick, that was a more eloquent (and probably meaningful way) of stating what I was trying to get at.
MITH, you may not have been directing it at me in particular, but you were directing it as evidence against the side I believe in. Therefore, in a public forum, its not inappropriate for me to respond. Boldwin's obtuness doesn't make the point any more relevant. His obtuness is just as irrelevant. Instead we have reasonable people falling into his trap and getting the discussion sidetracked into nuclear weapons.
|
|
| | | 415 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 13:25
|
"MITH, you may not have been directing it at me in particular, but you were directing it as evidence against the side I believe in."
Whoa, back up. If you don't think that it's okay to carry around nuclear grenades because that's what the second amendment says, then no, it wasn't directed against you or your position. It's really quite simple. If your answer to nuclear grenades (or whatever) is "no, that's just silly, I don't care what the second amendment says any more than you care about it for (insert something that gun control advocates like that you don't) here" then cool, we can debate the merits of the case.
A more limited question, along the same lines: is it okay to restrict the size of magazines for handguns at all? How about the firing rate? Ammunition type?
Should it be a problem to walk down the street with a Rambo-style band of bullets draped over both shoulders? To have armor-piercing bullets? To have a gun that shoots 50 rounds per second (with the appropriate clip, of course) for "personal protection"?
|
|
| | | 416 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:12
|
Dwetzel, the other questions in 415 are very reasonable because they have a basis in reality. I understand MITH's point that we are trying to define that line of what is reasonable.
But starting so far out that only a fringe group would disagree is a waste of time.
There is a line at the end of the Disney movie, "Mulan" along the lines of, "Though the wind may howl and scream, the mountain will never bow to it."
Let the wind howl and scream all it wants. Addressing the loudest howls will only make it strive to howl louder.
Maybe we should pick one of those questions and see where most of us stand on it:
How about limiting ammunition type.
I'd have to say Im in favor of some restrictions on ammo type. No armor-piercing. Leave that for cops/military only. There is really no practical purpose the ordinary citizenry can have to want these. Criminals are not running around with bullet-proof vests. There is no gained protection by having these (or advantage lost by not having them).
|
|
| | | 417 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:33
|
Okay, cool. We're in agreement. I'm not sure exactly where the line of demarcation between "need this for hunting and personal protection" and "do you really need THAT?" is, but I suspect the line ought to be drawn somewhere in there.
|
|
| | | 418 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:36
|
I don't think armor piercing should be in the hands of police, military only. I could be wrong, but what need does your local police department have for armor piercing rounds? I have no desire to find out personally, but I'm guessing that getting hit by a normal round wearing a bullet proof jacket is stilling going to hurt, a lot. Would it be enough to stop someone? I don't have a clue. But, do we really need rounds with more penetrating power being used in urban areas?
I don't have a problem with states and even cities placing restrictions on firearms, including banning them altogether. I don't care for the idea of the federal government trying to define what is and is not allowable on that granular of a level. Banning fully automatic rifles, I could agree with. Limiting more is better off in the hands of the local government. Peoples views and firearms are drastically different in parts of the country, why try to force a central rule on everyone?
|
|
| | | 419 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 15:17
|
"I don't think armor piercing should be in the hands of police, military only. I could be wrong, but what need does your local police department have for armor piercing rounds? I have no desire to find out personally, but I'm guessing that getting hit by a normal round wearing a bullet proof jacket is stilling going to hurt, a lot. Would it be enough to stop someone? I don't have a clue. But, do we really need rounds with more penetrating power being used in urban areas?"
Well, two separate issues at play here.
1. You ideally want police (or at least some subset of police -- I'm not saying every random schmuck walking a beat needs to be packing armor piercing bullets) to be able to stop armed and armored criminals -- or else you're basically opening up a giant can of worms for your average criminal with a net worth of a couple thousand dollars to make a situation a LOT more dangerous for police and others than it needs to be. (Of course, your average cops don't need these, as a general rule).
Obviously, your military needs to have these, because it's pretty well assumed that the other military is going to have something other than Izod shirts for body armor on their side.
2. At the same time, your average citizen with a handgun for home protection really has no use for these. (It's conceivable that they'll get into a firefight in their home with an armored criminal. It's not likely though.) And, obviously, there are very few deer or elk running around with Kevlar vests.
The only practical reason for these is to kill cops (and/or military).
|
|
| | | 421 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 16:51
|
Coming from basically anyone on this message board except you, this whole "omg you're taking it off topic" thing might have some weight. However, coming the king of ignoring thread topics and crapping wherever you want to, it means precisely nothing.
I'll admit that "you want to let people have nuclear rockets" is hyperbole 0.1 seconds after you admit that "those commie liberulz want to take away all our guns" is hyperbole. Until then, I plan to continue the sensible adult discussion with the sensible adults.
|
|
| | | 422 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 17:19
|
Also, the fact that this line of discussion keeps getting brought up by YOU, Boldwin (see: post 348, post 371), the fact that you're feigning annoyance that it's being discussed here is the height of hypocrisy.
In other words, stop trolling the thread with your off topic links from right wing scumbags, and REALLY stop doing it if you don't want people talking about them here.
|
|
| | | 426 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 07:12
|
I understand MITH's point that we are trying to define that line of what is reasonable.
But starting so far out that only a fringe group would disagree is a waste of time.
We'll have to agree to disagree, Khahan. In my opinion, establishing a starting point upon which we will unquestionably agree (such as that fully operational howitzer cannons don't belong in backyards, for example) is common ground to build a discussion on or an effective method to expose a thought-barricaded idealogue for what he is.
|
|
| | | 427 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 08:56
|
Going to repost this, because I find it to be central (in my minds eye at any rate) to the TRUTH behind the sentiment of "gun control". That being, controlling what you hit.
Where did all the bullets go?
A study of police gun discharges, shows that 70-80% f all shots fired...miss their intended targets. The initial flaw here, is that this counts shots fired at vehicles, dogs and even police suicides. After the author weeds through the data and eliminates those shots, we find a rather paltry hit rate of 11-13% of shots fired, hitting their intended target(s).
Thats from trained, theoretically skilled shooters, taught to contend with the stress of the situation.
Firearms, are hugely dangerous even in the right hands, if those 'right hands' have not been taught proper usage, technique, etc. And training is virtually worthless, unless reinforced and repeated.
Our FF, had no weapons with the capacity to fire off 6 rounds in a minute, let alone 10-15 in a matter of a few seconds. (semi-automatic 9mm with a 13 rd clip for ex) Now I would "assume", they foresaw advancements in weapons technology, though I doubt they could have envisioned some of the systems we have today. I find it incredulous, to think that they would not favor SOME limitations.
Look at the 19th century American west. Often vast parts of the population were routinely armed. And hassles were commonplace in the towns, until the town marshalls began disarming "visitors" until they left town.
I am opposed to a full repeal of the 2nd amendment, but strongly favor gun registration, required training both in proficiency and storage and a required licensing system which in turn mandates annualized verification of one proficiency to keep the license.
No hunter, no target shooter NEEDS a 10 rd clip. Simply not truthfully necessary. The best home defense weapon, is a short-barreled, dble barreled shotgun, loaded with #6 shot. Ample pellets to disburse and fill a hall, lacking in penetration to go thru the sheetrock and much beyond. Whether a .410 or a 12 gauge, there is something vastly intimidating about looking at the wrong end of a dble barreled shotgun.
Look at the Tuscon incident with the facts from the article above in mind. What would have happened HAD there been 100 people in that crowd, all armed? How many would have returned fire immediately or almost so? How many rounds would they have discharged? Using the middle ground for trained police and assuming a 12% hit rate, that leaves 88% of those theoretically fired rounds, to be randomly distributed to other than the intended target? How many MORE people would have died that day?
In home defense is the prerogative of the individual. Civil defense, is the prerogative of law enforcement.
I'd truly like to see/hear from the staunch proponents of the 2nd Amendment, how they would best see handling the simply truth that under the stress of return fire, most people would have a very difficult time hitting a man sized target, from 10-15' away.
|
|
| | | 428 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 09:39
|
this:
I am opposed to a full repeal of the 2nd amendment, but strongly favor gun registration, required training both in proficiency and storage and a required licensing system which in turn mandates annualized verification of one proficiency to keep the license.
and this:
No hunter, no target shooter NEEDS a 10 rd clip. Simply not truthfully necessary.
are how i believe this majority of Americans believe, if they were to have the actual facts broken down to them, instead of the NRA pablum that they preach. for all the time someone like Baldwin calls a pro-choice person a murderer, i can't help by laugh at the murders that have been allowed to happen because of the NRA and the gun nuts.
btw, heard this song the other day. thought it was appropriate.
|
|
| | | 430 | J-Bar
ID: 26156518
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 19:57
|
re 427 Seems that this is really no study and is an opinion of the author based on the statistical raw numbers provided by the police depts. What I feel the article does not mention (because it would not support his opinion) is that a high number of police shootings are in a semi-controlled environment that allows them to unload rather indiscriminately thus having a drastic effect on these numbers. A better set of numbers would be the percentage of innocents that are harmed or killed per 100 misses from a police officer's gun. This data would be more relevant to the gun control argument. But thanks for re-posting it.
|
|
| | | 431 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 20:24
|
actually no J-Bar, the data you suggest, would be meaningless. (As addressed by the author in the article.) Relatively few innocent bystander injuries result from police shootings, because they tend to happen in narrower confines and in hours without massive "civilian" presence. IOW, if the bad guy id shooting at the cops and there is a crowd in the bad guys vicinity, the tendency of LE is to not return fire.
Most ranges for police exchanges of gunfire, are under 21'. This is primarily due, to that being the size of a large room. (And not far from the distance of "across the street".)
As for your contention that the environment allows police to "unload indiscriminantly", this would run contrary to any shooting instruction I ever attended, gave or witnessed. "Double tap", is taught. Emptying a clip is a result of adrenaline fueled fear, not a deliberate conscious course of action.
|
|
| | | 432 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 20:31
|
is that a high number of police shootings are in a semi-controlled environment that allows them to unload rather indiscriminately thus having a drastic effect on these numbers.
Really? You think police are taught to "unload rather indiscriminately" when they think it is safe? Whence did you pull out the notion that a "high number" of police shootings are in a "semi-controlled" environment?
|
|
| | | 433 | J-Bar
ID: 501270
Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 01:03
|
Indiscriminately may have been a bad word but what I meant was that once the shooting starts it is not halted until the danger is no longer present. And by no means is that the same as random. SZ please read 431 and Sarge explains what I meant by semi-controlled. The police don't start shooting usually until the area is limited to bad guys. Sarge how is the number of times the police miss relevant if innocents are not in the area? If an intruder is in my home and i have identified the threat and the target, every bullet in the clip will be unloaded which based on your argument should be larger to ensure that I hit them. So I guess I should thank you again for the article.
|
|
| | | 434 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 02:53
|
How are the nr of misses relevant without innocents in the area??????
What kind, seriously, of inane nonsense is THAT question?
The police don't start shooting usually until the area is limited to bad guys.
True, and this is a TAUGHT reaction. The same teaching, training, discipline could not reasonably be expected pf those who have NOT been adequately taught. Hence, the absurdity of those who argue that wider concealed carry in public as a matter of practice, would cut down on the innocents killed by people like Loughner. (OK, maybe had 100 people in Tuscon been armed and present, LOUGHNER may have killed fewer, but that fails to address how many those MISSED SHOTS from the 100 armed and ill trained civilians would have killed.)
If LE, under proper training in marksmanship, can muster only an expected 11-13% hit rate WHEN UNDER THE PRESSURSE of being under fire.....one can reasonably assume an un/illtrained civilian would manage an even LOWER hit rate. Further, lacking the discipline of properly knowing when to shoot vs hold fire; the miss rate becomes dramatically MORE important.
Truly J-Bar, one need only apply a very small amount of intellectual capacity to this subject matter to see the truth. The rest, is all BS psuedo-patriotism.
|
|
| | | 435 | J-Bar
ID: 814087
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 09:37
|
Sarge, I am sorry if the intellectual capacity that I am using to express myself does not match the intellectual capacity that you are reading it with. But let me try and help.
1. You posted an article to show this high miss rate by police and that it somehow directly relates to why the common citizenry (licensed and trained) should not be allowed to carry.
2. I gave an explanation why the rate was high and why it was not relevant because when the targets are limited to bad guys the bullets fly a little more abundantly.
3. I never did state, in any of my posts, the argument that more licensed hand gun carriers WOULD prevent innocents from being killed in instances of a crazy person unloading their gun. I personally do not feel that there is a problem that needs to be corrected (haven't heard of large numbers of innocents being killed or hurt because Joe Cowboys were going to save the day and missed the bad guys only to leave the streets littered with innocents). But you want to make a 'reasonable assumption' that more innocents WOULD be saved (in crazed gunman fire fights) with no data to support your argument or taking into account the innocents that are saved by having an armed citizenry.
4. The great majority of licensed hand gun carriers have it for personal protection and are not looking to be a hero. Remember there was an armed citizen in Tuscon that was able to use his training and not shoot up a bunch of innocent bystanders.
5. Before we get into the whole 'J-Bar thinks I should be able to carry a suitcase nuke'. I agree that there are certain restrictions that make us all safer but to use tragedies or the actions of a crazy person to further restrict is disingenuous. The motives are either simply overreaction based on emotion or a blatant furthering of the agenda to ban all guns.
Again the conversation boils down to same thing, as most in a political forum do, the size and scope of the legislation.
|
|
| | | 436 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 12:30
|
"I agree that there are certain restrictions that make us all safer but to use tragedies or the actions of a crazy person to further restrict is disingenuous. The motives are either simply overreaction based on emotion or a blatant furthering of the agenda to ban all guns.
Again the conversation boils down to same thing, as most in a political forum do, the size and scope of the legislation. "
Those last two sentences are directly contradictory, you know. Or, more specifically, you're making the extremist assumption that anyone who wants more restrictions than we currently have now are part of "the agenda to ban all guns", while simultaneously ridiculing the extremist assumption that people who want less restrictions must be furthering the agenda to allow all sorts of arms with no restriction whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure the evidence points to that being a wrong assumption.
|
|
| | | 437 | walk
ID: 348442710
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 13:47
|
Don't forget also that if more folks are allowed to carry concealed weapons, then there are greater instances for those weapons to be used in domestic violence, accidents, attempted suicides, and in crimes (being stolen). The incidence of these mass attacks is very low. The incidence of gun-related domestic violence, stolen guns, and accidents is much higher and is obviously directly proportional to the # of guns in circulation. The answer here is not more guns. It's less guns until they become extinct. Keep your rifles and shotguns for home protection, but handguns really just do more harm (really bad harm) than good. Where is the logic in the cost/benefit argument to relaxing gun laws?
|
|
| | | 438 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 16:42
|
Don't forget also that if more folks are allowed to carry concealed weapons, then there are greater instances for those weapons to be used in domestic violence, accidents, attempted suicides, and in crimes (being stolen).
So now we're trying to steer the conversation towards concealed weapon laws? And then suddenly the justification against concealed weapons turns into, "ban handguns."
Sorry but I don't see a need to ban handguns. This may go back to the debate earlier about where to draw the line. For me, there is no reason to draw a line that excludes handguns. This falls squarely in the, "the criminals are criminals because they break laws, so making a law against something won't stop them," argument.
And really, all these 'facts' you are presenting are anything but facts, but rather strawman arguments.
The incidence of gun-related domestic violence, stolen guns, and accidents is much higher and is obviously directly proportional to the # of guns in circulation.
The sky is blue because its blue. Really, this is about as prime of an example as a strawman argument as I've ever seen.
The answer here is not more guns. It's less guns until they become extinct.
This last part is very telling of your stance. Unfortunately for your stance, we do have the Constitutional right to guns. The RTBA may not be a shield against, "restrict ammo" or "no nuclear grenades." But it is a shield against, 'lets make guns extinct.' This one is very simple.
So rather than fight one of our fundamental rights, why not try to meet a middle ground? Dropping us all down to 'rifles and shotguns' is not really an acceptable middle ground for many people.
Guess the question now is, "where do we draw the line?"
|
|
| | | 439 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 16:49
|
Don't forget also that if more folks are allowed to carry concealed weapons, then there are greater instances for those weapons to be used in domestic violence
how are you making this connection, how often have you ever heard of domestic violence cause by a concealed weapon?
|
|
| | | 440 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 17:06
|
I don't think I would volunteer to throw that nuclear grenade.
|
|
| | | 441 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 17:50
|
"The RTBA may not be a shield against, "restrict ammo" or "no nuclear grenades." But it is a shield against, 'lets make guns extinct.' This one is very simple. "
Where, exactly, does it shield against one thing and not the other? Citation needed. (Yes, I'm serious.) If you're going to assert that you can have one but not the other "because of the RTBA", then you're going to have to demonstrate that. We're right back to the point I tried to make earlier.
If you're instead talking about "what I think I legitimately need to protect myself", then I think there's a very reasonable case to be made for keeping handguns (and not just shotguns or whatever) in one's own home.
I'm a lot more reluctant about restricting what people can do in terms of guns in their home (or, by extension, in their vehicle I guess) than I am about restricting what people can do in public places. The reason for this should be fairly obvious: a momentary mis-exercising of your fundamental right can easily end my life. That's not true with any other rights, quite obviously, and it ought to imply a much greater responsibility for the person wanting to exercise their right. If you want to have handguns, shotguns, bazookas, whatever, ON YOUR PROPERTY, and they stay there so that you can defend yourself, fine. But the moment you step onto the public's property, I think that's a point where your rights need a serious re-examination.
|
|
| | | 442 | walk
ID: 517172117
Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 20:09
|
boikin/kahan. Please. Dmoestic violence caused by a concealed weapon. Is that the point you really think I was making? I know you do not think that, but to indulge, I will rephrase. If we have more guns, then there will be more gun-related injuries, period. So, if states continue to expand concealed weapons permits, and therefore provide greater opportunities for folks to have guns, there will logically be more gun-related harm. Guns sometimes go off, and sometimes hit people, and that usually results in harm. I don't think these are straw man arguments...this is just plain common sense.
The same argument can be made for cars. If there are more cars, there will be more accidents. However, cars have greater utility. Guns? They are toys, or tools for protection...against others who have guns. I say instead of increasing guns to make it a wash (which it isn't), get rid of them. I guess I just don't respect the right to have a handgun. The way our society has evolved, and the way handguns are used, and damage they cause, IMO, is not in the spirit of of the second amendment. You want to have a firearm, get a rifle or shotgun. There, there's my compromise.
Of course, I think it's okay to have an extreme point of view on this, because I know what I would prefer is unrealistic, not a majority view, and also pretty unspoken. I think there are far more outrageous views on other topics, so I will put forth this extreme view (I say that facetiously) to make sure that the full spectrum of the debate is covered. It seems to be a given that it makes total sense for many that handguns to be legal (because of the second amendment, I get it, I know; I also disagree with it for handguns), so to push the debate, I ask: "What harm would there be for such a dangerous and tragedy causing tool to be illegal?" Sure, folks would be bummed. I think they can live without handguns. I really think folks can. They can cope. Watch more action movies as a fix. Machete was great!
|
|
| | | 443 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 01:45
|
Dwetzel - our own discussion here has us in agreement in that the RTBA does not mean there are no limits or restrictions. But you really need a citation for the rest of it? According to the Kessler (kessler vs the state of Oregon), the RTBA means we have the right to any, "hand-carried weapon commonly used by individuals for personal defense"
More recently and on a national level you have the SCOTUS ruling in D.C. vs Heller which affirmed that the right to handguns is a constitutional protection. From that ruling, "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."
This particular case was over a handgun kept at the home of a private citizen who was a security guard. 1 law in DC prevented you from keeping an unregistered handgun. Another law prevented you from registering handguns. This in effect made it illegal to own a handgun. SCOTUS shot it down.
Here is a quote from Justice Alito's opinion on the case, "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." This applied on federal grounds only.
2 years later we had McDonald vs Chicago which again centered around a cities restriction of handguns. Chicago got slapped down in that decision by SCOTUS noting again that due to the protections of the Constitution, citizens have the right to bear arms which is extended to handguns.
More citations?
Handguns are here and useful for personal protection. They serve a good and valid purpose in self defense and SCOTUS has upheld that.
The line is drawn already. And it includes handguns as acceptable.
|
|
| | | 444 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 01:52
|
And wetzel, I recognize you are discussing handguns in the home and concealed weapons (which leads to a whole other debate at some point). But walk is presenting himself as, "eliminate handguns. Period. End of story."
|
|
| | | 445 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 10:17
|
You've made half the case quite eloquently. Now demonstrate that the same clause doesn't hold for more violent weaponry, and you win*!
And, FWIW, I think walk's point of view is that "the world would be a better and safer place without guns in private circulation, and I don't give a damn what the second amendment says". On at least the first half of this, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Saying "but the second amendment says we can" doesn't really refute anything, because he's acknowledged he doesn't care. Now, if you can say, "no, we'd actually be safer because..." you might get somewhere.
* - Sorry, it's an internet debate. You don't actually win anything.
|
|
| | | 446 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 11:36
|
"doesn't really refute anything," well it may not directly refute anything. But in a conversation about gun control and banning handguns, it does highlight that the discussion is moot.
* - Sorry, it's an internet debate. You don't actually win anything.
Come on, when I win you can't even mail me a klondike bar? hah
|
|
| | | 447 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 11:45
|
No Klondike bar. Had you asked for a York peppermint patty, I might have obliged.
The only food I have is the rest of this York peppermint patty, which, unfortunately, keeps bringing me back to the top of the mountain.
Anyway, it seems a relevant and not-moot question to say "if the second amendment didn't exist, what would be the right stance for a society to take"? If the answer is "something far different than we have now", then it would seem that the second amendment is a problem, not a solution.
|
|
| | | 448 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:04
|
Depends on the society.
|
|
| | | 449 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:20
|
DWetzel, thank you. Exactly. Some rules are wrong, or become out-dated, and IMO, the laws that allow handguns are one such rule that is outdated and does not serve the greater good. I am not blindly wed to rules, and given this is a debate forum, I think it's an interesting question to ask: "Are handguns good for society, now?" That is essentially the point I am making.
So, Khahan, sside from the second amendment saying it's okay, what is your view? I realize it is not a feasible to eliminate handguns, and I realize that the inertia is in the opposite direction, but I feel that if the full spectrum of points can be made, it opens up the debate to a more philosophical level, than merely a rule-based level.
As a psychologist, I think Kohlberg's theory of moral development comes into play here.
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
|
|
| | | 450 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:25
|
It's more than a "rule" in this case, walk.
I understand the intellectual debate you want to have, but is simply isn't fair to portray this as some sort of quaint understanding from bygone days--like a crazy law that doesn't let you walk a goat on Sundays.
|
|
| | | 451 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:40
|
PD, it's against my religion, or lack thereof, to disagree with you, because you make good points. So, there! Okay, a little. I mean change the law; change the constitution, etc...but I realize my thinking here is in the wee minority.
I see what you are saying...My view is that there are political pressures that don't even allow such debate to occur in Congress, that gun control is not even on the table, and gun control is not supported by any of my political voices. The solutions to gun violence are seemingly more guns or expansion of carry/conceal permits, and this seems backwards to me.
I guess it's a moot point given how baked things are around guns in our country...so, then, the ball is my court. Stay or move. I get it. Okay, time to leave this alone.
|
|
| | | 452 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:47
|
"but is simply isn't fair to portray this as some sort of quaint understanding from bygone days--like a crazy law that doesn't let you walk a goat on Sundays."
I don't think he's doing that... and at any rate, why isn't it fair?
What was the firing capacity of a top-of-the-line gun when the amendment was drafted? Maybe one round per thirty seconds? (I'm guessing here -- I'm no encyclopedia on musket loading time.) As opposed to now, when we're up to a number of rounds per second? If there was a Jared Loughner equivalent in the late 1700s, he'd shoot someone, then get tackled by twenty or thirty people while funneling his black powder down a five foot long barrel and attempting to light some archaic fuse to get a second shot off. (Of course, Giffords would be dead, because the leeches wouldn't work all that well for treating a brain injury.)
|
|
| | | 453 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:53
|
That's right, PD! I wasn't doing that! Well, I hope not. Okay, I reverse my position... on leaving this alone.
I am not claiming out second amendment should be wiped off the books and considered neanderthal, but do think that handguns really don't fit the spirit of the second amendment, and that like an experiment gone horribly wrong, the explosion (pun) of handguns, resulting from liberal (pun) laws based on the second amendment, has caused great harm. Much more harm than good. I'd like to think that some day, reason and common sense would say: "Jeez, is this really worth it? Maybe we should ban handguns?"
|
|
| | | 454 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 12:58
|
The law doesn't become invalidated simply because weaponry has gotten better.
That isn't to say that training, age, etc should all be pre-requisites to owning and using guns (I've said as much myself). But overturning a clear Constitutional right needs a lot more than that.
But even Constitutional rights are not absolute, so the idea that we have a right to bear arms doesn't mean we all get every form of weaponry imaginable. Just like the fact that we probably have a right to a car doesn't mean small children will be driving them around now.
|
|
| | | 455 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:05
|
"The law doesn't become invalidated simply because weaponry has gotten better."
The "you can't walk a goat around in New York on Sundays" law doesn't become invalidated just because people have cars now.
"Just like the fact that we probably have a right to a car doesn't mean small children will be driving them around now."
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
If we're already agreeing that certain weaponry is off limits despite what the second amendment says, why is it automatically a stupid position to even discuss the possibility that handguns belong in that category as well? What's the specific beef with those other weapons that doesn't apply to handguns?
|
|
| | | 456 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:07
|
I'm not agreeing that certain weaponry is off limits. I'm saying that weaponry of all sorts should require training before acquisition and use. And some of that training is quite restricted.
|
|
| | | 457 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:14
|
Walk, that is the whole point though. SCOTUS has already deemed handguns to be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. The issue has already been brought up and debated on the local, state and national level. The end result - protected.
You want my view on handguns - Luckily, I happen to agree with SCOTUS. I view handguns as a reliable and reasonable means of self-defense.
I also view the proliferation of guns (any guns) for illicit use as a separate issue that needs a more refined answer than, 'ban all guns.' What is that answer? I don't know. I have ideas but most of them are unrealistic.
A good start though is registration of all guns and gun ownership. Looking at restrictions on ammo type, firing rate etc. But again, this is bringing us back to the debate Dwetzel and I have been participating in which is, "what is a reasonable amount of control." My response above, "Cause SCOTUS said so," was merely reflecting that in that debate of 'what is reasonable' we are past that topic.
|
|
| | | 458 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:14
|
So, it's OK to say "you can have a handgun once you've passed this 23,000 hour course and demonstrated capacity to take out 10 out of 10 targets at 100 yards"? After all, you're just restricting the training. Otherwise...
"But even Constitutional rights are not absolute, so the idea that we have a right to bear arms doesn't mean we all get every form of weaponry imaginable."
seems to contradict
"I'm not agreeing that certain weaponry is off limits. I'm saying that weaponry of all sorts should require training before acquisition and use. And some of that training is quite restricted. "
pretty directly -- or you've said something you didn't mean to say.
|
|
| | | 459 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:52
|
Seems pretty consistent to me. Unless you are taking "off limits" to mean "banned for everyone at all times everywhere." Which is clearly not what I said or meant.
|
|
| | | 460 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 14:30
|
Khahan, we are very close. I am intentionally taking a scorched earth approach to the debate cos it's provoking good discussion, and well, it's also what "I wish." My wish is very unrealistic, and I also don't want tyranny ever to rule so that the individual can be thrown out of their homes by some redcoats (the intent of the second amendment). While SCOTUS has ruled that handguns are in the spirit, I'd also disagree with them, too. I think there are poli forces on guns that are far-reaching and preclude thoughtful discussion at such levels. We are past this topic based on SCOTUS. I am merely sorta saying, in a radical thinking kinda way, that if we did get rid of handguns, would we be better off? Would the risks to tyranny be a greater threat? Would fewer innocents be harmed as a result? Etc. No answers are necessary here...Just sorta presenting an alternate universe and point of view.
|
|
| | | 461 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 14:44
|
Re: 459 -- you had better elaborate then. To what level is "restricted training" available, and for which weapons is it not available at all? Are there certain weapons for which no amount of training makes them acceptable to be covered under the second amendment?
(Yes, I'm going to 'nuclear grenades' or whatever you would prefer. There's a point here.) Is there a no of training at which it would be acceptable for a civilian to maintain exceptionally violent weaponry for their own protection?
(If the original intent of the second amendment was for people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, then it would stand to logical reason that they ought to maintain weaponry sufficient to defend themselves against that government, doesn't it?)
|
|
| | | 462 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 14:56
|
If the original intent of the second amendment was for people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government
This is one interpretation. Not mine, but is seems to be a popular one on the Right.
The Founding Fathers would be absolutely flabbergasted at the idea of a standing army (let along the Right's current deification of the military). As far as they were concerned, a standing army could only be used to restrict citizen liberty.
The second amendment was made, in part, to protect government from other governments (after all, this was a government set up specifically to be "by the people").
|
|
| | | 463 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 15:30
|
Okay, so we have a million handguns protecting us from being invated by other governments...? That's the differentiator or the last line of defense?
|
|
| | | 464 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 15:44
|
well, now we do. Back then we had no standing army, a new country just emerging from a revolutionary war, and a vast amount of natural resources larger than all of Europe.
I can't say that their fears were without some validity. Despite our treaty with France.
:)
|
|
| | | 465 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 15:53
|
Funny. We needed that second amendment then. Now, things have changed a lot, and while I don't think we should can it, I do think the second amendment should not be the basis for having millions of lethal, small, powerful weapons like handguns easily available throughout society. They won't protect us from tyranny, or some international threat, or aliens, but they will and do cause a lot of intranational harm. It's seems almost paradoxical (we are killing ourselves in the guise of some fantastical notion of self-defense?). I am getting out there, but am making some sense...just a little, I know it!
|
|
| | | 466 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 16:06
|
Nuclear-tipped RPGs would be a lot more of a deterrent against invading armies. Just sayin'. :)
|
|
| | | 467 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 17:05
|
easily available throughout society
I have no problem with making them a little less 'easily' available. Criminals and people with a past of mental illness should be restricted.
Registration, training, hold periods. All these make it less easy to get a handgun and are, in my mind, perfectly reasonable safe guards.
|
|
| | |
| | | 469 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 02:42
|
just to stir the pot...
from 457: Walk, that is the whole point though. SCOTUS has already deemed handguns to be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. The issue has already been brought up and debated on the local, state and national level. The end result - protected.
So its already been decided by SCOTUS and that is impetus enough to leave it alone? Well, then I can expect that the anti-abortion rights movement will immediately cease and desist, dry up and blow away with the breeze, and allow American women their right of choice with no further mention of the topic...ever. Right?
|
|
| | | 470 | Boldwin
ID: 38112911
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 02:59
|
I thot you got religion, Sarge? Killing babies makes grown up Jesus angry.
|
|
| | | 471 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 08:03
|
being pro-choice does not eliminate one from being religious and excepting Jesus into your life.
i mean, I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be keen on the modern death penalty, accepting criminals and liars as heroes and people to look up to, and a general aura of bigotry, but that doesn't stop people from proclaiming themselves as religious.
|
|
| | | 477 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 18:51
|
So you don't respect the lies, slander and tone of #471 either, eh?
there were no names mentioned, nor were there even references such as "like people on this board."
if your guilty conscience makes you think i was referring to you, well, that's on you pal.
i'll stand by that statement. being pro-choice doesn't eliminate one from accepting Jesus Christ as your lord.
some of the most religious people i know - people who go to church several times a week, people who are sunday school teachers, people who are choir directors - are pro-choice.
and for many people, accepting the death penalty, holding liars and criminals up as heroes, and having bigoted beliefs, does not exclude them from accepting Jesus Christ as their lord.
that, too, is their prerogative.
|
|
| | | 478 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 21:25
|
B...I was addressing, Khahans notion that "it's an already decided point of law, so there is no point in continuing to discuss that aspect" contention. (Or at least, that is how I understood his position from his posts) I thought I had made my intent clear, with the ending of my post #469.
To answer your question: Yes, I have accepted Christ and admitted the error of my previous contentions. That however, does not preclude my using my own intellect, to recognize the truth of what Sinclair Lewis said: "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." A statement he made in 1935, and the likes of the radical Christian Right, Sarah Palin, legalists like yourself...are all proving him to be 100% correct in his position.
And FTR, Christ was not a legalist. Love and compassion were his tools, not threats and coercion.
|
|
| | | 479 | Boldwin
ID: 171501015
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 22:13
|
Sarge
While I agree that loyalty to God's principles has superceded legalistic modalities to serving God properly, love and compassion, God's law and God's principles preclude killing babies no matter how you slice it.
|
|
| | | 480 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 22:18
|
it isnt a baby; until its been born.
|
|
| | | 481 | Boldwin
ID: 171501015
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:23
|
Bart Simpson couldn't squeak that rationalization past Solomon for a nanosecond, let alone you zoom that past God.
|
|
| | | 482 | walk
ID: 517172117
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 08:34
|
what god?
|
|
| | | 483 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 10:55
|
come on. did you not read the first two words? he's clearly talking about fictional cartoon characters here.
|
|
| | | 484 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 13:10
|
B, a caterpillar isn't a butterfly until it emerges from the cocoon. Neither is a fetus a baby, until it too emerges.
|
|
| | | 485 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 14:05
|
But it is still alive.
You might believe it not be be a thing vested with human rights until birth (which would put you into a minority even among pro-choicers--the majority of whom believe a fetus becomes human upon viability). But the difference between gun rights (which are quite specific in the Constitution) and abortion rights (which have been elicited based upon some of principles upon which the Constitution is based) is an important one.
It is also important from the perspective of reasonable restrictions: We (you and I) would limit access to guns until certain training, age, registration, etc has been complete. In other words, we recognize that the right to guns is not unlimited and we feel that way despite the desires of some (walk, for instance) to do away with them all.
For abortion rights, there is virtually no movement to allow unrestricted abortions up until birth. Despite the efforts of some to eliminate this right, most of the talk is about the balance of rights via commonsense restrictions. This despite the fact that some of those restrictions are proposed by those who would eliminate abortion entirely if they could.
|
|
| | | 486 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817
Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 19:00
|
again, my pt in bringing it up wasnt to start a debate on this particular topic; so much as to challenge Khahans, contention of "point of law decided so drop it" response to walk.
The right isnt about to drop the right of choice debate, just because its a "point of law already decided", so I think it weak of them to use that as an argument against gun restrictions.
|
|
| | | 488 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 08:38
|
Good points, sarge33rd. There are many layers to both arguments. There's a religious, philosophical, privacy, legal, personal, and other views. Certainly, the abortion debate has not been stopped by point of law, and I find it a little inconsistent that we sorta cannot have the gun debate due to point of law. Many folks are also anti-abortion yet pro gun. Just throwing that one out there.
|
|
| | | 489 | J-Bar
ID: 1151422
Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 23:05
|
re 484 So why is it that if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with 2 counts of murder. Pick and choose when it suits the need is what I see in the law.
|
|
| | | 490 | walk
ID: 348442710
Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 09:26
|
NYT, Dallas Green and Tuscon Shootings
Pretty relevant given this is a poli board within a fantasy sports site. Money quote:
“I don’t have a Glock or whatever it is, and I don’t have a magazine with 33 bullets in it,” Green said. “That doesn’t make sense for me to be able to sell those kinds of things. I guess I never thought about it until this happened. What reason is there to have those kinds of guns other than to kill people? I just don’t understand that.”
|
|
| | |
| | | 492 | Boldwin
ID: 58119236
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 09:48
|
"Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members."
|
|
| | | 493 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 10:00
|
Re: 491 - I hope they have some power to strip him of benefits rather than letting him escape to retirement.
|
|
| | | 494 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 10:05
|
Is 492 a grievance? I thought you were pro-hypocrisy.
|
|
| | | 495 | Boldwin
ID: 41102817
Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 18:01
|
A week after being caught in a police sting at the Heavenly Touch Massage Parlor...
I guess it was all the stress
...Wisconsin Democratic assemblyman Bill Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: "You are F***king dead!" after the the Budget Repair vote.
And then went on to lecture the right on their incivility proclivity...no wait, he tasked you with that.
|
|
| | | 496 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 18:43
|
you want someone here to defend that tone and language? i don't think you're going to find it.
on this board, those on the left tend to abhor that sort of behavior. those on the right, tend to embrace it - especially if it actually involves stripping someone naked and killing them.
|
|
| | | 497 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 19:13
|
As fictional serial Garland Greene might say: "Define irony -- someone calling out others for hypocrisy by mentioning bad language that they defended as a non-issue a few weeks ago."
|
|
| | | 498 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Mar 01, 2011, 08:31
|
Tree, I don't think you'll find many on either side of the issue who support that kind of language. Either the foul language from a congressman during a session or a direct threat. Trying to paint that as a one-sided issue is rather disingenuous.
|
|
| | | 499 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Tue, Mar 01, 2011, 10:59
|
Tree, I don't think you'll find many on either side of the issue who support that kind of language. Either the foul language from a congressman during a session or a direct threat. Trying to paint that as a one-sided issue is rather disingenuous.
um, yea. that was pretty much the point of 496 and 497 in responding to 495's direct attack on board members here - no wait, he tasked you with that.
|
|
| | | 500 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Tue, Mar 01, 2011, 13:25
|
Tree, I think that Khahan may have believed you meant everyone on the right when you said
those on the right, tend to embrace it referring to that sort of behavior.
|
|
| | | 501 | Boldwin
ID: 21227318
Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 19:35
|
And yet America survived it...
|
|
| | | 502 | Mith
ID: 1325133
Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 23:46
|
And yet America survived it...
Sure, at a time when only white land-owning men had the vote and social media was limited to printed news with spotty distribution outside the cities and could only be read by the literate.
Hardly an analogous model for comparison.
|
|
| | | 503 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 00:14
|
at least he's no longer dwelling on the 1960s...
|
|
| | | 504 | Boldwin
ID: 55249323
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:04
|
Even liberals haven't used the 'children writhing on a pike' line lately.
|
|
| | | 525 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 09:24
|
Maybe liberals were planning a violent reaction to the 2010 election all along and they were just building a violence ratchet. They've got the media looking the other way while they go on the rampage. “The Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation and the Wisconsin Capitol Police have investigated numerous threats against elected officials over the last four weeks,” Wisconsin’s DOJ stated."We feel that you and your republican dictators have to die. This is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn’t enough..." “It’s not safe, I think, to be walking on the street and be a Republican in Madison right now. The hatred on the Left is just out of control,” GOP state senator Glenn Grothman told CNN on March 10. “I have never seen a lobbying group more angry,” Someone slipped a note under his office door. In red letters, it said: “THE ONLY GOOD Republican is a DEAD Republican.”
In the Battle of Madison, and perhaps beyond, death threats appear to be a virtually exclusive tool of the pro-union Left.
That suggests two possibilities:
Pro-taxpayer rightists would love to issue death threats, but resist temptation, knowing full well that the slumbering mainstream media would arise, showcase such a development, and discredit conservatives.
Or, maybe, free-marketeers have not issued death threats, because — compared to their left-wing counterparts — they simply are better people.
|
|
| | | 526 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 09:32
|
Maybe boikin is right: This is a lot like the health care "town halls"
|
|
| | | 527 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 09:45
|
Yeah, union thugs show up there too.
|
|
| | | 528 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 10:23
|
Thugs of any sort are wrong. So stop thinking you haven't been stoking up your side and trying to clothe it in the sheer robes of righteousness.
Tea Party has celebrated confrontation from its birth.
|
|
| | | 529 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 10:51
|
Maybe liberals were planning a violent reaction to the 2010 election all along
This is just spouting nonsense. It seems the new Tea Party meme is that we can only believe, with complete sincerity, that the worst threats of the worst Democratic protesters are sincere and do-able. But we cannot, even a little, believe the reasons those people say they are protesting.
And it shouldn't need to be said, but we believe the opposite when the protesters are on the Right.
|
|
| | | 530 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 11:23
|
"If they bring a knife, we bring a gun" - Non-Tea Party spouter of nonsense
But I thot he said it with sincerity.
|
|
| | | 531 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 11:27
|
And judging by the live ammo found at the capitol grounds in Madison it would seem AFSCME thot he was sincere as well.
|
|
| | | 532 | Tree
ID: 24115767
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 11:28
|
it is impossible to come armed with common sense in a discussion involving Baldwin. to him, the most radical of radical elements are the norm, and the out of context phrases and lies, are acceptable.
he doesn't even realize that he's most likely the most radical poster on this board.
|
|
| | | 533 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 11:36
|
By far.
|
|
| | | 534 | Mith
ID: 22141616
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 11:37
|
it is impossible to come armed with common sense in a discussion...
must... resist...
|
|
| | | 535 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 16:52
|
“Sending somebody a death threat is dumb to begin with, but doing so via a Twitter account with your name and location on it? That takes a special brand of stupid.”
|
|
| | | 536 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 16:57
|
As a Tea Party apologist, you don't want to go down that path.
|
|
| | | 537 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 17:04
|
Just have to post more of that one:And it doesn’t stop there. John Nolte at Big Government has put together a compilation of the last three weeks of left-wing threats and bullying in Wisconsin. It’s getting so bad that honest liberals (no, it’s not an oxymoron) like Lee Stranahan are fed up with the media ignoring these threats. “Don’t retreat, reload” is considered violent rhetoric if a conservative says it, but “I’m going to kill you” isn’t considered violent rhetoric if a liberal says it. I keep trying not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but are all these big-brained reporters really that inept?
By the way, if you want to bug me about this supposed “debunking” of O’Keefe’s video that I’m supposed to care about, read this, this, this, and this. And then, if you still want to whine about how a “discredited” guy like James O’Keefe keeps making fools of you, go bug NPR. If you can convince them it’s all just a lie, maybe those poor NPR execs will get their jobs back.
|
|
| | | 538 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 19:06
|
Just came across this cool quote:
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." --
Rep. Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)
|
|
| | | 539 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 20:05
|
Americore?
|
|
| | | 540 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 20:42
|
Phantom?
|
|
| | | 541 | Boldwin
ID: 5533360
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 05:03
|
These are the guys who lectured us about watching our language and who want to blame a limbaugh or a Palin for ever violent act.
|
|
| | | 542 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 08:27
|
So don't watch your language, then.
Oh wait--you don't anyway.
So you're the one who lectures us over people who lecture you over something you refuse to do. OK, then.
|
|
| | | 543 | Boldwin
ID: 5533360
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 10:43
|
So shut up about it since dems were never sincere about it in the first place.
|
|
| | | 544 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 10:53
|
Right--I'm calling for violence myself (as a Dem, I'm responsible for the words of all Democrats), so I should "shut up" about telling others not to spew violent words themselves.
This is not a position you want to put yourself into.
|
|
| | | 545 | Boldwin
ID: 25341618
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 22:14
|
Unilateral disarmament? I agree, that would not be advantageous. Exactly why liberals are always trying to sell it.
|
|
| | | 546 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 22:17
|
Yes--we wouldn't want you to be guided by your own ethics, would we? Everything must be done exactly as you believe those that are incredibly wrong do.
|
|
| | | 547 | Boldwin
ID: 25341618
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 22:38
|
I get the Alinski tactic, PD.
If your side doesn't have any ethics, they have no business harping on the subject.
|
|
| | | 548 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 23:13
|
If my "side" has no ethics, you shouldn't be using "us" as your baseline for ethical behavior.
Find your own. Or stop claiming that there is any ethical consideration behind political decisions by your "side."
|
|
| | | 549 | Boldwin
ID: 4030710
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:22
|
Considering anti-hypocrasy is the only moral principle your side embraces I am for sure going to point yours out.
|
|
| | | 550 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:28
|
Of course you are. You consistently believe the worst things about the "side" you don't believe yourself to be on, and point out your fears publicly. We get it. "Democrats = "evil" and "Republicans = "people of good faith."
It just is so beneath you. Stop crawling down there. I know the mud is warm and cozy but it is mud. And your soul is getting stained from it.
|
|
| | | 551 | Boldwin
ID: 4030710
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:40
|
No part of the world and yet we aren't told to withdraw from humanity. So I'll hang out with you liberals every now and then. Muddy as it may be down here.
|
|
| | | 552 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 12:05
|
So I'll hang out with you liberals every now and then. Muddy as it may be down here.
Hubris. another of the deadly sins that you wear as badge of honor, "Christian".
interestingly, it's the one you wear the proudest, and not shockingly, the one considered to be the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins.
|
|
| | | 553 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 14:00
|
No part of the world and yet we aren't told to withdraw from humanity.
Who is this "we" you refer to, and what does it mean "no part of the world"?
|
|
| | | 554 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 00:23
|
Liberal forums, oh my!Let's just say, it was possible for me and perhaps a few band of like minded mercenaries, to kill off all the major conservative AM radio and Fox News personalities at one time. I'm thinking, these people would be eliminated:
(1) Rush Limbaugh
(2) Sean Hannity
(3) Neal Boortz
(4) Michael Savage
(5) Bill O'Reilly
(6) Glen Beck
(7) Matt Drudge
Those seven men are basically the conservative movement as a whole. Not to say they are working together and are friendly with one another or they are in some right-wing cabal of any kind, but they are the defacto leaders of the right-thinking conservative populace in the United States. They provide the info, paranoia, fear, and theories that the average people who consider themselves conservative, libertarian, or GOP listen to or read on a daily basis.
Some of you, perhaps all, are going to say either
(a) this is immoral and cannot be tolerated or supported in any way and is too scary to think of actually happening ....or....
(b) this would not solve anything because they would be replaced within a week
Personally, I believe in neither (a) or (b). I believe killing these seven men would better American society and the world far more than any other action or plan available to us now. So glad the liberals would condescend to teach us their civil communication.
|
|
| | | 555 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 00:48
|
Dig enough, and you can always find a crazy person on the other side. Even a stupid and crazy post a couple of years old.
But the crazy part of your post isn't that it exists. It is that you think it in any way reflects mainstream "liberal" thinking.
You are still tilting at windmills. Even if the Internet lets you find those rare windmills a lot easier.
|
|
| | | 556 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:09
|
Once again attributing the fringe agenda of the stupidest or most radical to the whole of the movement.
By your own standards conservatives seek to achieve exactly the same thing with liberal media and you're all racists to boot.
What a waste of time.
|
|
| | | 557 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:30
|
By your own standards conservatives seek to achieve exactly the same thing with liberal media and you're all racists to boot.
Not limited to bloggers, but
GOP Party leaders.
SANTA ANA — A tea party activist and elected member of the Orange County Republican central committee said she will not heed calls to resign because she emailed a picture of President Barack Obama's face on the body of a chimpanzee.
Related Content•Arizona House OKs bill to make presidential hopefuls prove citizenship
Marilyn Davenport of Fullerton recently emailed a picture of Obama's face superimposed over a baby chimp's face with the caption, "Now you know why — No birth certificate!"
This was her reponse when the email became public.
"You're not going to make a big deal about this, are you? Oh, come on! Everybody who knows me knows I am not a racist. "It was a joke. I have friends who are black.''
Probably not anymore.
|
|
| | | 558 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:40
|
Yeah, I read that story last night. Shock and awe..."I have friends who are black." Too much. Right, PV, not anymore.
|
|
| | | 559 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:47
|
While it was in poor taste and for a person in her position shows a bit of a lack of poor judgement to send it on, the only reason people are making a big deal about this is because of her position.
Its poor taste, off-color and no different than any of the other hundreds or thousands of photoshopped pictures out of there of public figures.
If you or I had sent this, not a single person in the media would have given it a half-second of thought. Its only because of her position and the potential for gain that anybody is making a big deal out of this picture.
Local newspapers, in their op-ed section often run satirical comics with pictures of Obama with floppy ears and over-sized lips. The same news outlets that runs those comics are the ones bashing this lady.
Yes, I'm defending her right to have sent the email. Yes, I'm knocking the hypocrites who are calling her out because most of them do similar stuff. No,I'm not saying she should have sent it. She probably should feel a bit of a pushback for sending it because of her position. But calls for her resignation? People need to calm down.
|
|
| | | 560 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:56
|
Khahan,
The point is that Davenport's email is no more representative of conservatives than the blogger suggesting the death of 7 pundits is representative of liberals, except to uber-partisans.
And you're right, political cartoonists often display bad taste bordering on racism with impunity.
|
|
| | | 561 | Razor
ID: 172252412
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 09:58
|
Why are calls for her resignation out of line? Being a leader requires having the trust of your constituency. If she has lost that trust, than all by means, call for her ouster.
Also, there's a clear difference between receiving an email and forwarding it on. Someone in a position of authority should have the judgment to know better. She's at the very least stupid and possibly also racist. If you find yourself condoning the distribution of racist propaganda, then perhaps you should be looking at your own actions too.
|
|
| | | 562 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:07
|
Local newspapers, in their op-ed section often run satirical comics with pictures of Obama with floppy ears and over-sized lips.
It's too bad that you aren't able to tell the difference between a traditional feature-exaggerating caricature and an explicit simian racist comparison but you're quite mistaken in thinking mainstream media does "similar stuff".
|
|
| | | 563 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:10
|
PV
And you're right, political cartoonists often display bad taste bordering on racism with impunity.
I'd love to see some examples of this. Cartoons exagerate human features. I've never seen anyone get bent over Obama depictions in political cartoons seen in right-leaning publications.
|
|
| | | 564 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:24
|
the only reason people are making a big deal about this is because of her position
Exactly. Which is why she should resign. The head of a local party shouldn't be holding that position and emailing racist cartoons as a joke.
She certainly has the right to be an idiot. She doesn't have the right to represent a political party and have some kind of immunity from the affects of being an idiot.
|
|
| | | 565 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:40
|
I'm reminded of cariactures of President Bush(even a deragatory nickname) as a chimp. Should we be more sensitive making cariactures of black people as apes than white people? Why? Both are insulting and demeaning.
But we're not talking political cartoonists. We're talking about a local political leader.
|
|
| | | 566 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:52
|
I'm reminded that liberals are stuck in the sixties.
|
|
| | | 567 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:59
|
Even if that were true (which, lol) ... at least, unlike at least one member of the Orange County Republican central committee, it's the 1960s and not the 1860s.
|
|
| | | 568 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:00
|
Should we be more sensitive making cariactures of black people as apes than white people?
I'm surprised you have to ask that question. I don't know of any historical context in which white people were broadly classified, both socially and legally, as semi-humans in America.
|
|
| | | 569 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:06
|
#559, I agree with PD's #564. It's a question of position, influence, and judgment. When one holds a job that affects the lives of others, such behavior is relevant. In this case, I question now what other decisions this individual makes, and will make, and based on what criteria. It shows tremendous poor judgment. Upon receiving such an email, the right judgment, amongst many correct choices, is: DELETE. One could also reply back to the sender asking them not to send them such emails in the future given her the nature of her job. It's professionalism, judgment and maturity. It matters.
|
|
| | | 570 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:23
|
I don't disagree with Walk's point that she would be better off just deleting or responding and saying, "please don't send these."
I just can't help but see, "force her to resign" as a knee-jerk over reaction thats more agenda driven than anything else.
|
|
| | | 571 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:33
|
The monkey photo-shopping was out of bounds but political cartoonists are going to exagerate whatever feature is there and Obama already admitting he is sensitive about his ears just begs cartoonists of a conservative bent to exagerate them and there is nothing negative you can reasonably say about that.
I will also point out that liberals have indeed worked the angle that whites are boring, whitebread, unathletic can't jump, got no soul, just not as kool as the favored minorities. But that's not profiling and racist generalization of course.
|
|
| | | 572 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:37
|
Not to mention liberals hold that whites have a monopoly on ignorant and stupid. Which would explain a lotta liberals I know if there was any truth to it.
|
|
| | | 573 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:39
|
The monkey photo-shopping AND government employee's judgment in forwarding it to others was out of bounds. Hold everyone accountable in this instance, and treat all instances with the appropriate level of scrutiny instead of lowering standards cos "they did it, too!" (which is highly convenient...see Newt, circa mid-1990s).
|
|
| | | 574 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:49
|
No walk, its not highly convenient. Its how I truly feel about it. When Dom Imus made his comments about nappy women, I thought it was shame how people took that as an opportunity to drive him out. Regardless of the fact that I feel Imus is a total bore who had no business on the radio in the first place.
When Jeremiah Wright was found to be spewing hate speech towards whites, I also didn't call for his ouster from his position of influence and power at his church.
There's nothing convenient about my belief that Ms. Davenport shouldn't lose her job. Its quite in line with how I treat most of these instances of, "s/he said something politically incorrect, get him out!!!"
|
|
| | | 575 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:50
|
That was Clinton's defense not Newts.
|
|
| | | 576 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 11:53
|
When you spend all your time and energy trying to make everyone a government dependent I guess you just can't appreciate what an evil deed it is to go around trying to get people fired.
|
|
| | | 577 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:02
|
I will also point out that liberals have indeed worked the angle that whites are boring, whitebread, unathletic can't jump, got no soul, just not as kool as the favored minorities.
Funny that's exactly how I'd describe the right's caricature of John Kerry in 2004. The photo of him wincing as he caught a football, another of him windsurfing, etc.
|
|
| | | 578 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:04
|
Khahan, pardon...I meant: "It's highly convenient to say 'they did it, too.'" Each instance has to be evaluated on its own (de)merits.
|
|
| | | 579 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:13
|
Baldwin's point in 554 was that if a liberal blogger had a certain point of view a couple years ago, it naturally follows that all liberals feel the same. PV's assertion in 557 was that it must follow that conservatives in general would excuse the behavior of the member of the Orange County Republican central committee for her depicting Obama and his parents as part ape.
Any other conservatives around here besides Khahan willing to weigh in?
|
|
| | | 580 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:40
|
I don't think she should resign (basically I agree with Khakan's points in 574).
I think she should be held up to extreme ridicule until the Orange County Republicans realize that far more damage is done to their organization by having someone who is either an obvious racist or an insensitive dolt than will be done by ousting her internally.
And in the meanwhile it's completely legitimate for everyone else in that area to say "hey, you know what? The mainstream of the local Republican party is led by someone who's either an obvious racist or an insensitive dolt, here's the proof, now do you want the government run by racist idiots or do you want to vote for someone else like us instead?" They should be throwing parades outside the local Republican HQ thanking her for being a moron.
Basically, free speech, but with accountability. She, and the organization that chose her to represent them, have to deal with the consequences of her idiocy.
(Now, if that idiot has actually harmed someone else than the Orange County Republican central committee by her stupidity, let her get thrown in jail, sued, or whatever else is appropriate.)
|
|
| | | 581 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:47
|
Her being fired or asked to resign has nothing to do with free speech. Any argument to the contrary comes at the expense of the OC GOP's right to expression in deciding for themselves what constitutes apropriate behavior for their employees.
|
|
| | | 582 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 12:58
|
Except that she was ELECTED. Unless the county GOP has rules in place that say "you can't say X and be a member of this board", then the people that elected her need to un-elect her or do what needs to be done to get her out of office if they see fit.
Or, they can accept that they're represented by a dunderhead, and will (hopefully) do better due diligence in electing someone next time.
If we want politicians to resign every time they say something stupid and racist, we're going to have an awful lot of special elections and 17-11 votes in the US Senate.
|
|
| | | 583 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:03
|
And, again, they can ask her to resign if they want to (and that's probably a smart move, both politically and in general). But, if she doesn't want to, they're stuck with her as their elected member, and they (and the people who elected her) are stuck with that reputation.
Which is as it should be.
|
|
| | | 584 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:03
|
Agree w/all, DWetzel.
|
|
| | | 585 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:04
|
exactly dwetzel.
I'm also curious if Khakan has some significant meaning I'm missing or if you just constantly misspel my name? Not upset or put off. Just curious as an aside. :)
|
|
| | | 586 | Tree
ID: 16329157
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:09
|
I will also point out that liberals have indeed worked the angle that whites are boring, whitebread, unathletic can't jump, got no soul, just not as kool as the favored minorities. But that's not profiling and racist generalization of course.
got something to back this up? as MITH pointed out, you're actually talking about a Republican tactic.
|
|
| | | 587 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:09
|
LOL -- oops! Innocent mistake, for some reason I had it fixed in my head as such and I just never noticed it.
I'll try to do better in the future (but it'll probably be 50/50 for the next year or so).
|
|
| | | 588 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:23
|
as MITH pointed out, you're actually talking about a Republican tactic
Well no I wouldn't call it that. Almost all media makes fun of pols and the fact of the matter is that most politicians are in fact stuffy old white guys who are boring, whitebread, unathletic can't jump, got no soul, just not as kool as the rest of us. And the media in general plays that up.
And for the record, even Obama isn't immune to it, as I recall a 2008 mockery in the NY Daily News over a photo of him riding a bike, towing his kids in an attatched bright plastic buggy while wearing a helmet and sporting blue jeans with a very high hem. As I recall the name Urkel appeared in the headline.
|
|
| | | 589 | walk
ID: 348442710
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:37
|
It's the double-H thing in your moniker, Khahan. It gets me sometimes. As MITH said about what Dwetzel said in #583.
|
|
| | | 590 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 14:40
|
I don't think she should be forced to resign, but having her put up for a recall, if allowable, wouldn't bother me. From my understanding of the article, it was sent from her personal e-mail and was not job related. That doesn't make it right or any better, but it does provide some context.
If I was a voter in her area, it would also cause me to view any of her actions in a new and more cynical light. A person should be allowed to say/send idiotic and racist remarks. But, there are consequences to those comments and I wouldn't vote for her provided another candidate was even similarly qualified.
|
|
| | | 591 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 14:59
|
Perhaps you mean "better qualified"? Sending out racist emails would tend to disqualify someone, IMO. I would hope those looking to fill the job would be better
|
|
| | | 592 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:17
|
I would hope that another better qualified candidate would run for the job, but if a candidate who wasn't quite as good ran, I would vote for the one that wasn't idiotic enough to send racist e-mails to other people. I would like to think that I would have the chance to vote for someone who would reply back that the e-mail wasn't appropriate, even for personal correspondence, but that's not get crazy.
|
|
| | | 593 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:21
|
Yeah, her non-apology was a bit much. Basically she said "to anyone who was offended: the email wasn't for you."
The character test isn't being mistake-free. It is how you handle it when a mistake occurs. She's handling it like Sarah Palin by blaming "liberals" for being offended.
|
|
| | | 594 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 20:33
|
wow.
Going ape over racist depiction of Obama
...It should be noted that Davenport isn’t the first Orange County Republican Central Committee member to dabble in racist stereotypes involving Obama. Under the caption, “No Easter egg hunt this year,” Dean Grose sent around an e-mail just after the inauguration in 2009 depicting the South Lawn of the White House as a vast watermelon patch.
|
|
| | | 595 | Boldwin
ID: 53371920
Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 21:37
|
One of those very rare cases when liberals crying racist actually have a case.
|
|
| | | 596 | Razor
ID: 172252412
Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 12:50
|
Ya, the calls for her job are out of line.
|
|
| | |
| | | 598 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Wed, May 25, 2011, 17:33
|
If Loughner is later determined to be competent, the case against him will resume. If he isn't deemed competent at the end of his treatment, his stay at the facility can be extended. There are no limits on the number of times such extensions can be granted.
I have no real issue with this. from what I have read about him, Loughner is in fact "mentally incompetent" and this would be the correct ruling/procedure. I can see him in a mental institution for the rest of his life.
|
|
| | |
| | | 600 | sarge33rd
ID: 4380210
Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 14:55
|
They have the right, no doubt. However, that it is in extremely poor taste...is also not in doubt.
You are correct, there are plenty of other things they could have raffled. Give the wounds of the community, a little more time.
|
|
| | | 601 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 18:18
|
Listen to the unanimous agreement of the crowd.
|
|
| | | 602 | sarge33rd
ID: 179221217
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 18:22
|
Funny thing happens B, when you starve people, kick them out of their homes, boot them from their sources of income, deprive them of health care....they get PISSED THE FVCK OFF.
A revolution WILL happen, if the top 1% continue to be coddled, while the rest of us are told to kiss their asses if we want to have an income.
|
|
| | | 603 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 18:55
|
Ok, stop lecturing us about civil discourse then as if you had a monopoly on civility.
|
|
| | | 604 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 19:07
|
Of the two of you? He probably does.
|
|
| | | 605 | weykool
ID: 59501220
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 21:50
|
What a surprise.
Sgt. Pinko supports the revolution and ultimate overthrow of the American government by his komrads.
Sad.
|
|
| | | 606 | sarge33rd
ID: 179221217
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 22:07
|
One can only wonder, what the British loyalists called Paul Revere and company?
the only surprise WK,. is how long it took you to come in and totally miss the point while jumping to false conclusions.
Old Army call sign applies to you, One-Delta-Ten-Tango
|
|
| | | 607 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 23:54
|
WTF? Where does that come from, wk?
|
|
| | | 608 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 05:54
|
Can you imagine if the guy with the bullhorn at a Tea Party event insisted violence would be necessary and the entire crowd agreed enthusiastically with that that you'd hear PD and Sarge blowing it off as no big deal?
PD, just admit this whole thread lecturing the right to be ultra-careful not to use the slightest violent metaphor was a farce coming from guys like you.
|
|
| | | 609 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:00
|
Just what B, do you think led to thee Bolshevik Revolution, the American Revolution, The Boxer Rebellion, etc etc etc?
I'm not endorsing it, I am PREDICTING it. Just as the weatherman who calls for rain tomorrow isnt endorsing rain.
The sheer idiocy of the rightwingnut extremists today, WILL be the cause of any revolution.
|
|
| | | 610 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:30
|
A revolution WILL happen, if the top 1% continue to be coddled, while the rest of us are told to kiss their asses if we want to have an income.
The revolution WILL NEVER happen or at least not for the foreseeable future.
|
|
| | | 611 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:48
|
Wonder how many times that has been said in the past, and within X years, it was dead wrong.
|
|
| | | 612 | weykool
ID: 59501220
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:34
|
Lets be clear, these OWers are not your run of the mill far left extremist that merely want to raise taxes in order to spend more money on failed government programs.
If you read their manifesto they want to do away with capitalism and the current Government and install a socialist economy and communist government.
No doubt most of the individuals are ignorant and and easily manipulated but the leadership is preying on that ignorance to push their anti-American agenda.
The question the left should be asking/answering is NOT how do we get rid of/punish wealthy Americans but how do we create more?
That is the American dream and what made this country great.
|
|
| | | 613 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:40
|
The real question is what happens when Br'er Rabbit crypto-commie asks the commies in tents not to throw him into the commie briar patch.
|
|
| | | 614 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:48
|
Yes Wk, Let BE clear...
The RNC has the sole agenda, of protecting the wealth of the top 1-5% of the nation. The remainder, are meaningless labor for the benefit of that top few.
The RNC, thinks that Christianity is the ONLY religion on the planet with ANY morals at all. Nevermind this nation was founded on the very principle of FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Nevermind that how many Christians have shown themselves to be a immoral as anyone else on the planet. Nevermoind that the very book from which springs Christianity, condemns the kind of judgmentalism the RNC openly engages in.
The Republicans wish to legislate the Christian definition of marriage, vs a legal one bestowing legal rights to ALL wedded couples. A clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
The right, is so FULL, just chock full to the brim; with self serving, selfish, ignorant SoBs who wouldnt and wont know the truth, until it gets shoved up their asses at the point of the very barrel they;d use to invade someone elses country.
Sound like I'm angry as hell? Probably, because I am.
|
|
| | | 615 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:20
|
Weykool is going out of his way to acknowledge that this is a far left extremist group as opposed to representative of the whole of the left. Yet sarges response is to indict the whole of the RNC based on the thoughts of the far right.
Just a bit of food for thought.
|
|
| | | 616 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:21
|
Not indicting anyone K, just stating what the RNC has already said.
|
|
| | | 617 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:23
|
RNC has already said
But thats not representative of the whole of the RNC. That is representative of a very vocal minority within the RNC. My whole point is, weykool and myself can recognize the difference between extremists aspects and a group as a whole.
We'd appreciate the same in return.
|
|
| | | 618 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:28
|
re 611: probably 100's of times but what you fail to consider the 10,000's of times people predicting revolution are wrong. So without even considering the facts statistics would say you are wrong. If you then go and look at the actual facts you see you are even more likely wrong take yourself you say you are angry as hell but what have you done to lead this revolution? Look at the youth you think they are going to rise up against these corporate elite they protest against when these are the same people that give them there iphones? Yeah people are mad but they have no idea what they are mad about.
|
|
| | | 619 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:01
|
re 617...when the people leading the party state their objectives...I assume it to be representative of the party. Afterall, the ones in charge are the ones driving the team and they are the ones who will decide which way the wagon goes.
re 618...dont make assumptions, premises on your own comfort or discomfort. When people are reduced to robbing a bank in order to be jailed so they can get health care...armed insurrection cant be THAT far behind.
|
|
| | | 620 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:03
|
#608: Finally starting to see the parallels between the Tea Party rallies and the OWS crowd. Welcome.
Now, let's see if can treat them the same way.
|
|
| | | 621 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:26
|
Khahan
weykool and myself can recognize the difference between extremists aspects and a group as a whole.
With all due respect, I think probably you cannot. Not if you accept wekool's regard for the Occupy movement as a far left extremist movement as a whole. He dishonestly or ignorantly refers to one of numerous lists of principles or demands that have circulated since last month, written by various groups within the movement (or possibly just a single item on one such list) as a manifesto which he claims represents the entire movement.
In point of fact the movement is just as diverse in it's messages and opinions as the tea party was in it's earliest stages, if not moreso. Like the TP, OWS demonstrators do share a central theme, in their case, the corporate fostered growth in income and standard of living inequality which has rapidly increased through government deregulation. Also like the TP, the varieties of that central theme shoot out in every direction. Just as the TP became an attractive platform for extremists on the right (race purists, gold bugs, etc.) OWS is seen by some of their leftist counterparts (communists, anarchists, ideological pacifists, etc.) as an opportunity to be heard. Interestingly, also like the TP, libertarians have joined in, and at most rallies I've seen video of, chants of "End the FED" are heard.
I suggest you rethink that one.
|
|
| | | 622 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:29
|
armed insurrection cant be THAT far behind.
I assume this will be from the right since the left are not go totters? Sarge you know if things are so bad you can always go to Canada and the reason you don't is because things are not bad. They want to compare the OWS to the Arab spring, never mind the million of other differences, just look at if given a choice people did leave, they left for Europe and America.
|
|
| | | 623 | Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:03
|
If you read their manifesto they want to do away with capitalism and the current Government and install a socialist economy and communist government.
could you link to this official manifesto please?
He dishonestly or ignorantly refers to one of numerous lists of principles or demands that have circulated since last month, written by various groups within the movement (or possibly just a single item on one such list) as a manifesto which he claims represents the entire movement.
this, of course.
|
|
| | | 624 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:06
|
How little you know, compared to how much you think you know.
things ARE rapidly approaching that bad boikin. For many. And with the right crying now to end extended unemployment, even while claiming we need further tax reductions for the wealthy; if enacted will ONLY lead to further disenfranchisement.
We are getting perilessly close, to finding this experiment in freedom becoming so one sided that insurrection is the only possible outcome.
The flat out lies from the far right, and the damage they would do if put in power; would be irrecoverable given the thin ice our economy is already on.
|
|
| | | 625 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:25
|
could you link to this official manifesto please?
It was linked in the Occupy Wall Street thread I started. Weykool did a copy/paste of a part of the manifesto. Unfortunatley, OWS has changed their website and the manifesto is no longer where it was. I can't find it now. But yes, the original OWS.org website listed some pretty radical changes to the American government and way of life. Thats what was on their own website. I'd say what they post on their website is a pretty accurate representation of what they support.
I'll keep digging until I can find the info again.
I would consider the people behind the initial OWS push, the organizers of it, to be far left extremists. Just like I now consider the zealous TP organizers and supports to be far right extremists. The ones who represent the ideas that Sarge puts forth as representative of the RNC as a whole.
Now, consider myself and many other moderate republicans do not support all aspects of the TP and are ok w/ being disassociated with them. Consider that for a moment then tell me who is being disingenious and 'dishonest or ignorantly refers to a list of demands...which he claims represents the entire movement.'
|
|
| | | 626 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:37
|
Khahan
Your first mistake lending official credence to something called OWS.org as representive of the whole movement. Even in the very short time of their existance, they have evolved considerably and most certainly do not any central authority.
And whether you or weykool are dishonest or ignorant of that has nothing to do with whether either of you associate yourselves with the TP.
For the record, here is the page at occuptwallst.org which lists that particular group's "one demands".
The disclaimer, right at the top of the page reads: Note: Our use of the one demand is a rhetorical device. This is NOT an official list of demands. Click here to learn more about how you can participate in the democratic process of choosing the "one demand".
|
|
| | | 627 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:49
|
MITH#621
Yes and no. While there is an ambiguous random nature to the OW protest, there are also organizers who do provide over-arching themes. Adbusters, Stanley Greenberg, union organizers paying protesters to stay there, the usual anarchist groups and communist groups, the whole rainbow that shows up at every progressive protest. All too predictable.
The only new thing here will be how Obama manages to grab a ride back to a second term of power riding on the coattails of a protest of his own record.
That is such a neat trick, I am tempted to think the whole thing is just meant to distract, split off and dilute the Tea Party disatisfaction, but then again Obama is a protest organizer by nature. Twisting protests to achieve his ends is the ocean he swims in. It's what he does. It's who he is, so I think we are going to see the real skills of Obama come out. They sure aren't skills in rescuing an economy.
|
|
| | | 628 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:53
|
MITH
My original point is that Weykool and myself made a point to separate out a radical voice from the left as a whole and we'd appreciate if people would do the same for radical voices on the right...separate them from the right as a whole.
Your response was:
With all due respect, I think probably you cannot.
So again, tell me, who is being disingenious and dishonest in their assessment of the opposing view? People who look at an extremist faction and realize they are not representative of the whole or people who look at an extremist faction and insist that they do represent the whole?
|
|
| | | 629 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 16:02
|
Khahan
So again, tell me, who is being disingenious and dishonest in their assessment of the opposing view?
All I did was respond to what you wrote. It's not my fault if your original point was poorly expressed.
Weykool made no such distinction between OWS and the greater left. You supported his statement that the group is wholly extremist (based on some imaginary manifesto, no less) and in the same post boasted your perception of the difference between a larger group and it's fringes.
|
|
| | | 630 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 17:10
|
RE 624: when people start leaving for Canada, let me know they we can talk about the coming revolution, at which time the top 1% will probably have left first or at least there children will have.
|
|
| | | 631 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 19:34
|
Over the past decade boikin, we have seen a growing nr of retirees, do so OUT of this country and in other ones.
|
|
| | | 632 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 20:26
|
Why do they have to leave for Canada? Are leftists not permitted to protest without threatening to leave the country?
Or perhaps the difference between protesting government actions and protesting non-government actions aren't that clear?
|
|
| | | 633 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 09:52
|
PD I was not even talking about Left unless you believe the majority of top 1% are the left, but if I thought the country was such a bad place I would have left, the point is that people leaving the country especially young and the educated is a sign that revolution is possible. And I don't see this happening right now.
|
|
| | | 634 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 10:29
|
No, because the protesters aren't interested in leaving the country because it is so bad. They are interested in changing the country because it is so bad.
|
|
| | | 635 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:12
|
I know what they want, that is not the point I have never said they should leave, I said you would see the young the educated the wealthy leave if things were so bad.
|
|
| | |
| | | 645 | Boldwin
ID: 2811321220
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 10:25
|
Mark Steyn:“It’s the old story — at time of Gabby Giffords shooting, the problem was apparently metaphor,” Steyn said. “Metaphor was dangerous, if you say you were Sarah Palin and said this particular congressional district is in the crosshairs, you were fomenting violence. Now we have actually violence, and it goes entirely unreported by all the ninnies and nellies who were wailing about the use of metaphor at the time of the Gabby Giffords thing. Absolutely disgraceful, but as you say entirely predictable.”
Cavuto proposed that the incident was not exactly good PR for organized labor since it gave a thuggish face to labor unions. Steyn disagreed.
“I think in fact it is the opposite, Neil, that a lot people are happy to give this impression,” Steyn replied. “It is extremely valuable for people to understand that your guys mean it and you may want to play along because, otherwise, things are going to get very unpleasant for you. That is the message these guys are sending in Michigan. It’s basically the domestic version of what you see in the Arab Spring. All of these protests against Morsi in Cairo were completely peaceful, then Muslim Brotherhood show up to protest and seven people die. There is always an advantage to the side that means it and to the side that is willing to apply the muscle. And that’s why I don’t think the unions are bothered about bad publicity over this at all. They understand the people get the core message.”
Steyn predicted the incident is a preview of what to expect as the country gets “broker.”
---
I think here you are seeing a glimpse of what the future is like as America gets broker and broker that you will see people prepared to do all kinds of things out there on the streets, and in that sense it’s a portent of what could be a lot worse in two, three, four years, as America slides off the real fiscal cliff into the great abyss of bankruptcy that awaits. It’s not going to be pretty.”
|
|
| | | 646 | PV in GJ
ID: 1010151016
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 10:35
|
Mark Steyn is working hard to destroyAmerica this week.
As usual.
|
|
| | | 647 | Boldwin
ID: 2811321220
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 10:40
|
Do you even know what Steyn is talking about, PV?
|
|
| | | 648 | Boldwin
ID: 2811321220
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 10:44
|
Top Teamsters goon James R. Hoffa is threatening to bring “civil war” to Michigan in order to roll back the state’s new right to work law.
After Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed legislation aimed at breaking the labor movement’s death grip on Michigan’s near-comatose economy, Hoffa took to CNN Tuesday to declare, “This is just the first round of a battle that’s going to divide this state.” He added, “We’re going to have a civil war in this state.” Tell me again how Sarah Palin's crosshairs made her the worst person in the universe.
|
|
| | | 649 | Boldwin
ID: 2811321220
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 10:47
|
state lawmaker Douglas Geiss (D) took to the floor.
“There will be blood,” he said. “I really wish we had not gone here … I do not see solace, I do not see peace.”
In fact blood has already been spilled. While he was trying to interview right to work opponents outside the legislature in Lansing two days ago, conservative comedian-activist Steven Crowder was beaten up by union members. Apparently the perpetrators were upset that Crowder was asking questions and trying to prevent them from demolishing a temporary shelter that the good government group Americans for Prosperity had erected at the site. Crowder suffered a chipped tooth in the attack.
|
|
| | | 650 | PV in GJ
ID: 1010151016
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 11:20
|
Merely pointing out how infantile it is making claims of people trying to destroy America. You wanna use hysterical rhetoric, expect to get it back in a similarly moronic fashion.
|
|
| | | 651 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 11:40
|
conservative comedian-activist Steven Crowder was beaten up by union members.
Crowder advocates violence himself, so it's no shock he was met with violence. he encouraged his twitter followers to "hit. hard." those they felt were violating their personal space.
so, it's not a surprise that when he violated someone else's personal space, he got a taste of the violent medicine he implored others to do.
|
|
| | | 652 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 11:51
|
But of course, those who advocate violence (as with Palin) weren't really advocating violence (as with Giffords) so from the Right this should not be a problem.
A bit cheeky of the far right, though, disclaiming any responsibility for their own speech while trying to take on the other side's speech.
New Tea Party slogan: "Shut up! I'm trying to yell at you!"
|
|
| | | 653 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 12:12
|
to be clear, what happened wasn't right. but when you encourage violence, it will eventually come back on you. heck, that's biblical.
|
|
| | | 654 | Boldwin
ID: 411191315
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 16:59
|
Of course Crowder has never advocated violence.
|
|
| | | 655 | Tree
ID: 111141314
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 17:14
|
Of course Crowder has never advocated violence.
no, of course not. either you're lying again, or misinformed again.
here's Steven Crowder not advocating violence.
or, in case you don't want to follow the link:
|
|
| | | 656 | Tree
ID: 111141314
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 17:35
|
this is probably the part where instead of saying "whoa, i was wrong," you clam up and say "no one wants to see us interact," even though you interact when you feel you're right.
but never, ever, ever, when you're wrong.
|
|
| | | 657 | Boldwin
ID: 411191315
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 21:42
|
The guy is seriously into sanctioned MMA fights and self-defense. I've heard him speak at length about his personal aversion to all other violence.
I would also not recommend invading his personal space without an army of thugs behind you.
|
|
| | | 658 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 00:11
|
I've heard him speak at length about his personal aversion to all other violence.
maybe you have, maybe you haven't.
the fact remains that he advocated violence in that tweet....
|
|
| | | 659 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 00:26
|
Maybe splitting hairs, but I see him advocating standing up for yourself and defending yourself.
Personally I do not consider defending myself against physically aggressive behavior to be violence. I would consider the person who initiated the confrontation to be violent.
I agree with CRowder 100%. If somebody hits me I'm defending myself and hitting them back. Hard. With the purpose of making it clear they made a mistake that they never want to repeat. I do not consider that violence. I consider that self defense. I consider the initial aggressor to be violent.
|
|
| | | 660 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 06:31
|
Who initiated the confrontation?
The video I saw (which was shot and edited by Crowder's people) cuts right to the union guy's first of several swings at Crowder. Why didn't Crowder care to show us how the confrontation got to that point?
Or am I to believe that was the beginning of the incident, that no words or other physicality was exchanged prior to the first swing you see at the top of the clip?
FOX calls this Crowder guy a correspondent. So he was in Lansing on assignment from FOX? I saw part of another video clip that Crowder was in, presumably prior to his getting punched, in the middle of the commotion just before the tent came down. He was not reporting on the tent that was about to come down, not interviewing the people who were taking the tent down, but taking a stand in defense of the tent from people who apparently sought to take it down.
And from what he seems to indicate, he has MMA fighting experience? And by odd coincidence this apparently MMA trained fighter who not only injected himself into all this commotion but actually took a side in it just happened to be the only journalist there to manage to get himself into a fight, correct?
Did anyone see the video clip of him standing on the tent after it came down? Maybe it's me but he sure did look pretty satisfied with himself in that moment.
Anyway, then this MMA trained fighter who was sent on assignment to cover the RTW protest in Lansing by FOX and who took part in at least one scuffle, then went on a media tour through the FOX News Channel weekday schedule and boast of his heroism and repeatedly challenge this man who punched him in a video that was edited to omit the beginning of the confrontation to a charity MMA fight - lest he will "press charges" [which I've read has really irked police in Michigan who understandably don't care for people who publicly leverage criminal law for their personal gain).
Did I miss any details?
Assuming not, am I to understand this is what the political right feels journalism in American should be like?
Is there anyone who doubts that Crowder went there seeking a physical confrontation, to one extent or another?
|
|
| | | 661 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 06:52
|
Surely everyone understands the differences in the role of the supposedly objective journalist compared with the someone who would be responsible for protecting people and/or property.
Does anyone think AFP didn't send people into that situation - setting up a big tent in the middle of a union protest on the state capitol on day RTW was expected to get voted in - without any kind of security?
|
|
| | | 662 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:43
|
i agree with you 100 percent MITH, and was hoping someone else would bring that up.
there's no question the video starts at the "perfect time" for Crowder, and there is a whole mess of chest puffing and instigation on his part (such as the guy Crowder to get out of his face).
|
|
| | | 663 | Boldwin
ID: 331138143
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 11:18
|
Unbelievable. There were enuff union thugs there to kill him in seconds. And you guys are so desperate to avoid getting tarred with the violence brush that you blame the victim.
|
|
| | | 664 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 11:25
|
Unbelievable. There were enuff union thugs there to kill him in seconds. And you guys are so desperate to avoid getting tarred with the violence brush that you blame the victim.
no one is saying that those who hit Crowder were right in doing so.
just that he antagonized and egged them on. and cleverly edited a video, of which there has been much online speculation as to why there is an obvious cut edit right before the man takes a swing at Crowder.
|
|
| | | 665 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 11:57
|
Not worth it.
|
|
| | | 666 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 12:33
|
you guys are so desperate
This coming from the guy who says:
And considering the Iranian Ayatollah controls @.16 billion muslims, and the sunni's comprise @1.8 billion people, I think the massive trouble Iran has made for the USA will pale into insignificance compared to the problem Morsi will shortly become.
|
|
| | | 667 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 14:29
|
just that he antagonized and egged them on. and cleverly edited a video, of which there has been much online speculation as to why there is an obvious cut edit right before the man takes a swing at Crowder.
Do you have one shred of evidence to backup your baseless claim?
Or is this just a simple case of blaming the victim?
Like blaming the victim of spousal abuse because she didnt have dinner on the table and antagonized the wifebeater to give her what she deserved.
Also Tree please address the difference between self defense and advocating violence.
Specifically, would you defend yourself if attacked and if so does that mean you are an advocate for violence?
|
|
| | | 668 | Tree
ID: 611511413
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 14:51
|
telling people to hit someone for being in their space, is advocating violence.
hitting someone because they hit you first, is self defense.
as for your specific: would you defend yourself if attacked and if so does that mean you are an advocate for violence?
it would depend on the situations. sometimes you fight back, and other times, discretion is the better part of valor.
|
|
| | | 669 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 14:57
|
Thats not what he said Tree and you know it.
this is probably the part where instead of saying "whoa, i was wrong," you clam up and say "no one wants to see us interact," even though you interact when you feel you're right.
|
|
| | | 670 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 15:03
|
Why is this even in this thread? We've got 18 young kids shot dead in Connecticut, and a couple of guys here talking about whether the asshöle Crowder deserved to get punched or not.
|
|
| | | 671 | Tree
ID: 611511413
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 15:04
|
that's EXACTLY what he said. go back and read 655.
he said ...if somebody hits you
or
aggressively invades your personal space today,
hit them.
hard.
that's very clear. "or" is the qualifier there. had he said "and", it would be a very different meaning.
it's one thing to defend yourself if struck. it's another to hit somebody hard because they're in your space.
|
|
| | | 672 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 15:17
|
There is a huge difference between "being in their space" and aggressively physically invades your personal space.
All attempts by you to make excuses for violence is pretty pathetic.
it would depend on the situations. sometimes you fight back, and other times, discretion is the better part of valor.
So sometimes you advocate violence......
For the record Crowder did back down when he was sucker punched by the union thug.
You two seem to have the exact same view towards violence.
Also waiting on your evidence to back up your claim.
|
|
| | | 673 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 15:28
|
Indeed pd. hundreds of rounds. Very sad. Gotta a handle on our gun problem.
|
|
| | |
| | | 675 | Tree
ID: 611511413
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 16:46
|
absolutely awful stuff. boggles the mind this level of craziness, and i think most people - whether you have children or not - are feeling numb.
we have GOT to make changes in our gun laws, however. there is no question on that. the number of mass shootings in this country is beyond the pale, and no we have 20 children - 20 kindergartners dead, because of our nation's ease of access to guns.
way too many times i hear "let's not politicize this!"
then fine. let's humanize it, and let's have some decency and understand that your right to own multiple killing machines does not supersede my right to live.
i believe in gun rights - but with rights, come controls, and they are desperately needed when it comes to guns.
|
|
| | | 676 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:09
|
Aside from De-inventing guns there is no way we will ever be able to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
I couldnt imagine being a parent running to the school hoping to find your child alive and not being able to to get information.
Even the parents who are reunited with their kids are immediately struck with some guilt over the kids who were killed.
As a side note my mom got a call two nights back from my sister who was at the mall in Portland when the gunman opened fire.
The call was disconnected but we were able to follow the news stories to know that she wasnt one of the victims.
Scary stuff.
|
|
| | | 677 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:24
|
This is early speculation, but how about we discuss our failings as a country to provide help for the mentally ill?
|
|
| | | 678 | Tree
ID: 611511413
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:32
|
Aside from De-inventing guns there is no way we will ever be able to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
if you make it harder to legally obtain a gun, you'll have less mass shootings. that's simple math.
|
|
| | | 679 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:41
|
Aside from De-inventing guns there is no way we will ever be able to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
Maybe. But also maybe that is trying to solve the wrong problem. The fact that we have people who blow through stop signs doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
We need backgound checks, no gun show loophole, and state-mandated firearms training. Not because it will prevent these tragedies, but because they will make us safer.
Also, the way we deal with the mentally ill in this country is criminal.
|
|
| | | 680 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:50
|
What do you think we need to do differently wrt asbergers children?
Surely you aren't saying the boy would have been the party going thru the proposed background check, buying the gun, etc.
|
|
| | | 681 | Tree
ID: 611511413
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 17:58
|
Surely you aren't saying the boy would have been the party going thru the proposed background check, buying the gun, etc.
75 percent of mass shootings in this country since 1982 were with legally obtained fire arms.
we obviously need stricter laws if the people who commit these crimes can get these guns legally.
( source )
|
|
| | |
| | | 683 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 18:33
|
Liberals think self-defense is violence. They actually outlawed self-defense in England.
|
|
| | | 684 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 18:34
|
Bloomberg: "It's time for Obama to get tough on guns!"
Well except for the ones we want to give to terrorists and drug cartels apparently.
|
|
| | | 685 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 18:58
|
If only we had a culture that said, 'If it feels good, do it.', then we'd be safe.
|
|
| | | 686 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 20:10
|
Joshua Treviño @jstrevino
The country I'm in, Mexico, has exactly one(!) legal gun shop to serve a nation of 112 million people. And as you know, it's quite safe.
|
|
| | | 687 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 20:38
|
Twenty little kids were just murdered. If your first reaction is to start declaring that Obama/liberals are going to take our guns, you are a seriously screwed up human being.
|
|
| | | 688 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 21:34
|
That's the baseline now, Tosh.
We certainly need to have that discussion on guns now. For real. None of these attempts to make it about anything other than the ease with which untrained people get life-taking machines.
|
|
| | | 689 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 22:20
|
Frick 677- hit the nail on the head.
|
|
| | | 690 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 22:24
|
It's time for the hunters and casual gun enthusiasts to man up to the NRA and tell them they won't see another penny until they take a more nuanced position on gun ownership.
|
|
| | | 691 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 03:16
|
Twenty little kids were just murdered. If your first reaction is to start declaring that Obama/liberals are going to take our guns, you are a seriously screwed up human being.
Twenty little kids were just murdered. If your first reaction is to start pushing your gun control agenda, you are a seriously screwed up human being.
The problem is no amount of reasonable gun control would have prevented this tragedy.
|
|
| | | 692 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 04:36
|
If only there had been a rule that 20 year olds can't have a gun.
|
|
| | | 693 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 04:53
|
Israel teachers are armed....not a shooting incident since 1974. Israel protects its own.
|
|
| | | 694 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 06:58
|
|
|
| | | 695 | Tree
ID: 21146158
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 09:49
|
Twenty little kids were just murdered. If your first reaction is to start pushing your gun control agenda, you are a seriously screwed up human being.
you're right. that agenda should have been pushed right after Columbine happened. how many more mass shootings do we need????
The problem is no amount of reasonable gun control would have prevented this tragedy.
simply untrue. if he doesn't have access to those guns, this doesn't happen. if the shooter at Virginia Tech doesn't have access to those guns, it doesn't happen.
this is basic.
|
|
| | | 696 | Tree
ID: 21146158
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 10:00
|
Israel teachers are armed....not a shooting incident since 1974. Israel protects its own.
Israel also has much stricter gun laws than we do.
1. it's illegal to own any kind of firearm in israel - including things like air pistols - without a license.
2. for those that do earn the license, most are limited to ONE hand gun. Honorably discharged military COMMANDERS are allowed ONE rifle. Hunters are limited to ONE shotgun.
3. to legally own a gun as a souvenir, prize, inheritance, or something similar, you have to show proper documentation that ebfore you even receive it. Permits for gun collectors are extremely rare, and typically only given to ex-high-ranking officers.
4. To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age (20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 for those who did not complete military service or civil service equivalent, 45 for residents of East Jerusalem).
5. Gun licenses must be renewed every three years. Firearms permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale.
6. Permit holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges.
information taken from wikipedia, with 4 - 6 being taken word-for-word.
if you want to cite Israel as an example Baldwin, then by all means, let's use them as an example and follow through with their VERY strict regulations.
|
|
| | | 697 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 10:00
|
Tree, I think you are forgetting that citizen's need to be armed with .223 assault rifles. Otherwise, how are they going to hunt deer or buffalo in order to feed their families? Or repel commies?
|
|
| | | 698 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 10:45
|
Every last post Baldwin has made is highly reprehensible. Can't even take one day off of the crazy. Only an f'ing idiot would post or believe the sign in 694.
|
|
| | | 699 | Tree
ID: 421121510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 11:02
|
Baldwin - please respond to 696. having cited Israel as an example in 693, are you ok with us putting those restrictions in place in this country?
or this another case of you not properly doing your research, and you'd like to take 693 back?
|
|
| | | 700 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:11
|
4) People should have the ability to defend themselves. Mass shootings take many lives in part because no one is firing back at the shooters. The shooters in recent massacres have had many minutes to complete their evil work, while their victims cower under desks or in closets. One response to the tragic reality that we are a gun-saturated country is to understand that law-abiding, well-trained, non-criminal, wholly sane citizens who are screened by the government have a role to play in their own self-defense, and in the defense of others (read The Atlantic article to see how one armed school administrator stopped a mass shooting in Pearl Mississippi). I don't know anything more than anyone else about the shooting in Connecticut at the moment, but it seems fairly obvious that there was no one at or near the school who could have tried to fight back. - The Atlantic, hardly a rightwing publication. Yes, hell yes, I am in favor of finally getting some armed teachers protecting our kids in what is otherwise practically advertised as mass murderer playland where they will not be disturbed from their evil work for a long long time.At Columbine, the armed “school resource officer” refused to pursue the killers into the building, and kept himself safe outside while the murders were going on inside. Even after SWAT teams arrived, and while, via an open 911 line, the authorities knew that students were being methodically executed in the library, the police stood idle just a few yards outside the library.
To this day, the authorities in Jefferson County, Colorado, have successfully covered up who made the decision that the police would stand idle.
Fortunately, police tactics have changed dramatically since that disgraceful day. Now, the standard police response to an “active shooter” is immediate counter-action. For example, at a March 2001 attack on Santana High School in Santee, California, the police response was immediate, and saved lives. It was the first time ever that a school shooting had been met with prompt police counter-action. - National Review Saving Sarge some time: "Oh no, oh no, nothing can be done because it would just endanger the innocent. We've just got to wait until the mass murderer runs out of bullets."
|
|
| | | 701 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:28
|
Apparently, dead 7-years olds is the price we have to pay for living in a society the Right wants to overthrow at any time.
Pathetic.
"We need more guns! Because look at how easy we made it to have more guns!!"
Violence-driven policy ideas are pathological. They are a sign of disease. I've had enough pandering to these idiots. Enough.
|
|
| | | 702 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:32
|
Apparently living in a disarmed concentration camp under the watchful eye of Obama's armed minions is the price we have to pay...
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin,
Nor can it be so purchased. They won't get it.
|
|
| | | 703 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:41
|
Boldwin
Why do you think there is there so much more gun violence in the US than in the rest of the first world?
|
|
| | | 704 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:51
|
We are an aggressive nation of doers. We are not passive.
|
|
| | | 705 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:53
|
And this trait lends itself to murder?
|
|
| | | 706 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:53
|
And when you finally get us disarmed, and you eventually will...armed government thugs will be 'aggressively doing' us.
|
|
| | | 707 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:54
|
And this trait lends itself to murder?
Ever been shot by a passive aggressive?
|
|
| | | 708 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:00
|
I don't seek to disarm you.
And I don't understand post 707. I've never been shot by anyone. Have you?
But I do think your answer in 704 is interesting. You seem to suggest that the same tendency that makes us industrious also makes us violent and even murderous. Is that what you mean?
|
|
| | | 709 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:05
|
Yes, angry people who are 'likely to do something about it' are significantly more dangerous than a passive aggressive.
You will also find that cultures which play painful contact sports like rugby and our football have a significantly more interventionist or activist foreign policy.
|
|
| | | 710 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:10
|
Which is better? To be murderous and industrious or to be passive and peaceful?
How about from the Christian point of view?
|
|
| | | 712 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:14
|
The problem is no amount of reasonable gun control would have prevented this tragedy.
simply untrue. if he doesn't have access to those guns, this doesn't happen. if the shooter at Virginia Tech doesn'thave access to those guns, it doesn't happen.
Simply untrue.
The guns in question were stolen.
If by gun control you mean banning guns altogether then that doesnt meet the smell test of reasonable.
|
|
| | | 713 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:16
|
Consult the Polish Ghetto.
|
|
| | | 714 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:16
|
711 was an evasion of the question in the preceding post.
Which is better? To be murderous and industrious or to be passive and peaceful?
|
|
| | | 715 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:18
|
Was 713 also an evasion?
Why is this so hard?
Column A or column B? What is the answer Jesus would give?
|
|
| | | 716 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:19
|
Either have a really big shepherd, or really big teeth. Don't be a sheep without a shepherd. That way lies lambchops.
|
|
| | | 717 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:22
|
Why can't you answer the question directly? Is it really that simple for your religious sensibilities to be so tied up by your political opinions ?
Would Jesus prefer you to be murderous and industrious or to be passive and peaceful?
|
|
| | | 718 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:23
|
Do you want to pray on it and get back to me?
|
|
| | | 719 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:24
|
Why is this so hard?
God uses the ungodly to protect his people from the other nastier ungodly people.
|
|
| | | 720 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:26
|
So I like it just fine that this country and the world hasn't been overrun by Nazis and Communists and is defended by 'doers'.
If my grandkids are up against a mass murder in school, I want an aggressive armed 'doer' to protect my kids.
|
|
| | | 721 | Rooster
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:31
|
CROW!
|
|
| | | 722 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:32
|
Look at it this way, MITH. [These are good questions, real good and fair questions] I don't own a gun. I also haven't applied for the position of policeman or Columbine armed “school resource officer”, nor should I. The truly godly need not apply for those jobs.
|
|
| | | 723 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:34
|
Deleted 711. Advocation of violence (even a passive-agressive advocation) is not permitted.
|
|
| | | 724 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:34
|
Since the shooting yesterday. Zero posts posts from Boldwin expressing concern or sorrow about the incident. Nineteen posts from Boldwin telling how important the right to shoot people is.
Who's the baby killer now.
|
|
| | | 725 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:37
|
The pro-abortionists.
|
|
| | | 726 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:38
|
Different topic. But thanks for the effort.
SQUIRREL!
|
|
| | | 727 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:50
|
I suspect I could get you to deny Him all day rather than cede the political point.
|
|
| | | 728 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:51
|
Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied.
He was also a year too young to own a gun in his state [or so I have read]. Really there was enuff gun control law if that was the answer. You guys still talking are talking confiscation. Just admit it.
|
|
| | | 729 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:54
|
I'm good with the Israeli laws.
|
|
| | | 730 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:04
|
MITH
I don't know how to make this simple enuff for you to see the point clearly.
Christians since the first century have been trying to turn others into Christians who would put down their arms, trust in God and become citizens of God's kingdom.
That is great advice. That us the best advice in the world. But it doesn't work for someone to just take one tiny part of that advice.
You don't suggest someone pull the pin on a grenade and then not follow #2 throw grenade.
If I tell you run or buy a shield and then you choose option B but fail to put the shield between yourself and the arrows...You didn't follow my advice and I didn't help you.
Either pick course A or course B. If you can't put yourself under God's protection better do something effective.
|
|
| | | 731 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:13
|
BTW everyone who thinks Tosh has been sitting around hoping to hear my prayers in public, raise your hands.
|
|
| | | 732 | Mith
ID: 98342014
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:20
|
I don't know how to make this simple enuff for you to see the point clearly.
Yes you do. You know the answer. Everyone here knows the answer. The answer is that according to your religion, your physical well being is secondary to your faith.
You can acknowledge that or you can deny it. But all the contradictory passages you dredge up in support of some contorted BS aren't going to fool anyone. You know exactly how He would answer the question; decisively and immediately. There would be no hemming and hawing and contorting to preserve some political point.
|
|
| | | 733 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:30
|
Yeah, he would have walked away without further commentary after you refused to follow him.
I've stuck around.
|
|
| | | 734 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:34
|
How many more denials do you get before He walks away from you?
Or is He more sympathetic to your prideful refusal to lose a political argument than I realize?
|
|
| | | 735 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:41
|
733 is false. I spent 28 years denying His existence, yet He didnt turn and walk away from me.
|
|
| | | 736 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:44
|
Personally, I don't think the "nation of doers" response is necessarily the right answer.
This would suggest that most (or at least a plurality) of our murderers are among our more industrious. I have a bit of trouble with that.
Is our historically high rate of gun violence related to the spiking number of mass shootings in the past 30 years and especially in the past decade?
|
|
| | |
| | | 738 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:57
|
I don't own a gun. I also haven't applied for the position of policeman or Columbine armed “school resource officer”, nor should I. The truly godly need not apply for those jobs.
er, just a teeny bit holier than thou? YOU are godly, whereas cops and soldiers are just ungodly peons working to protect the likes of YOU?
|
|
| | | 739 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 14:57
|
BTW, since MITH wants to 'outchristian' me and make this a matter of theologic discussion, I didn't, but since he does bring it up, let's take a look at the last day events...Rev 12 and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child.
5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne...3 Now when the dragon saw that it was hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman that gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given the woman, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place; there is where she is fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent disgorged water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon disgorged from its mouth. 17 And the dragon grew wrathful at the woman, and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus.- What was the 'disgorged water like a river'?
- What was the earth that prevented it?
- Were God's people part of that 'earth', doing that swallowing?
- Did God bless/force that outcome even if God's people weren't part of it?
- Should 'the earth' have been armed?
- Should God's people be armed?
Again, I didn't want to make this a theological debate but if you intend to debate me on scripture, better come 'prepared'.
|
|
| | | 740 | Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 20:58
|
Have you wondered why, in such a target rich environment as a suburban shopping mall two weeks before Christmas, the shooter at the Clackamas Town Center only managed to kill two people before dousing his own lights? Part of the reason was a dodgy gun. But as is being reported by kgw.com, part was also due to the fact that, gun-free zone or not, Jacob Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli who was armed and has a concealed carry permit. No, he didn’t fire because he feared hitting an innocent person behind Roberts if he missed. But Roberts knew Meli was there: “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”
|
|
| | |
| | | 742 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 01:49
|
I'm good with the Israeli laws.
at least you are PV.
Baldwin has yet to respond, so i'll ask again - would you accept the Israeli gun laws detailed in post 696, in our country.
i'm curious as to to whether you'll answer the question....or if you're preferring to not be a doer, and instead, passive.
|
|
| | |
| | | 744 | Frick
ID: 157331422
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 20:19
|
1. it's illegal to own any kind of firearm in Israel - including things like air pistols - without a license.
I think this one should be possible. Most states already have requirements for handguns, extending it to all firearms is reasonable. The caveat being, what is required to get a license.
2. for those that do earn the license, most are limited to ONE hand gun. Honorably discharged military COMMANDERS are allowed ONE rifle. Hunters are limited to ONE shotgun.
No. I'm not a gun owner, but I growing up most of my friends and family were hunters. Most of them had shotguns for different types of hunting. The same could also be applied to handguns and rifles. I know that several of my college friends have .22 pistols that they practice with at the range, as the ammo is cheaper than the larger hand guns they have at home.
3. to legally own a gun as a souvenir, prize, inheritance, or something similar, you have to show proper documentation that ebfore you even receive it. Permits for gun collectors are extremely rare, and typically only given to ex-high-ranking officers.
No. Our culture is different and I don't see it changing this drastically.
4. To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age (20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 for those who did not complete military service or civil service equivalent, 45 for residents of East Jerusalem).
I think most of these are reasonable, if not strange. I don't see the difference between men and women. I also don't see a difference between military service and non-military service, since we don't require military service (which I believe Israel does.)
5. Gun licenses must be renewed every three years. Firearms permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale.
Ok for the first part, but I'm not sure I understand the 2nd part.
6. Permit holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges.
Again, we have a different culture. I know people who have their own firing ranges. Do we make those illegal, or how different culture. Add in that some hunters probably legitimately fire more ammo than this in a year and it doesn't seem reasonable.
|
|
| | | 745 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 20:27
|
Did you play the video in that piece?
The left again threatening violence.
Hacker collective Anonymous was swift to respond, releasing private information of Westboro members including email addresses, phone numbers and home addresses. This video, decrying the church for spreading “seeds of hatred” was also released. It warns, “We will destroy you. We are coming.”
Using violence to combat views you disagree with?
As appalling as the actions of the Westboro Baptist church is, the group that made that video is far more disgusting.
|
|
| | | 746 | Frick
ID: 157331422
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 20:34
|
Asking for a rationale discussion while calling guns "killing machines" isn't productive. Guns are a tool. They are a dangerous tool, but still simply a tool that doesn't what the user wants.
Something to consider about banning guns and claiming that it will end events like the tragic events in Newtown is possibly wrong. There is a scientific term called blowback. While the shooters at the last several tragedies have had mental issues, they have shown the ability to plan and think ahead. Banning guns will prevent shootings, and I believe that people above had said that would lower the body count. Possibly, but there is also the possibility that they could make explosives (IEDs) or chemical weapons. Wiping out an entire school would be unlikely, but possible. I'm not arguing that guns should be legal to lower body counts, only that the law of unintended consequences is always lurking. Banning guns is treating a symptom, not the underlying problem.
|
|
| | | 747 | Frick
ID: 157331422
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 20:53
|
From my twitter feed.
If you can't watch the President of the UNITED STATES, in this one moment, without political opinion, agenda & critique.. I feel for you.
|
|
| | | 748 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 20:54
|
the group that made that video is far more disgusting
Don't know about far more disgusting, but I know I was taken aback by the tatics.
|
|
| | | 749 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 22:01
|
Anonymous' tactics have always been over-the-top, and I rarely agree with them. Don't really agree with them here, either.
I'd only point out the the members of the church have given up their privacy when they willingly insert themselves, in public, into the demonstrations that they make.
I don't belive that those members give up all rights to privacy of course, but do point out that their identities have already been put into the public domain by their own choice, and that they should have much lower expectations of privacy than others.
|
|
| | | 750 | Boldwin
ID: 2111321622
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 00:38
|
When you've been butting into people's funerals, you kinda undercut yer claim to privacy rights.
|
|
| | | 751 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 00:44
|
Petition for the US Govt to formally recognize and declare WBC a "Hate Group".
we petition the obama administration to:
Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.
This group has been recognized as a hate group by organizations, such as The Southern Poverty Law Center, and has repeatedly displayed the actions typical of hate groups.
Their actions have been directed at many groups, including homosexuals, military, Jewish people and even other Christians. They pose a threat to the welfare and treatment of others and will not improve without some form of imposed regulation.
|
|
| | | 752 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 01:32
|
As far as I know, the US government does not maintain a "legal" list of "hate groups."
Nor should they, IMO.
|
|
| | | 753 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 01:52
|
I'd be shocked if they didnt.
|
|
| | | 754 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 02:02
|
Prepare to be, then. Why would the government be maintaining a legal list of groups who use hateful speech? It is an ACLU lawsuite waiting to happen.
I've no doubt that the FBI has a list of groups it watches, including many (all) on the SPLC's list. But you don't petition groups onto any of these lists.
And the government would be getting into a lot of hot water maintaining an "official" or "legal" list of such groups.
|
|
| | | 755 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 02:21
|
I think the govt, does a lot of things "off the record", that would shock a lot of people. I think, its a necessary part of governing.
|
|
| | | 756 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 03:40
|
Ah, so you want them to be put on the unofficial official list. One which you would never see or hear "legally" about, but the contents of which you believe can be altered by petition. Secretly.
Because this group is new on the scene and might not have been in the press before in order to be watched, yes?
Or perhaps you want it both ways: To acknowledge that the government is already watching them but cannot divulge such a thing publicly and that the government does not have a list but should start one to make it "legal."
Here's an example of one of those petitions which tell more about the people who sign them than anything else.
|
|
| | | 757 | Boldwin
ID: 51147176
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 07:57
|
#752, most naive post ever? We've already seen a family have their children removed by the DCFS because they were on SPLC's list of 'people who wouldn't be missed'.
|
|
| | | 758 | Boldwin
ID: 51147176
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 08:04
|
BTW, the forgotten people to pray for are all the families living with a mentally disabled person who are genuinely afraid of their kids, and with good reason.
|
|
| | | 759 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 09:46
|
#752, most naive post ever?
it is well behind the majority of yours.
i notice, still no response to 696. no shocking.
|
|
| | | 760 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 11:01
|
Boldwin and sarge, joined together on this issue. Who knew! I suspect sarge has gotten my pont, but Boldwin's incurious nature will not allow him to do more than try for the cheap comment which reveals the shallow nature of his thinking these days.
I guess I'll see that "legal" list of "hate groups" in Obama's camps.
|
|
| | | 761 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 20:13
|
I guess I'll see that "legal" list of "hate groups" in Obama's camps.
Nah, you'll be too busy spinning the camps as a feature, not a bug, to consider the list.
|
|
| | | 762 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 20:30
|
Over the weekend, Houston Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias tweeted, "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?"
Among the other messages in the group in which Cobarruvias' tweet appeared were those which "advocated for the murder of NRA president Keene and all NRA members."
Liberal tolerance at its best. What would we do without these voices for civility in America? Thank You Liberals!
|
|
| | | 763 | Tree
ID: 4211251720
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 21:25
|
Over the weekend, Houston Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias tweeted, "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?"
if he did in fact say this, i don't think you'll find anyone here defending him.
|
|
| | | 764 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 22:50
|
if he did in fact say this, i don't think you'll find anyone here defending him.
The question is how tepid if any will the condemnation be?
|
|
| | | 765 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 23:00
|
Anyone who advocates more violence as any kind of response or solution to this problem is an idiot.
|
|
| | | 766 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 23:39
|
amen. WK - this isn't the first time a liberal has said something stupid, nor the first time there has been strong condemnation. you act like it's news when it happens in these parts.
|
|
| | | 767 | biliruben
ID: 28420307
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 05:50
|
Let’s reflect on the two real lessons of the Battle of Newtown.
First, the Second Amendment is not about hunting animals and punching paper, it’s about winning a war against the government, and here we have a man who didn’t whine about tyranny, or run and hide: he took up arms like a Real American, went right at the most dangerous hotbed of government freedom-killing subversion, a public school, and put a decisive end to the daily internationalist indoctrination of twenty Connecticut children. But Lanza was not able to kill even thirty people before the jackbooted thugs of blue-state Connecticut imposed their tyrannical will on him, another martyr to liberal sabotage of our Second Amendment God-given rights to insurrection. (Those rights are in the Bible, right where Jesus teaches his wussy disciples to go armed at all times, and practice quick reloading so as to really Render unto Caesar, not just mess with the odd drunk Roman soldier.) The government won the Battle of Newtown in the end, because Lanza was disarmed by the regulations people like Mayor Bloomberg want more of. Government has stuff like tanks and helicopters now, so insurrection (freedom) needs serious hardware. If Lanza (and his mother) had been allowed the belt-fed machine guns, grenades, armor-piercing rockets, and ground-to-air artillery the constitution plainly allows but our surrender-monkey disarmers do not, he could have given the UN a real warning. Patriots need stuff to take down an invisible black helicopter, not toys from an old western movie.
...
Hair of the dog
|
|
| | | 768 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 08:28
|
762 & 764
Didn't you guys already win that argument after the Giffords shooting? Do you really have so pathetically little to grasp at that you have to single out every last stupid thing said by any democrat, anywhere to condemn, and then follow up with condemnations of others who don't sufficiently condemn?
Since weykool is so big on condemnations and whether people here dish them out sufficiently, it occurred to me tht I haven't seen him condemn this guy who killed a bunch of first graders.
Shall I take this refusal to even tepidly condemn him as support for killing first graders?
|
|
| | | 769 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 10:05
|
Gun stocks tanking.
Smith and Wesson
Sturm Ruger
It could get worse
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer said he’ll propose that the state’s public pension funds, the two largest in the U.S., sell off investments in firearm manufacturers that make guns prohibited under state law.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, known as Calstrs, with $155 billion of assets, has a stake in Cerberus Capital Management LP, a private equity firm that owns Freedom Group, the maker of the Bushmaster .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that police said was the primary weapon in the Dec. 14 shootings that killed 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.
|
|
| | | 770 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 11:31
|
Michigan gun control
I'm curious to see if concealed weapons being allowed in schools will pass the Governor. It passed through the State House on Thursday, I'm curious if it would pass again today.
|
|
| | | 771 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 12:03
|
#770: A very good question. They have been ramming through a lot of stuff in dead duck session here (much of it passed on an "emergency" basis).
|
|
| | | 772 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 14:41
|
Since weykool is so big on condemnations and whether people here dish them out sufficiently, it occurred to me tht I haven't seen him condemn this guy who killed a bunch of first graders.
Shall I take this refusal to even tepidly condemn him as support for killing first graders?
You are a despicable human being for suggesting anyone would support the killing of innocent children.
Didnt think anyone here was capable of stooping so low but it looks like I was wrong.
I am done responding to people who are not worthy of my time.
|
|
| | | 773 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 14:51
|
I don't know. Maybe part of the problem with politics is that we are very quick to be offended.
|
|
| | | 774 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 15:31
|
Unfortunately my post 768 was edited to eliminate the end of the last sentence (which I accept, though I'd prefer that the edited punctuation not suggest that the amended version reflects the writer's original intent - in this case, not quite). The last sentence actually asked whether the refusal to condemn was support for killing or my preferred option - the understanding that it is juvenile to demand explicit condemnations for every amoral, condemnable act that we talk about.
So weykool missed the greater point of post 768. It would have been nice if he'd been able to figure it out anyway, rather than opt for a phony-outrage reaction over a rhetorical point made by someone on the internet he's never met before. As if after years of reading my posts he thinks I'm likely to accuse him of supporting the murder of children.
Maybe I'm expecting too much.
|
|
| | | 775 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 15:57
|
FWIW both conservatives here in this thread have been accused of not caring enuff, for not having worn our personal heartfelt reactions to this situation on our sleeves for all to see.
|
|
| | | 776 | Mith
ID: 98342014
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:18
|
Like in post 663?
|
|
| | | 777 | Mith
ID: 98342014
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:23
|
Or like when the other "conservative" writes:
The fact that the radical left cant bring themselves to condemn the use of violence by these union thugs speaks volumes.
So can we all just agree with the point I attempted here that this whole line of demanding explicit condemnations of what we all know is terrible as a means of attacking one another is juvenile at best and exploitative of tragedy at worst?
|
|
| | | 778 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:28
|
No, in #663 I pointed out that you were actually accusing Crowder of making the poor union thug hit him in the mouth to avoid the obvious truth that the violence is virtually all on the left.
Just keep on blaming violence on conservatives.
|
|
| | | 779 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:29
|
This whole thread was premised on exploiting a tragedy in order to discredit conservatives.
|
|
| | | 780 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:36
|
B. You can keep posting on these forums if you want but I am done with them.
If you or I had been scummy enough to post what is in #768 we would have been banned and ridiculed to no end.
It seems a moderator read the post and deleted a who cares swear word but let the vile implication stand.
We have PV, Frick and PD all posting after the offending post not to mention those who read it and none of them addressed it.
Civility on these forums is a joke.
|
|
| | | 781 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:40
|
still doesnt "get it"
|
|
| | | 783 | slug
ID: 167132313
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:46
|
FWIW, when I read Mith's 768, it was quite clear to me that he wasn't suggesting that weykool condones killing innocent children.
I don't write this in an attempt to tell weykool that he is wrong, just to let him know there are other opinions of what Mith wrote.
|
|
| | | 784 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 16:51
|
No slug, what is clear is that he prefers a forum in which I claim he condones killing.
I have repeatedly suggested we move past this whole ridiculous line. Instead that suggestion turns into another reason to attack.
They're bent on killing the forum, might as well let them win. It'll be Boldwin's greatest victory. Lets be honest the discourse here hasn't been worth protecting in a long time. Kill it.
|
|
| | | 785 | Anonymous
ID: 4510591210
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 17:01
|
How many times can Boldwin stand on top of a pile he has created ... beating his chest like King Kong ... and declare his greatness? [see post 539 here, or several other recent threads] It won't help you Boldwin. Take yourself back under the bridge where you belong.
Re: Post 778 - Why have you not bothered posting the actual un-edited video [oddly shown on the Hannity show]? Where Crowder pushes the guy to the ground first? The Union guy was merely "Standing his ground" against attack.
|
|
| | | 786 | Tree
ID: 91152189
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 17:24
|
FWIW both conservatives here in this thread have been accused of not caring enuff, for not having worn our personal heartfelt reactions to this situation on our sleeves for all to see.
you're the guy who cheered the death of someone you disagreed with political.
yea, i don't think you have that much human compassion.
|
|
| | | 787 | Tree
ID: 91152189
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 17:26
|
and regarding the unedited Crowder video, here it is - starts at about 1:10. can't tell that Crowder shoved the guy to the ground, but someone did, and it's pretty easy to understand why he thought it was Crowder.
|
|
| | | 788 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 17:38
|
none of them addressed it..
I was unaware that you needed my protection here. Or that you wanted me to speak on your behalf. I guess I was under the impression that you were a big boy, but after "I am done responding to people who are not worthy of my time" I guess I was wrong.
You were far more concerned that Democrats condone their own in a strong way than in even addressing the massacre in the first place. If your departure leaves us one less person more interested in polical spin and games then I won't notice much difference in these threads except a slight uptick in quality.
|
|
| | | 789 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 18:09
|
You see how badly libs appreciate 'diversity'. Only their diversity need apply.
|
|
| | | 790 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 18:10
|
This is how I end up being the only conservative left on the board. Any normal person would be offended to the point of leaving by this treatment.
|
|
| | | 791 | Tree
ID: 91152189
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 18:13
|
re 789 - no one here is forcing him to leave. no one is forcing you to leave.
as adults, you make your own choices. like the time you praised the death of someone you didn't care for.
|
|
| | | 792 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 19:06
|
let's recap...
an edited video is purported to show a left-winger assaulting a conservative.
a rightwinger, takes offense that the resident left doesnt loudly condemn the fella in the video, even as he fils to condemn the murder of over 2 dz innocents in a school building.
another poster, points out the absurdity, of the right wingers supposed outrage
said rightwinger takes offense and quits the forum
an unedited version of the video is posted, raising legit questions as to who started the physical altercation
another rightwinger, takes offense at his fellow rightwinger being offended (ostensbly BY the left)
does that about sum it up?
|
|
| | | 793 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 19:25
|
Let me sum up.
Left wingers start a thread to blame conservatives for some loon shooting Giffords. Turns out the loon wasn't a conservatives, but conservatives are still blamed for 'crosshairs' and 'elminationist rhetoric'. Conservatives get lectured about civility by liberals like naughty children.
Time passes and the Tea Party behaves well at event after event. Liberal conclaves are full of egregious behavior. Liberal rhetoric is full of far more violent threats and imagery for a year or two which I point out in volumes.
Then liberals start beating up people and tearing down their tent over the heads of women and a tearing up a black vender's business.
Then liberals blame conservatives for 'making union thugs beat them up, those nasty nasty conservatives who cause all the violence'.
No one ever says, 'remember when we tried to portray conservatives as the violent ones? Yeah, well evidently we had that backwards'. Said no one ever. Tho they completely should.
Then they try and portray conservatives heartless for sticking up for the RTBA instead of maudlin crying in public. In pointed personal attacks.
Fixed that for ya.
Did Weykool overreact? Donno. He prolly didn't understand it. Nor do I understand MITH today.
|
|
| | | 794 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 19:39
|
Hahaha. Leave it to the Far Right to make this about all their feelings.
|
|
| | | 795 | Boldwin
ID: 191141719
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 19:46
|
Well we would have put it in the 'Newton Shooting' thread, but all our threads get deleted so we had to put it in the 'Lets Blame Conservatives For the Gifford Shooting' thread.
|
|
| | | 796 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 20:10
|
Left wingers start a thread to blame conservatives for some loon shooting Giffords.
um, no. no where in the OP is anyone blamed.
in fact, IF YOU'D ACTUALLY READ THE EARLY POSTS IN THIS THREAD, you'd see folks discussing the time of language and rhetoric used by Palin and others, but at the same time saying it's likely "an unfortunate coincidence."
Then liberals blame conservatives for 'making union thugs beat them up, those nasty nasty conservatives who cause all the violence'.
i realize that if you're not going read posts, you're not going to watch videos either, but there was clear provocation on what's his name's part. not saying the response was the right one (which i said previously as well), but there was obviously provocation, as well as edited video (but, we all know you're ok with edited video and other criminal activities, as long as they further your cause).
|
|
| | | 797 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 20:58
|
B
#1, there was a time gap from Oct 2011 to Dec 2012, with only 1 post in the interim, that being PD indicating that Giffords was retiring. Ergo, with that idle time span in place...we can forego ANY of your flag waving "pity me" that stems from the threads origination.
I was referring to recent events, as they pertain to WK and his reaction, and MITH with his interaction. If confining a discussion to relevant elements is too much for you...you have but to say so.
|
|
| | | 798 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 21:30
|
"Well we would have put it in the 'Newton Shooting' thread, but all our threads get deleted so we had to put it in the 'Lets Blame Conservatives For the Gifford Shooting' thread."
lol...I came here looking for gun debate...looks like that discussion has already run its course.
|
|
| | | 799 | Boldwin
ID: 1611501822
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 00:22
|
When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly. - Instapundit
|
|
| | | 800 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 02:37
|
Joyce Carol Oates, author of over fifty novels, as well as many volumes of short stories, poetry, and nonfiction. Nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. The Roger S. Berlind '52 Professor in the Humanities with the Program in Creative Writing at Princeton University, where she has taught since 1978: “If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?” Actress Marg Helgenberger: CSI and China Beach
‘One can only hope’ NRA members get shot.
|
|
| | | 801 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 05:57
|
Flashback: Erik Loomis criticized Sarah Palin for ‘violent rhetoric’ First fxxxxr to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.
—
The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) December 14, 2012
Four days ago, Erik Loomis, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Rhode Island, retweeted the above tweet. In case it disappears down the memory hole, here’s a .jpg captured for posterity:
---
Now I want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick.—
---
Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children.
---
You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy. Fxxx the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison.—
---
Larry Pratt and the group Gun Owners of America are terrorists and should be dealt with as such.
---
Idiot of the day: Eugene Volokh, for arguing we should arm school teachers.
---
The NRA pushes for policies that make it complicit in mass murders in the US and Mexico. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
---
He calls it an “intimidation campaign” when websites such as Campus Reform, quote what he said about Wayne LaPierre:
---
Update, 1:22 pm ET: Loomis defends his “head on a stick” comment in a blog post. (It’s OK because it was a metaphor, you see.) He mentions in passing that he had “a meeting with the Rhode Island State Police last night.”
---
@ErikLoomis what about the @rudepundit retweet? What is "needs to get beaten to death" a metaphor for?—
---
Question: Does Loomis advocate the assassination of the Governor of Virginia?
Bob McDonnell: Consider guns for school officials
---
Update, 3:14 pm ET: Loomis has deleted his Twitter account. The tweets he doesn’t want you to see are here.
|
|
| | | 802 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 08:48
|
Really Boldwin, you do so much more harm than good.
|
|
| | | 803 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 09:50
|
As I am now a part time resident of Grand Junction, Colorado, I have rekindled my wonderful 42 year friendship with Sam Tillman, a lifelong Western Colorado resident and avid hunter for 50 years. Sam is one of the most gentle persons I have ever known, so the 5 rifles he keeps in his gun case are no threat except to deer and elk for a couple weeks every October. I don't know if Sam owns any handguns. If he does, they are kept out of sight, a good idea since he has young grandchildren who visit often.
There are millions of Sam Tillmans in this country - responsible gun owners who are not defined by their guns, but would adamantly and rightfully revolt if the government attempted to confiscate his guns.
I don't think any but the most radical suggest that Sam give up his guns, so let's take that out of the equation, which is a battlecry of the other radicals who promote unfettered access to all weapons for all persons.
The discussion is about assault weapons and high volume magazines which have nothing to do with self defense, and the lack of regulations regarding gun shows and private sales. The discussion is about proper training, proper storage and proper accreditation for those who desire to conceal carry.
Many think the discussion should be about mental health issues. It's my opinion that anyone who thinks they need to own several AR-15 assault rifles, along with high volume magazine semi-automatic handguns display mental health issues.
|
|
| | | 804 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 10:00
|
I agree with you PV, but as I said in my post 746, I don't expect the NRA, or anyone, to ever into a rational debate when the other side is calling guns "killing machines".
I think the NRA is wrong with many of their stances, but when the opposite side wants to, or at least appears to, ban all guns, why should they compromise on any point? Banning assault rifles should happen, high capacity magazines, gets a little tougher as it needs to be defined. Banana clips on rifles? Sure. A Glock with a 17 round magazine? Not so much.
|
|
| | | 805 | Tree
ID: 531119199
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 10:26
|
When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly.
actually, what they're saying is "enough is enough."
“If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?”
which is no way is advocating violence, whatsoever.
Actress Marg Helgenberger - ‘One can only hope’ NRA members get shot
very misleading. at no point did she say "NRA members get shot". not once.
|
|
| | | 806 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:03
|
Another issue in the forefront is arming teachers, administrators, janitors or other officials at schools.
If a teacher, administrator, janitor, or school resource officer passes a rigorous training program, and storage issues can be realistically addressed, I wouldn't be automatically opposed to the idea.
However, what are we saying when we ask a first grade teacher to take off her coat and show her class a holstered gun in the off chance that a maniac will suddenly burst into the class with an assault weapon? Because, in order to be effective, that's where that weapon would have to be, on her/his person and loaded. Not in a purse. Not in a drawer. Not in a coat. Immediately accessible, because there's no time to fetch and load a weapon when the maniac can fire hundreds of bullets in a minute or two. Most teachers just aren't wired that way to begin with. But for those that are, maybe it's a good lesson for children to learn what effect radical paranoia has on some people.
Perhaps a better lesson would be to try and teach children that being peaceful and non-aggressive is a good way to approach life, but that's probably the remnants of my teen years growing up in the flower power era of the late 60s talking.
|
|
| | | 807 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:49
|
That isn't a remnant of the 60's, PV. That's the understanding that we live in a lawful society and treating all others as potential enemies to be repelled with deadly means is no way to live in a civil society.
|
|
| | | 808 | Razor
ID: 177192916
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:00
|
No, PV, you are on to something. In the same way that we teach anti-drug and safe sex in schools, we must educate our kids on the proper ways to deal with anger and depression. In all my years of schooling, I don't think that topic ever came up but it may very well be a failing of our educational system. It will not eliminate school violence, but it will do more good than harm. Teaching kids proper coping skills goes beyond preventing school shootings; it's a valuable life lesson applicable to everyone.
The idea of arming teachers is a nonstarter proposed by gun nuts. Confusing as it is to some, not everyone wants to carry and/or use a gun. There are likely hundreds of thousands of teachers who have no interest in doing so. Teachers are not security officers any more than flight attendants are air marshals.
|
|
| | | 809 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:32
|
I just don't think putting guns in the hands of teachers is the right answer. One of the big issues we face is responsible gun ownership. Having a gun be a part of a teacher's job in no way ensures it is in responsible hands.
Teachers are put into a high stress environment, given authority and then have their authority challenged on a daily basis.
And, as highly as I think of all the teacher's my 3 kids have this year and in past years I'm trying to imagine those teacher's having access to guns in school. Sorry, no. Just doesn't sit right with me.
Now, an armed security guard at schools is a different story. Much like police, firearms are a part of their job.
|
|
| | | 810 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:46
|
Agree. Arming people who are not proficient in firearms only introduces more guns into a society which is already beset by the proliferation of weapons that increase the possibility of violent and deadly encounters, even if the intentions are valiant.
|
|
| | | 811 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:47
|
heh...2 weeks ago, teachers were presented by the right as "union thugs". Now, the right is suggesting we arm them.
|
|
| | | 812 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 13:01
|
Arming union thugs--who knew the GOP would advocate such a thing!
|
|
| | | 813 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 13:18
|
|
|
| | | 814 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 13:28
|
Crazy little bit of reality
Here’s a quick way to see how rapidly things have changed. Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed U.S. chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only “to ensure that the ‘state armies’ -- ‘the militia’ -- would be maintained for the defense of the state.”
A year before, Burger went even further. On “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger said the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word ‘fraud’ -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Burger wasn’t in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word “fraud,” Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.
|
|
| | | 815 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 13:40
|
#813
I would agree that the gratuitous violence in video games, movies and some of the music in the modern world is a contributory factor to the current culture which accepts violence as a part of everday life in America.
It would be refreshing if others would admit that the rather easy accessibility to assault weapons is also a contributory factor, instead of promoting their proliferation.
|
|
| | | 816 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 13:53
|
My take on gun control.
I am a gun owner...own multiple guns including some that would be considered "assault rifles". My guns are safe, locked up, hopefully will never be used against another human. I was in the military, understand the dangers of guns, understand how to handle my guns. My guns allow me to fill my freezer with meat to feed my family. My guns give me at least some measure of safety in case the shit really hits the fan.
I along with most gun owners are not really against increased regulation but what hurts the attempts at more regulation is the real fear of where does it stop. As a rational person I understand there will ALWAYS be gun violence in this country...bad guys will always have guns. There will likely always be a next maniac mass murderer. We ban assault rifles tomorrow and the next maniac uses semi auto pistols "we need to ban those"...next maniac uses a hunting rifle "ban them!". It is a real fear because we understand that there is a real movement to ban all guns. Criminals will always have guns...how has drug prohibition worked? Guns will flow over the Mexican border the same way drugs do now...another enterprise to make the cartels/criminals rich.
Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands...nearly impossible to prevent...guns are here...always will be. Prohibit all guns...nut cases and criminals will still have and get guns. Law abiding gun owners are rarely the problem when it comes to guns..."assault rifles" are even less of a problem as they account for less than 1% of gun homicides. What problem are we fixing by banning assault rifles...this will prevent homicidal maniacs? To me banning assault rifles is more of a feel good thing...look we are doing something! but it does not solve any of the real problems.
Guns definitely make the headlines but we regularly tolerate far more statistically dangerous things in our life. Pools...cars...motorcycles...boats...household chemicals...prescription drugs...cigarettes...alcohol...etc... 1000 children die and many more brain damaged in backyard pools every year...should we get rid of all pools...how is this less tragic than what happened in Newtown?
There are an estimated 250 million guns in private hands...given the sheer volume compared to the number of actual homicides (~8K in 2011)...also consider it is estimated that 75% of all gun homicides are criminal/drug/gang related....so the reality is guns only take ~2000 non "bad guy" victims. The vast majority of gun owners are safe with their weapons...non gun owners are even more statistically safe from the violence of guns. Annually 40-50K die in cars, 500K die from smoking, a child is 100x more likely to drown in a backyard pool than get shot by the pool owners gun.
People like to point to Australia as the model to ban guns...well there were less than 1 million guns in private hands when the ban was enacted (far different than the US). People like to point to the decline in gun homicides in Australia the past 20 years...but they fail to mention the US has had a very similar decline in gun homicides the past 20 years. People like to point to the decline in gun suicides in Australia...guess what people are still committing suicide in Australia...they just do not use guns to do the job. People fail to mention the increase in armed robbery in Australia...seems the criminals have nothing to fear.
I am in favor of harsher sentencing for crimes committed with guns, closing background check loopholes, increased mental health options, increased gun education options. If the government is really interested in making an impact in gun homicides they should declare war against the gang culture in this country...consider them domestic terrorists...they are responsible for 75% of gun deaths...that is one place where a meaningful impact can be made. In the end I am not at all interested in giving up my guns and not interested in changing the 2nd amendment.
|
|
| | | 817 | Tree
ID: 531119199
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:06
|
Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands...nearly impossible to prevent...guns are here...always will be.
this is the part where i stop you.
if guns are less readily available, there's less chance they end up the wrong hands. this is simple math.
and the whole "guns are here, and here to stay" line is bunk and a cop out.
30 years ago, drinking and driving was tolerated. songs celebrated it. the phrase "one more for the road" was in the common vernacular.
and then Car Lightner was killed by a drunk driver, and one woman's courage to stand up and change the "here to stay" culture changed everything.
|
|
| | | 818 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:20
|
Tree...how has drug prohibition worked? There are an estimated 200-250 million guns in private hands...what is the plan to remove those. A lot of gun owners have many thousands of dollars invested in their guns...how do you plan to compensate those people? Example...I have a few pre ban rifles that were purchased in the late 80s...they are now worth over $5K+ each because they are no longer allowed to be imported to this country but they are legal to own as they are considered pre ban (grandfathered in)...I would gladly turn them in for $5K but not going to give them up in any $200 buy back program.
I do agree...less guns...gun bans...probably result in a slight decrease in gun homicides and less availability. But you are a fool if you think "bad guys" will still not have the same access to guns.
As fantasy sports nuts we are all sort of statistical driven people. While guns make headlines...there are 200-250 million in the US...~2000 non-gang/criminal related homicides. We take for granted FAR more dangerous things in our society. With many freedoms there is a cost.
Guns also help feed 12 million hunters families...help employ around a quarter million people in the gun/hunting industries. Are used many thousands of times a year to defend against home break ins and violent crime.
I just think it is short sighted to think a ban will solve the problem.
|
|
| | | 819 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:25
|
There wasn't anything even the slightest bit conservative about Burger on the court other than siding with the anti-sodomy side in the Texas case and he was for harsh sentences which some would interpret as conservative. He started out siding with liberals from day one and gave us abortion. It is hard to call the Burger court any less liberal than the clownishly liberal Warren court before it.
|
|
| | | 820 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:32
|
That was your entire take away B? You choose then to ignore, that prior to 2008, SCOTUS ruling affirmed that the 2nd Amendment referred to STATE militias, not individual rights?
Chicago...your 816 was a beautifully written piece. TY for a spot of rationality.
I too am former military, a gun owner and an advocate of individual right to bear arms. HOWEVER, I am also in favor of requiring that we test, license and restrict access to a firearm, more diligently than we do with an automobile. Yes, it is true that more people die annually in car wrecks than in gun incidents. It is also true though, that the assault rifle and handgun, were each designed with the express purpose of killing another human being. THAT, was the impetus behind their even coming to be. I think such a tool, warrants closer regulation.
|
|
| | | 821 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:35
|
Re#818 Millions of serious crimes are prevented by the potential victim being armed.
There is news coming out that the kid had gotten knowledge that his mother who had recently traded up in marriage partners had also started committment proceedings on the child.
Even well adjusted kids would take that news that they were being traded away poorly to say the least.
You can't say, well if only the mother had gotten supervision for the kid...she was doing so.
You can't say she shouldn't have protected herself from the kid. He was clearly a mortal threat.
You can say keeping the first family intact would have been better for society.
|
|
| | | 822 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 14:49
|
No B, you can not say that either. Not unless you have a crystal ball that consistently and without fail accurately, illustrates the future. In which case, you would now the upcoming winning lottery numbers.
|
|
| | | 823 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 15:26
|
I think Chicago TRS represents a large contingency of gun owners in this country.
own multiple guns including some that would be considered "assault rifles"
Under what scenario do you think you'd ever have to use the ones considered "assault rifles?" You must have thought about it, since you think there's a possibility in case the shit really hits the fan. Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that kind of scenario happening. The most likely scenario would be a food crisis, where the en masse starving would assault any home where they felt there was food to be had.
I get the feeling more people think a more realistic scenario would be Obama ordering massive imprisonment in FEMA camps(lacking any real emergency, just because), the UN imposing Agenda 21 a la Glenn Beck's fictional and completely distorted interpretation, or the Muslim Brotherhood moving from house to house slitting throats in their jihad to establish a totalitarian one world caliphate.
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm honestly wondering what the motivations are for those who feel more secure owning these types of weapons. It may be as innocent as wanting the latest technology, like a guy with a perfectly good Iphone 4, standing in line for hours to get the new Iphone 5.
|
|
| | | 824 | Tree
ID: 531119199
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 15:45
|
But you are a fool if you think "bad guys" will still not have the same access to guns.
statistics from nations with more restrictive gun laws say otherwise.
I just think it is short sighted to think a ban will solve the problem.
the problem here is the word "ban". very few are trying to ban guns - rather, make it more restrictive to own them.
why do we have to get driver's licenses regularly? why do our cars have to be inspected annually?
for safety's sake.
and guns should be no different.
|
|
| | | 825 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:45
|
PV...what scenario do I think I would actually have to use an assault rifle? Hopefully I never will have to actually "use" an assault rifle for its intended purpose. What scenario? I am not sure but it covers many...economic collapse, any scenario where there is widespread looting or widespread lawlessness. Do I expect to ever have to use it?...no...but if the time comes I feel safer by having access.
I do shoot them at ranges very occasionally or at friends who have enough property. Not that I shoot them often as ammunition is expensive. At this point they are more toys/hobby/investment than anything else. They mostly sit in a secure gun safe for years at a time. I have used an AR-15 to hunt coyote. By far the gun I value and use the most is a semi-automatic shotgun I use for deer hunting...that gun contributes ~30% of the meat my family consumes annually.
I am not necessarily against further regulation and even licensing but would be against punitive $$$ reoccurring licensing fees that some are floating.
|
|
| | | 826 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:47
|
How is it punitive, to have to renew a weapons license, when we renew auto licenses and DLs, constantly?
|
|
| | | 827 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:58
|
sarge...when I say punitive I have heard people float that it would cost $1000 to register a gun annually or a $x per bullet fee. Anything that is intended to prevent ownership through forcing owners to shell out a lot of money and jump through hoops to own a gun.
If I had to pay $50 per year for some license I do not have a problem. I basically already do that because in Illinois we are required to have FOID (firearm owners ID) card that needs to be renewed every x years.
|
|
| | | 828 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 17:18
|
I always look forward to dinner at my aforementioned friend Sam's when he's got some venison or elk steaks grilling, some fresh veggies from his garden, not to mention the unemcumbered view of Colorado National Monument and the hundreds of miles of wilderness to the Southwest.
In such a setting, it's hard to worry about the plight of inner-city environs, and even if the few poor folks in the GJ trailer parks decided to mount an attack on Orchard Mesa, there are those 5 rifles in Sam's gun cabinet.
|
|
| | | 829 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 17:21
|
OK Chi...those points, I would agree with you entirely.
|
|
| | | 830 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 17:27
|
The "marketplace of ideas" on this issue is very crowded. There are some very good ideas here, but lets not take some of the more extreme ideas, apply that to the other "side," and not try to find the more natural course that good faith thinking brings about.
I suspect that some of the middle areas have to do with training, with registration, and perhaps with weapon quantity limits, nearly all of this state-based.
Trying to outlaw guns is as crazy as arming teachers, IMO. It just runs too counter to what we are as a country, good or bad.
|
|
| | | 831 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 18:51
|
Casting about for reasons to blame someone, the newest blame from the Right: There were no men in the school!
|
|
| | |
| | | 833 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 22:22
|
831 that guy is an idiotic ass
|
|
| | | 834 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 12:05
|
Joyce Carol Oates: My hope for violence against NRA members wasn't 'ironic'; 'I meant this seriously'
|
|
| | |
| | | 836 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 18:17
|
I'd make him an astronaut and an F-14 pilot if it meant not compromising the constitution.
|
|
| | | 837 | WiddleAvi
ID: 2211202017
Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 18:20
|
Not sure how common sense gun control is compromising the consitution. The Consitution does not say what type of guns need to be allowed nor does it say what sort of requirements are needed to able to get a gun.
|
|
| | | 838 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 18:29
|
The constitution, doesnt even say GUNS..it says "arms". A sword, is an arm.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 842 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 23:19
|
Th Lott articles are excellent. Wish the mainstream press would expose some of the real statistics.
|
|
| | | 843 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 00:09
|
Krauthammer
|
|
| | | 844 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 01:11
|
Plug this into those figures.
Clinton passed Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990.
FBI on school shootings.
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
In fact, there's only one example in the data of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. At least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.
List
roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway, so they aren’t even part of this statistic. What that means is that police are not even in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.
Second, within the civilian category two thirds were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. I found only one case where the heroic civilian was killed in the process, although many were wounded. In 2005, when David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire with an assault rifle from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas Mark Wilson fired back. Mark succeeded in drawing Arroyo’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded.
If you compare the average deaths in a shooting rampage stopped by armed civilians to unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6, but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive heroic civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.
So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by proactive civilians, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians
|
|
| | | 845 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 02:12
|
The story my religion tells us, to prevent us from going the 'prepper' route as we see things spinning out of control, is that of a guy who could see the coming winds of WWII and mapped out the safest retreat to sit out the war. The guy decided to relocate to Guam.
The shooter's mother was a prepper, which I am surprised hasn't come up. Lots of liberals elsewhere have tried to make political hay over that.
Didn't help her unfortunately. Nearly impossible to hide from the craziness of this age.
|
|
| | | 846 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 02:49
|
Adam Lanza Had Webpage Dedicated to Satan.
So that's another way he was like Saul Alinsky.
|
|
| | | 847 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 09:20
|
Adam Lanza Had Webpage Dedicated to Satan.
Not that it really matters, but that is unconfirmed. It matters to those who can link it to Alinsky, and, in turn, to Obama, since wingnuts like to claim that Alinsky was/is
Obama's mentor, so in the unhinged minds of those who have nothing better to do with their time, they've made a connection of this tragedy to Obama.
Then these unhinged minds can't understand why they're not widely respected as politically saavy.
|
|
| | | 848 | Boldwin
ID: 41148209
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 10:38
|
Who mentioned Obama?
|
|
| | | 849 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 12:26
|
Now you're gonna claim that you haven't linked Alinsky to Obama?
I guess that would be about as believable as the rest of your wild claims.
|
|
| | | 851 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 13:49
|
Like I mentioned in 809 and others have mentioned, the NRA announced a plan they would like to see put into action that involves armed security guards at schools.
|
|
| | | 852 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 13:54
|
The NRA dials it to 11.
A fever dream of both flexing and ducking responsibility.
The answer to violence isn't violence, unless the bystanders killed don't count. And I see no accounting for bystanders in the efforts by the NRA.
|
|
| | | 853 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 14:39
|
Virginia Tech Khahan, has an on campus Police force...lot of good it did. Chicago, LA, NYC, Miami...all have MASSIVE PDs...still has shootings. Armed guards wont stop a crazed assailant. You know that, as well as any of us. What MIGHT stop them, or at least slow them down, is to require proper licensing, registration and storage of weapons and munitions. What might slow them down, is to have fewer than 88 firearms per 100 citizens in the country.
|
|
| | | 854 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 14:40
|
I just like the term MASSIVE PDs. Think I'm going to steal it for a future fantasy team.
|
|
| | | 855 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 15:02
|
So what you are saying Sarge is that because there are instances where a system didn't work we shouldn't bother with that system?
Should we eliminate drunk driving laws because people still drive drunk? We both know the answer to that. Your asssertion in 853 is that because the proposed program is not 100% we should not use it. Well guess what - your proposed program is also not going to stop this 100%.
I do agree all those things mention are worthwhile and should be implemented. I also believe having security at school is not a bad idea. Not just for situations like this but just the day to day school life. I had a gun pulled on me in high school. My brother got stuck in a knife fight on the school bus in high school.
The girl I took to the prom, a few years later her brother was busted for dealing ecstasy. At the time he was the largest known dealer in Pa (this was in the early 90's). He was 15. My school was banned from PIAA post season play for a year because of a football brawl on field during play (very racially diverse school I attended and a not-so-diverse school from central Pa taunting a guy who was a 2x big 33 QB and 4time PIAA championship wrestler...yeah, that was smart).
We had teachers sent to the hospital at student hands, twice. And I went to a nice suburban high school where in my graduating class both Pa appointments to the Naval Academy came from my school.
There is plenty of good security at a school can do. Is it *the* answer that will magically stop all bad things from happening? Nope. Never said it was.
Will proper licensing, registration and regulations about storage/munitions magically stop this stuff from happening? Nope. You never said it would, either.
But can both show a net positive effect? I believe they can.
|
|
| | | 856 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 15:09
|
I, for one, am disappointed that telling Congress to find billions of dollars a year to put armed security guards into schools is the only thing the NRA proposed. No proposal to close the gun show loophole. No offer to get rid of assault weapons or a push to re-up the Assault Weapons Ban. No new regulations.
The NRA literally did not use the words "license," "registration" or "assault" in their statement.
Their sole proposal was an arms race, after taking a week to consider their response. They shouldn't be taken seriously at this point.
|
|
| | | 857 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 15:25
|
... there are instances where a system didn't work we shouldn't bother with that system?
INSTANCES where it didnt work? Dare I say, show me where it HAS worked? Show me the city, with no crime ever.
Here's a mental exercise for ya...you are a quasi deranged individual bent on attacking innocent children. You have an AR-15, with an effective range of 250 yards. You see 2 armed guards at the entrance yo the school building, ea carrying a 9mm on their hips.
There is the scenario...what are you going to do? (hint: any answer other than shoot the guards from 50+ yards away, is either a lie, or a foolish attempt to skirt the question.)
IOW....armed guards; wont work.
|
|
| | | 858 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 15:47
|
Sarge, you can't really be comparing a closed area private security force to an open, city or county-wide police force can you?
We have a police force, but there are still armed security guards in a bank. We have a police force but we still have security in malls. We have an army on the national level but still have police forces at the state and local levels.
Apples and oranges. You don't believe security in school will work but the reasoning you are giving has absolutely nothing to do with security in school.
And PD, I agree 100% we should not be looking to congress for this. It should NOT be mandated. But it is an option each school district should evaluate and consider for themselves.
And Sarge, that is a lovely scenario you drew up. But who said we'll have armed security 'stationed' at the entrance to the school like a check point? No need to play the games because that's not reality. I'm not talking about a military camp. Just a security (or multiple depending on size) to patrol the grounds and hallways. Little different scenario than the picture you are trying to paint.
|
|
| | | 859 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 17:52
|
Patrolling? Like the campus police at Virginia Tech?
If you dont monitor constantly, the entrances...then you can not keep the guns out of the building. Simple fact of security.
Point is, it will not work..period. Security, ONLY works to dissuade the law abiding. Simple reality. Simple truth.
|
|
| | | 860 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 18:41
|
"Point is, it will not work..period. Security, ONLY works to dissuade the law abiding. Simple reality. Simple truth." Regulations are no different.
As long as there are 200+ million guns in our society those who are intent on doing bad things will likely gain access and choose to use a firearm. The futility of banning assault weapons is a typical hunting rifle is no less effective. A semi-auto handgun is not much less effective. If all guns were magically removed from US society the typical mass shooter (highly intelligent, capable) would find an alternative that was just as destructive.
About the best you can do is put regulations in place and increase security...and hope they have some effect. There is no fool proof solution that will stop or even slow down a crazed maniac.
Or just live with the cost and understand statistically gun violence affects very few innocent people especially when you weigh it against other things in our every day lives that we regularly tolerate and are statistically far more dangerous.
|
|
| | | 861 | Boldwin
ID: 5111492117
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 19:03
|
bibA 849 - Now you're gonna claim that you haven't linked Alinsky to Obama?
You are the one saying it.
|
|
| | | 862 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 19:21
|
Lmao.
You are bat $hit crazy Baldwin. Just nuts. You've spent years linking Obama to someone most people never heard of until you, and now you're disavowing it?
Lmao.
|
|
| | | 863 | Boldwin
ID: 5111492117
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 20:24
|
Not disowning it, pointing out that it was an inescapable conclusion.
It's always more powerful when it's so obvious to others that they make your point for you. Jesus spoke thus.
|
|
| | | 864 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 20:54
|
Armed guards at schools...tested twice, failed twice
n April of 1999 13 people were killed by two gunmen; students at the school. Could they have been saved by that one guard that the NRA wants us to believe is the solution? Well, there was an armed guard ; a 15 year veteran of the Sheriff’s department. He responded, and he returned fire. He called the Sheriff’s office for backup. Yet, with both an armed security guard on site and backup coming in by the minute the two shooters, who started their rampage at 11:19 a.m. and continued until THEY ended it at 12:08 p.m with their own suicides. They left 13 dead and 21 injured in the wake of that 49 minute attack.
In March of 2005 a 16 year old shooter killed his grandfather, a deputy sheriff, took his guns including two handguns and a shotgun and vest and went to Red Lake High School in his grandfather’s police vehicle. The first person he killed was one of the school’s two security guards at the door. He went on to kill five students and a teacher at the school, wounding at least a dozen more before ending his own life
|
|
| | | 865 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 21:06
|
an inescapable conclusion
You picked it up from one of your unhinged websites, maybe even the one I linked to.
There is no confirmation that Adam Lanza was a Satanist or had a Satanic website. Here's the source:
Lanza's worshiping page had the word 'Devil' written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd told The National Enquirer, something which he said was 'weird' and 'gave him the chills'.
The National Enquirer? Don't they pay people for stories? Why hasn't Trevor Todd been all over the rest of the media with these revelations? What media have picked up and ran with this story? I couldn't find one legitimate media orgainization with a follow up. That's not to say Lanza wasn't a Satanist, but it was entered into this forum as if it were established fact:
Adam Lanza Had Webpage Dedicated to Satan
followed by the gleeful tie-in of Obama to Satan.
And then you want to lecture this forum about morals. Heh.
|
|
| | |
| | | 867 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 01:59
|
Since a state can not pass legislation contrary to the Constitution...I will say it again, "The govt is not coming for your guns".
|
|
| | | 868 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 02:00
|
...OK, they can pass it...just cant enforce it.
|
|
| | | 869 | Boldwin
ID: 5111492117
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 02:08
|
They are inexplicably knocking on my door for a great big insurance check for a service I didn't even ask for. Taxing me every year for not wearing a seat belt. Telling me what I can eat and drink. Why not just strip our houses of guns, "Fer the chilren" */voice of Ann Richards* while they are at it?
|
|
| | | 870 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 02:13
|
A fine, for a traffic violation is not a tax. Same affect as one I will grant, but it is a punishment for violating the law. That one, is self inflicted. All you have to do to negate it, is get off your sanctimonious high horse.
|
|
| | | 871 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 02:43
|
He's feeling oppressed!
|
|
| | | 872 | Boldwin
ID: 3113225
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 06:03
|
You see the violence inherent in the system? Huh? Do'ya?
|
|
| | | 873 | Boldwin
ID: 3113225
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 12:20
|
After hoping NRA members will be shot, Marg Helgenberger 'demands a plan' to end gun violence.
How about banning Marge Helgenberger?
|
|
| | | 874 | R9
ID: 99272420
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 14:04
|
So are you kids down south going to lose your guns yet? Doesn't seem like you know how to use them properly, maybe its time they got taken away. :p
I had to lol at the NRA though; "Guns in the schools? Solution: More guns in the schools!"
Step one of the nutjob's plan just changed from 'Break into school, start shooting innocents' to 'Break into school, shoot unlucky and likely unsuspecting guard, start shooting innocents'.
An assault rifle ban doesn't go far enough, if thats the chosen solution. Either ban them all or ban none of them. A helpless teacher and helpless kids are still no match for a nutjob carrying a bolt-action rifle or automatic pistol...
|
|
| | | 875 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 416222423
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 17:29
|
Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?
Pretty good read...comes to the conclusions I expected. "it would not appreciably raise violence if all lawabiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians... individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."
|
|
| | | 876 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 17:38
|
First of all, "banning firearms" is not being seriously considered here. And the authors of that study do not take up any of the actual responses being considered.
|
|
| | | 877 | Boldwin
ID: 3113225
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 20:47
|
From various sources, all connected: The NRA came out with a proposal to post armed police officers at schools to prevent or at least minimize the next school shooting. The left promptly called the idea nuts.
Turns out, it wasn’t a new idea. President Bill Clinton proposed the same idea in April 2000. He implemented it, too, only to see Barack Obama cut the funding for it.
So, if you’re keeping score, the NRA agrees with a 12-year old Bill Clinton position on school security. The left just called a former Democrat president “crazy.”
---
Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.
---
The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.
---
The Columbine shooting occurred on April 20, 1999. The Assault Weapons Ban that the Democrats wish to revive in response to the Newtown killings ran from 1993 to 2004.
---
The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.
The COPS in Schools program provides a maximum federal contribution up of to $125,000 per officer position for approved salary and benefit costs over the 3-year grant period, with any remaining costs to be paid with local funds. Officers paid with CIS funding must be hired on or after the grant award start date. All jurisdictions that apply must also demonstrate that they have primary law enforcement authority over the school(s) identified in their application, and also demonstrate their inability to implement this project without federal assistance. Funding will begin when the new officers are hired on or after the grant award date, and will be paid over the course of the 3-year grant period.
COPS has announced 19 rounds of funding under the COPS in Schools program, including five that were a part of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, a joint initiative between the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant program was developed to provide students, schools, and communities with the benefit of enhanced educational, mental health, and law enforcement services to promote a comprehensive healthy childhood development.
---
ST. LOUIS COUNTY (KMOv.com) — Law enforcment and schools around St. Louis are asking Congress to help prevent another attack like the tragedy in Connecticut.
More than 100 school leaders met with area police departments to discuss school safety.
Officials plan to ask Congress to renew the Cops In School initiative. Federal funding to put officers in schools ended in 2003.
“So what we’re looking for is for Congress to reinstitute the Cops in Schools program, said St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch. “We think that’s the best way to deal with an armed intruder, is to have a fully trained, armed police officer on the property.”
Source
Source
|
|
| | | 878 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 21:57
|
Arming a couple guards is no way to solve the problem. That doesn't add enough firepower.
The real key to solving school violence is to arm the kindergarteners.
|
|
| | | 879 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 23:53
|
There is no problem with schools re-instituting the program. Just that the states have to pay for it.
[And, of course, the program wasn't putting cops into elementary schools. The focus was always on high schools. Somehow this never gets into the memes of the Right, who are so desperate to avoid blame for their violence-prone ways that the air postively reeks with flecks of their oil.]
|
|
| | | 880 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 00:09
|
Many high schools still have armed security. This is where security makes sense because students at that age are capable of being the attacker.
IMO at this point an attack on an elementary school should be considered a one time incident...paying many 100s of millions in hopes of stopping some one in a billion random maniac is a waste of resources. Would probably be a better long term investment to harden entrances.
|
|
| | | 881 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 00:26
|
Why is the first target of gun control, "assault weapons"? I understand it is an easy target because they look scary and have been used in mass shooting incidents (along with every other type of firearm). It makes little sense if you understand firearms...the typical hunting rifle is equally as capable and most times more powerful...it is easy to carry multiple handguns and magazines. I interpret this as, "one type of gun banned...now we can move onto the next".
Why not move towards increased background checks, uniform waiting periods, detecting straw buyers, licenses...I think most gun owners are in favor of reasonable regulations.
|
|
| | | 882 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 00:46
|
"avoid blame for their violence-prone ways that the air postively reeks with flecks of their oil."
This is unfounded and unnecessary. I think its been proven with multiple posts on these boards that violent people are on both the right and left. Blanket character assassination serves no purpose, PD and I've come to expect more from you. If you can't support your stance without character assassination, maybe its time to rethink your stance.
|
|
| | | 883 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 00:57
|
I assassinated no characters.
The NRA's singular suggestion in response to this tragedy is to introduce weapons into all elementary schools in the United States. Also, they believe something needs to be done about video games. So threatened violence and blame sidestepping. Perhaps you are taking my criticism of the NRA's stale policy ideas personally, I dunno. But I'll not pull punches against an organization which responds to dead kids with putting more guns out there.
CTRS: Because they are unnecessary, for the most part. Also, in a politically-charged environment, going after the "easy" target is the wisest first step. Finally, the NRA doesn't want any of those things--not one. Most gun owners might, indeed, be in favore but their spokespeople are putting a ton of money out there to ensure that no legislature seriously starts talking about any of those ideas.
|
|
| | | 884 | Boldwin
ID: 3113225
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 04:03
|
Would that really be your response if a cop walked into an elementary school? "How dare you 'introduce weapons into an elementary school'?"
And if you weren't so obsessed with the government growing ever more powerful you'd admit the reason the right and a fair number on the left wants the RTBA is nothing more complicated or sinister than wanting to keep the government respecting their constitutional limits of power. Which was enuff power for 200 years. Why must they be given more relative power?
|
|
| | | 885 | Boldwin
ID: 3113225
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 04:45
|
Since Australia's gun ban women are 3 times more likely to be raped than American women. - wiki
|
|
| | | 886 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 08:42
|
Why not move towards increased background checks, uniform waiting periods, detecting straw buyers, licenses...I think most gun owners are in favor of reasonable regulations
I think you'd be shocked at the number of gun owners in the south who think you're a liberal coming for their guns with that sentiment.
|
|
| | | 887 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 09:24
|
In the past few years gun rights advocates have seen the right to bear arms extended far beyond the scope intended by the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks in no small part to exactly the kind of judicial activism the right claims to detest, it would now take a constitutional amendment to ban guns or handguns anywhere in the US.
And no such constitutional amendment is going to happen because there isn't anything remotely close to the support it would take to pass one in congress, much less to elect a congress who would pass one.
Sadly, the NRA and rightist media have many gun rights supporters brainwashed into thinking liberals will ban and confiscate their guns every time the public discussion turns toward firearms restrictions.
If we could put aside the incredibly profitable paranoia sold to RTBA supporters by the NRA, we could have a real discussion about a combination of policies that might address the spike in mass shootings in America over the past few decades.
Or we can continue to fantasize about how terrible it would be if liberals took all our guns away.
|
|
| | | 888 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 09:51
|
Guns are still not the root problem of the mass shootings. The magnify the issue, but the fundamental issue is still not being adequately addressed, which is mental health and how we diagnose and treat mental problems.
While the NRA is obstinate and wrong, asking them to enter into a rationale discussion with the other side who thinks guns are nothing more than "killing machines" isn't fair. Both sides are wrong IMO.
The writers of the Constitution, were very generic in the writing of the 2nd Amendment and the subsequent rulings were inline with what the framers intended. That allows the banning of specific guns. That our law makers are afraid to do that, is a failure of those law makers.
|
|
| | | 889 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 10:10
|
No, Frick. Before DC v Heller in 2008, if a particular city or even a state wanted to ban guns, it was their right to do so.
|
|
| | | 890 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 11:16
|
"While the NRA is obstinate and wrong, asking them to enter into a rationale discussion with the other side who thinks guns are nothing more than "killing machines" isn't fair. Both sides are wrong IMO.'
What? A gun is, quite literally, a machine specifically designed for killing. I don't know how anyone can even dispute that.
|
|
| | | 891 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 11:32
|
The writers of the Constitution lived in an entirely different world in 1791 than we do in almost 2013.
The population of the US in 1791 was about the size of current metro Seattle.
Beyond the claim that an armed citizenry was necessary to keep an oppressive government from enslaving the population, something that only the terminally paranoid consider in the United States of 2013, there were very realistic needs for arms in 1791.
Hunting was not a recreation, it was a necessity. Wildlife wasn't something you travelled hundreds of miles hoping to see, it was a threat to eat you if you ventured outside of your home. And then there were Indians.
Arms in 1791 consisted of muskets, which took a long time to load, and cannons, which were hard to keep a low profile if dragging it down the street to the nearest school.
It's virtually impossible to predict what the framers of the 2nd amendment would have written had they been aware of conditions in 2013. If the right to bears arms shall not be infringed were taken literally in every case, people would be allowed to take their weapons on airplanes, but I don't see any kind of movement in that direction, even from the NRA. Last month I had to throw away some hair mousse because it was more than 3 ounces. The good news is that, at my age, I'm fortunate to have a need for hair mousse.
|
|
| | | 892 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 11:32
|
Moral equivalency between entering a negotiation with insensitive language and entering one with the position that responsibility for the problem lies with everyone except us.
Both sides are irrational and wrong!
|
|
| | | 893 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 13:22
|
I do agree that many gun owners are not in favor of any additional regulations. I think the more moderate would not balk at increased regulations but when the anti-guns first move is trying to ban a certain type of weapon that is statistically insignificant and no different than other legal weapons it certainly does not make me want the pro-gun side to give on any points.
I do not get the assault weapons unnecessary argument...most things in life are unnecessary. There are very realistic needs for arms today.
Focusing on a tool rather than the societal causes of violence/homicide is short sighted and not likely to make any impact on what anti-guns are hoping to impact. Guns are an easy target but the data says guns or no guns has little effect on overall homicide numbers.
|
|
| | | 894 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 13:31
|
I don't see any need for assault weaponry. Particularly when unaccompanied by training.
The problem here is that the menatally unstable have easy access to weapons that kill rather easily. Yeah, we focus on the tool because if he had just a handgun, or knives, the body count would be fewer.
[We also focus on the tool because there is a very large problem with guns being misused. Given their lethality, it is no surprise that guns are a leading cause of accidental death, of suicides, and domestic violence]
|
|
| | | 895 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 13:54
|
"I don't see any need for assault weaponry."
An "assault weapon" is no different than a typical hunting rifle...it just looks different.
"we focus on the tool because if he had just a handgun, or knives, the body count would be fewer."
See this is the problem. A handgun is just as effective if not more effective than an assault rifle. With a handgun it is far easier to carry multiple weapons, magazines...if this latest maniac only had handguns he likely would have had the exact same results.
It is shortsighted to focus on a tool and not likely to have any positive results. Someone intent on homicide or suicide gets the job done whether they have access to a gun or not. In countries that limit or ban guns, overall homicide and suicide rates are unchanged pre-ban/post-ban.
|
|
| | | 896 | Seattle Zen
ID: 4811181319
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 14:16
|
Someone intent on homicide or suicide gets the job done whether they have access to a gun or not. In countries that limit or ban guns, overall homicide and suicide rates are unchanged pre-ban/post-ban.
That's just patently false. It's absurd to even suggest it is just as easy to murder a crowd of people with a knife as with a semi-auto firearm with a huge clip. Yeah, homicide rates are unchanged, just like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I don't bother debating guns with Americans because it destroys my faith in the humanity of my countrymen.
|
|
| | | 897 | Seattle Zen
ID: 4811181319
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 14:24
|
I was watching Ken Burns' The Dust Bowl this week and wondered how did those poor people survive that cataclysmic economic meltdown without AR-15's?
|
|
| | | 898 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 14:26
|
An "assault weapon" is no different than a typical hunting rifle
This is untrue. The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban hunting rifles, it banned assault weapons.
Someone intent on homicide or suicide...
With respect, this is the same call toward inaction we have been hearing about gun control for many, many years. If you can't even offer up assult weapons (which you haven't demonstrated any need for) you are going to get steamrolled in the coming debate.
I think nearly all Americans are more agreeable about gun use when there is some demonstrative need. You haven't offered any.
Yes, guns are tools. Tools made for killing. You've already lost the debate on whether some weaponry is acceptable by private citizens or not (even if you don't realize it). How much more will you lose because you refuse to enter the debate?
|
|
| | | 899 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 15:07
|
I see no problem with the fact that many Americans might feel like giving average people access to high capacity magazines, weapons that fire rounds above a certain caliber, produce (or are easily modified to produce) bursts of multiple rounds and other types of potentially more dangerous or destructive weapons or accessories might put us at greater risk. Whether it addresses our safety from public mass shootings is irrelevant. I don't care what you call them; assault rifles, killing machines, semantics are a distraction. People have a right to support what they feel is sensible firearms policy.
I also see no problem with the fact that just as many people might feel safer if there was more armed security around. The deputy stationed at Columbine High School may have indeed saved lives by drawing fire from one of the gunmen for a time. He also called for backup. A trained professional could relay details to responding officers that could tell them how best to approach a situation, details that might never occur to the average 9-1-1 caller.
I do admit I was surprised that the NRA went this way, as I'm under the impression that most gun rights activists are of a certain libertarian bent and (I'd think) would be offended by any suggestion of increased authoritarianism from their own ranks, especially considering the popular meme among gun rights types about not trusting the government with their security.
I don't know the details of the Clinton-era law and how well it worked but I'd hope that whether there is armed security at a particular school is ultimately left to the district or appropriate local authority, with some funds made available should they decide they need it.
And I'm all for taking a closer look at how we deal with the mentally ill. I don't know how much truth there is to the oft-stated argument that many of the country's mentally ill were de-institutionalized in the 1980s. Supposedly this effort cut the number of committed on government funding to a level that is responsible for much of our modern homelessness and perhaps much of our violent crime.
How many of our recent mass shooters were on some kind of behavior-altering medication? Assuming moreso than average, is this an indictment of our country's mental health, our process of diagnosis, our quality and reach of treatment or the riskiness of our pharmaceuticals?
It's a complicated problem and surely all of the recent mass shootings do not have the same root cause. Overall, violent crime is still way down from its 1980s peak. Is it possible that some of our mass shootings might be somehow related to the authoritarian measures we've taken to bring down our overall crime numbers?
|
|
| | | 900 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 15:22
|
Crime is way down--much of what I've read on the subject involves a ton of precedent-busting crime numbers. When recessions have hit in the past, crime numbers have gone up pretty much every time across the board. Even in high-crime areas, rates have flattened and sometimes gone down throughout the economic downturn. There might be some sociological reasons going on which aren't really clear right now.
But I really do hope that people make the distinction between what the NRA has proposed (armed security in every elementary school) and all the anectdotal stories about shooters at high schools. The presence of the Columbine armed security guard wasn't the deterrant that the NRA would have us believe is true ("Of course!" you can practically hear them say, about the deterrant power of guns and schools).
|
|
| | | 901 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 15:33
|
Well obviously there is no true solution, just lots of measures that could potentially make some difference if applied correctly and in the appropriate places.
I'm not a fan of the NRA and am not very interested in their involvement of the discussion. They are a much bigger part of the problem than they are the solution as far as I'm concerned. They offered an idea that, while falling well short of an solution, I believe has some merit in a limited capacity.
|
|
| | | 902 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 15:49
|
895 An "assault weapon" is no different than a typical hunting rifle...it just looks different.
So you would hunt deer with a .223 cal. rifle?
|
|
| | | 903 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 16:12
|
From what I understand, plenty of rifles that were perfectly suitable for hunting were caught up in the 1994 assault weapons ban. From wiki, here are the legal criteria for that law:In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
|
|
| | | 904 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 16:16
|
I'm not sure why we should consider a pistol grip (for example) to be partial criteria for qualifying as an "assault weapon".
We can have a better law than that.
|
|
| | | 906 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 17:07
|
Which is why the criteria was "2 or more." My understanding is that these modifications were done to allow those weapons to be used more offensively.
And these kind of modifications of guns are further away from the hunting rifles being envisioned. I'm unaware of hunters being restricted by the law in any meaningful way. The few people I know who had weapons covered under the ban (a small group, to be sure) never used them for hunting and had other weapons, fully covered by the law, for hunting purposes.
Given that we've been selling guns hand over fist the last few years, almost exclusively to people who already have guns, I don't think an assault weapons ban would have any real effect on these people, even worded exactly the same.
I'm not saying that a proposed law shouldn't have changes. I'm merely saying that your objection to it above doesn't hold much water, IMO, particularly since we can correct perceived inbalances with a new law.
|
|
| | | 907 | R9
ID: 99272420
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 19:01
|
The defense of guns will always be puzzling to me. Two examples of countries that have very few guns, due in very large part to successful legislation against them:
Japan
UK
As the UK article points out, it takes alot of time to both implement a wide-ranging ban and see effects of said ban. So that head NRA guy saying that a 5-year window (or whatever it was) against assault weapons didn't prevent one mass shooting... what a tool. Changing an entire culture from gun-accepting to not gun-accepting will take years. Decades. It worked in Japan, its working in the UK, its starting to work in Austrailia...
The biggest issue that will prevent any kind of change in gun laws:
Gun companies in the US are very big, and make lots of $$$ selling guns. Put laws against them, and most of them will honestly have to close for business.
Its no different then the electric car being shutdown by the oil industry, or the insurance industry fighting against any change in the way medical insurance is done in the US. When massive profits are at stake, politicians in states and on the federal level are really powerless to make any kind of change.
Its a sad, sad state of affairs, and its slowly leaving the US behind on alot of social issues. The US will always be an economic and military superpower, but its days of being a moral superpower are slipping away. Other countries are able to tackle their biggest social issues head on, regardless on profits or popularity.
The US has failed at balancing its budget (and is failing again), has failed at fixing its broken healthcare system, and now is failing on guns. And thats all in an administration that vowed change on all of these things. And when you trace the source of the immovable object, it all comes down to the $$$.
|
|
| | | 909 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 19:22
|
PD
your objection to it above doesn't hold much water, IMO, particularly since we can correct perceived inbalances with a new law.
You clearly misunderstand me, since I'm fine with a law that restricts access to some of the more dangerous and destructive firearms (or firearm features) that are currently widely available.
My point is that the previous law should be improved. But I'm not sure what your opinion of how "much water" my objections hold (or don't hold) is based on.
Please explain to me why a pistol grips should be any part of a weapons restriction, or why any rifle with a pistol grip and telescoping stock should be regarded as an assault weapon.
|
|
| | | 910 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 20:23
|
Why? We're talking about a law which expired in 2004, which might (or might not) get introduced and if it does almost certainly in a new form.
|
|
| | | 911 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 00:56
|
It's a mark of our nation's civility that people have no fear of constantly pestering and insulting those with lots of guns. - Frank Fleming, LMAO
|
|
| | | 912 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 01:06
|
Crazy.
|
|
| | | 913 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 01:10
|
Just two separate clicks on the ratchet.
Click#1: "We're only asking to ban handgrips and black paint...why are you fighting this?"
Click#2: "There's nothing significantly different between this gun and that gun, why aren't we banning all of them?"
|
|
| | | 915 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 416222423
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 01:59
|
Perm dude...when I say an assault rifle is no different than a hunting rifle I am saying functionally they are the same gun...shooting the same bullets just with different accessories. An "assault gun ban" mostly bans how a gun looks. Hunting version... --- Assault version...
Functionally the same gun...one looks assault the other does not. What does it accomplish to ban gun accessories?
As for the pro-gun side losing the battle/debate...I can't remember the last time the pro-gun side has lost a battle...gun freedoms in this country have expanded exponentially over the last 20 years.
bibA .223 round is a very popular hunting round...main round for small/medium game - coyote, fox, pigs, varmints, turkey.
R9 UK gun ban being successful is pure myth. Since the UK gun ban the US violent crime and homicide numbers have declined far more than the UK. UK armed robbery has skyrocketed, while US armed robbery has declined significantly over the same period. Historical homicides in the UK. --- US homicide numbers...
Violent crime/homicide are a function of societal issues not on access to firearms. Comparing Japan or even the UK to the US is comparing apples to oranges. The US has an estimated 1.4 million active gang members, the largest drug trafficking organizations in the world, a more diverse population...of course we have more homicides we have a lot more people that regularly kill other people. All over the world homicide rates vary greatly from country to country and guns/no guns has shown no correlation to overall homicide numbers.
|
|
| | | 916 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 06:55
|
PD 910
You're the one who took issue with my comments about the old law, which were stated in hope that any new law would avoid the same pitfalls. If you want to drop it so be it but it isn't like you to criticize and then refuse to explain beyond a couple of throwaway lines.
ChicagoTRS
Am I to understand that a .223 round is smaller and therefore presumably less dangerous and destructive than 30-06 rounds, which (I believe) are much more commonly used for hunting larger game like deer?
TRS/R9
Stats can be made to say whatever you want if you apply cheap standards of correlation.
They banned guns and crime went up in Australia. They banned "assault weapons" in the US and violent crime plummeted to its lowest levels since they started keeping track. They banned guns in the UK and crime soared there. They took away the gun ban in Chicago after years of steady crime numbers and then the next year the crime rate there suddenly spiked.
The ever-shifting societal characteristics and variables that go into creating a thing like violent crime statistics are way too complicated to so clumsily attribute to legal firearm availability in a particular area. There are tons and tons of factors involved and people from both sides lazily and dishonestly present these numbers without even a thought to show that access to firearms is the driving factor.
|
|
| | | 917 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 09:37
|
Absolutely a .223 round is a smaller less deadly round than a 30-06 round.
Russia is a good anti-US comparison. Very little to no private gun ownership. Gun homicides/suicides far less in Russia than US. But overall homicides/suicides are 4x as high...murderers just get the job done using knives, blunt objects...other means. The presence of guns does not create murderers.
In the US the number of guns in private hands has increased exponentially over the past 20 years and especially over the last 4 years. Homicides, violent crime has decreased in the same period...why?
|
|
| | | 918 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 09:44
|
It's a little less than twice as much. But, of course, its Russia!
Homicides, violent crime has decreased in the same period...why?
As I noted above. Also, note that the percentage of people holding guns overall is flat. Which means that the sales of private guns are almost all going to people who already have guns.
|
|
| | | 919 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 10:10
|
Chicago TRS
Interesting about .223 vs 30-06. Like I said I have no problems with increased restrictions, but we've got to come up with something smarter than the old AWB.
the number of guns in private hands has increased exponentially over the past 20 years... Homicides, violent crime has decreased in the same period...why?
The number of guns in private hands has increased but have the number of private hands with guns increased?
These are the first figures I came across so maybe you have competing numbers.
Anyway, the downward trend in violent crime started well over 2 decades ago and there are all manner of theories as to why. I think the strongest argument is probably the end of the crack epidemic that peaked in the late 80s. Another possibility is the very extreme incarceration rate in this country. And while it's a touchy topic, some have suggested the high number of abortions, particularly among very poor women who live in areas with high rates of violent crime, could have something to do with it. Other say it might be the increasingly educated and independent identity of American black women, who more and more are asserting themselves as dominant matriarchal figures and have surely had enough of seeing their partners and brothers and sons screw up their families. I've also seen some suggest the rise of home video game systems which tend to keep young slacker males indoors, which doesn't sound entirely outlandish, either.
Sure, maybe the number of privately owned guns has something to do with it, too. Though when we consider that the overwhelming majority of gun violence has been and presumably still is committed by armed young men upon other young men who are also likely to be armed, I'm not sure how strong a deterrent an increased number of guns legally in private hands could be.
|
|
| | | 920 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 10:14
|
Sorry - this was the graph I intended to post:
|
|
| | | 921 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 11:31
|
912: There are a few things crazy about LaPierre. Namely his 'heels dug in' stance that its his way or the highway and any other discussion is a moot point.
Another is his instance that armed police or security be in every school. I support having armed security in schools, but I support it as an option that should be open. It should NOT be a national program. It should NOT be 'the' way of handling the situation.
It is a viable option and it should be on the table for any district who has evaluated their situation and feels its the way to go.
Just like Texas town allows its teachers to be armed in schools. They feel it is the best solution for them and have teachers willing to do so.
I support that town doing that. But that does not I support their solution as THE solution for all schools. In fact I'd say they are the exception, not the norm to turn to armed teachers.
In all honesty I'd say the norm is to do nothing. Even having armed security should probably be the exception. But the point I was making earlier in thread is that schools should be allowed to have the option. Not necessarily that they should take it.
Unfortunately this is being viewed as a national debate, therefore there will be a 'national resolution.' And that's wholly impractical. The NRA's solution is a national solution. Obama is trying to come up with a national solution. Both sides are missing the mark on safety in schools.
|
|
| | |
| | | 923 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 11:47
|
#921: I mostly agree, but there are other possible responses which are national in origin that are properly dealt with on that level. An Assault Weapons Ban (of whatever form) would have to be a national ban to be of any good, for example. A national registry would also have to be national in scope.
But largely I agree with 921.
|
|
| | | 924 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 11:53
|
It should NOT be a national program.
Whats the problem with a national program as long as it's voluntary?
|
|
| | | 925 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 12:03
|
924 - Because it won't be voluntary for one.
For two, its a district level issue we are talking about. Simply put I think the feds do too much as it is. I want them doing less. This is not something that needs to be done on the federal level (school safety issues, what pd said in 923 should be on the fed, but that is a slightly different conversation).
Even on the state level it seems too broad reaching to have an effective program, whether voluntary or not. My suburban school is a different situation than the rural district next door which is a different situation than the slightly more urban district to the east which is a completely different situation than the fully urban district 40 mins away in Philadelphia which is a very different situation than the upper-middle class suburban districts in between.
Its simply not practical. So the state comes out with a program which means, "do it this way and we help pay for it." Tell me again how that is voluntary?
|
|
| | | 926 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 12:07
|
Allow any, and as many firearms as a person wants. Then, restrict ammo to just a few rounds annually.
|
|
| | | 927 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 12:09
|
Because it won't be voluntary
How can you know that? Nothing has even been proposed yet, aside from the rantings of some idiot that are probably disregarded by 2/3 of the country is not more.
The only thing I'd advocate (regarding security in schools) at the federal level is funding. Create a pool of federal tax money that districts can have access to if they should want to station police officers or trained security at schools.
Where does the impracticality come in?
|
|
| | | 928 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 15:57
|
Perhaps it's too early to speculate or even comment on the incident referred to in #922, but here's the latest info.
A gunman ambushed firefighters at a house fire in the Rochester suburb of Webster, N.Y., early Monday, killing two firemen and injuring two others before killing himself.
The gunman, who shot and killed himself at the scene, was identified as William Spengler, who was arrested by Webster police in 1980 for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death with a hammer.
Spengler, 62, served 17 years in New York State prison on manslaughter charges, police officials said.
Pickering said Spengler had staked out a position with an arsenal of several firearms on a berm overlooking the scene.
"It appears that it was a trap," Pickering said. "There was a car in a house that was engulfed in flames, probably set by Mr. Spengler, who lay in wait with his armaments and shot the first responders."
"Looking at his history, obviously this is an individual who has a lot of problems, who killed his grandmother, and I'm sure there were mental health issues," Pickering said.
He said Spengler's 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, was unaccounted for. He lived in the house with his sister and mother, Arline, who died in October.
The police officer at the scene who first radioed in to report the presence of a shooter said he "could see the muzzle blast coming at me."
"It's going to be a rifle or a shotgun, high-powered," the officer said, according to a tape of the call. "He's right across from the house on fire."
Pickering said the first Webster police officer who arrived chased Spengler and exchanged gunfire with him, authorities said. The officer "in all likelihood saved many lives," he said.
The obvious question, at least to me, is how did a man who spent 17 years in prison for murder(ok, technically manslaughter)get his hands on an arsenal of high-powered weapons in a state with relatively strong gun control laws?
The next question is, how does the NRA react to this type of incident? I personally can't buy the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "a gun is just a tool" or "anyone bent on murder will find a means to accomplish their goal." Is the next suggestion to place armed security not only in every school, but in every neighborhood, on every street corner, in front of every house?
Even then, it's doubtful those firefighters would have escaped the ambush that awaited them. So maybe, just maybe, the proliferation and availability of weapons in this country needs to be examined, along with an honest evaluation of the mental competency of those who wish to possess their own personal arsenals.
|
|
| | | 929 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 16:48
|
The average mass murderer/spree killer has violated over 40 gun laws.
Perhaps we could expose people virtually nonstop to a lifetime of visions of the world's most beautiful, popular and exciting people having exciting and dramatic adventures with guns in their everyday lives.
Maybe that would help.
I'm looking at you Matt Damon. Marg Helgenberger, etc.
|
|
| | | 932 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 18:10
|
You guys don't like hypocrisy, I thot?
Flyover country has maybe 200-300 people with guns surrounding them within a rifle shot. They are their churchgoing neighbors by and large. People know them on sight and may even know their knickname at the local bar.
They more or less trust them except for that guy with a string of petty larceny convictions who lives over in that house in bouganville. Doors are still left unlocked in many neighborhoods, especially when the homeowners are home.
To them guns are what keeps John Wayne between them and the bad guys. The bad guys from New York City and other large dens of depravity.
----
To the people in the giant blue spikes of greed and dysfunctionally large cities, they see a landscape where maybe 1000-2000 people are within a rifle shot. The most visible of them belong to gangs and are on the corner with a reputation for proclivity to send off a gunshot irresponsibly. Even if they don't mean you harm, you are in the line of fire of their gangwar. If you were to return fire, your bullet might go thru several apartments. Tho your alderman can get a concealed carry permit, you don't believe you could get one even if you wanted to and went thru all that red tape.
You saw a slightly dishevelled guy walking down Broadway boulevard at night last year aimlessly waiving a gun around and you still cringe knowing the police weren't there and nothing could have stopped him if he had looked cross-eyed at you.
|
|
| | | 933 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 18:22
|
Dianne Feinstein as San Francisco mayor, she tried to ban handguns in San Francisco, while she was enjoying the protection of both a police bodyguard and her own concealed carry (CCW) handgun permit.
NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzburger editorialized against guns but had his own CCW permit.
Chief Justice Warren Burger said NRA’s individual rights argument "is a fraud," but revealed his true belief when meeting late night callers with his own loaded revolver in his hand.
Jane Fonda asked why she and Tom Hayden had handguns when they supported gun control, she said, "Gun control? That’s for other people, not for us."
The rich know how to keep their kids safe, but your kids should be sitting ducks for half an hour.
|
|
| | | 934 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 18:32
|
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there's a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."
|
|
| | | 935 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 18:55
|
So yer sayin' one of the reasons the 'wild west' was wild was due to gun control.
I think you've got a point.
|
|
| | | 936 | Boldwin
ID: 311512322
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 19:43
|
Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a revolutionary pity that uses empathy only as fuel for outrage.
---
Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading as outrage which in turn is dressed up as a deep love for others and empathy for all living creatures. Peel away the mask of compassion and all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power. And the only way to truly justify the kind of total power summoned by such lusts is by reducing the people you would rule over to the status of non-persons.
The clash that will define the future of America is this collision between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is accountability.
To understand the left's position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely reactive capacity.
---
The only possible answer to reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.
If you want to fake being a member of the left on any topic and in any setting, master this simple phrase. "But we have to look at the root causes to see who is really responsible." Congratulations, you can now get by anywhere from Caracas to Brussels to Berkeley.
The root cause is a perpetual search for an accountability vested in systems rather than people. That search always ends up with systems and ideologies, rather than mere people, because it justifies the destruction of those systems and ideologies. And destroying systems and ideologies allows them to be replaced by their progressive replacements.
The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character. The right asks, "Why did you kill?" The left asks, "Who let him have a gun?", "Who didn't provide him with a job" and "Who neglected his self-esteem?"
Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.
---
This is the society that the left is creating, a place filled with as many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve you. - Daniel Greenfield
|
|
| | |
| | | 938 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 22:52
|
While I recognize that an individual gun permit is a public record and that information can be found I think that paper stepped over line. Way over the line. Its one thing to have a publicly accessible database from registration. Its another thing entirely to organize that database in a way it was never organized and publish it in the newspaper.
B's example in 937, hiding from an abusive ex is a perfect illustration showing irresponsibility of this newspaper who is obviously pushing an agenda rather than reporting news. In my eyes with that article, they are no longer a news outlet but an activist organization and do not deserve to be called the press.
|
|
| | |
| | | 940 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 23:23
|
It is still, a bad idea. Whats next? Nat Gd at the malls, on street corners?
|
|
| | | 941 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 416222423
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 23:44
|
Will be interesting if they ever release the details of the CT shooting. Rumor is the .223 bushmaster was left in the vehicle and not even used...had 4 handguns.
|
|
| | | 942 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 23:49
|
Boxer said the National Guard legislation is modeled after a program in place since 1989 that allows governors to use the National Guard to aid law enforcement in anti-drug operations
A bad law being modeled on a previous bad law.
|
|
| | | 943 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 00:20
|
Rumor is the .223 bushmaster was left in the vehicle and not even used...had 4 handguns.
When I served, I carried 3 personally owned sidearms when we deployed. Why? Because it is faster to draw another weapon, than it is to reload the one in your hands.
|
|
| | | 944 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 07:47
|
It'll be interesting to see where a lot of politicians line up on the security in schools thing. I believe Governor Christie came out against the idea.
The Journal News made a poor choice in that drawing attention to the homes of people with permits was unnecessary. How much actual danger it potentially puts them in is another matter. World Net Daily (much less WND by way of Boldwin at Rotoguru) might be the single worst source possible for commentary on the media.
|
|
| | | 945 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 08:04
|
So, every 30 years a crazy man shoots up a kindergarten, and the solution is to mandate a policeman or equivalent in every school, every day, all day, until......forever? Maybe it's me, but that sounds like a bit too much.
|
|
| | | 946 | Boldwin
ID: 011322421
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 10:40
|
Every 30 years? Do you know that the very same day as the CT shooting, a guy in China went on a knifing spree and knifed @20 people. It's more than just a copycat thing. It's like there is a radio channel only psychos can hear, or some Telephon program going off. MKULTRA still active or something.
Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”
I'd rather pay for a school guard than adding another social worker, but making sure there are some concealed carry teachers works just as well for me.
|
|
| | | 947 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 11:01
|
Let local districts make their own choices.
IMO one time incident for now...review schools security plans...most schools have locked entrances w/cameras, all should. If a school has an employee that has prior training, is willing, and/or ccw consider it.
Main thing is I would not spend much money...hiring guards is expensive and overkill. Having local police be more of a presence at busy times (before/after school)...ok.
|
|
| | | 948 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 11:36
|
It should be noted that in that Chinese knife attack, no one died.
Instead of arming teachers, disarm assailants. I'll take 20 kids getting knifed and hospitalized over 20 kids getting shot and buried, any day.
|
|
| | | 949 | Boldwin
ID: 011322421
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 12:14
|
None of the above.
|
|
| | | 950 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 13:38
|
Its far too crowded in that ass for another head.
|
|
| | | 953 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 14:46
|
Tree, in that particular incident in china no kids died, but that was far from the only incident. There have been multiple knife instances over the years at elementary schools where people have died. And what does the first responder ambush, sandyhook school shooting, Dark Knight shoot and those knifings all have in common? A mentally unstable person out in public.
|
|
| | | 954 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 14:47
|
Trees point wasn't that no one has ever died, but that gun attacks are much more lethal than knife attacks. Is this even a point that needs to be made?
|
|
| | | 955 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 15:05
|
And, just to be clear: The NRA wants no other responses, none. And some of their friends in Congress : "People where I live, I’ve been Christmas shopping all weekend, have come up to me: ‘Please don’t let the government take my guns away,’ ” Mr. Graham said."
Apparently these legislators have no people coming up to them, saying "Don't let our children be killed by assault rifles in the hands of crazy people."
|
|
| | | 956 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 15:07
|
Think the families in Webster, New York wish William Spangler had a knife?
Police say the man who lured firefighters in Webster, N.Y., into a deadly ambush had the same make and caliber semiautomatic rifle as the one used in the Connecticut school massacre.
Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler was armed with a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun in Monday's ambush. Spengler killed two firefighters and wounded two others before fatally shooting himself.
Police have not said which weapon or weapons were used to shoot the firefighters.
link
|
|
| | |
| | | 958 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 16:42
|
PV, he was hell bent on killing. If he didn't have a gun and a knife was impractical, he would have found another way. Perhaps explosives or gas.
That was my point in 953. Events like Webster are NOT about guns. They are about people who are out of their minds and will do anything they can to murder.
And PD, you claim guns are much more lethal than knife attacks. How so? Dead is dead. There is no degree of lethality with that. People have killed 20 others in knife wielding attacks in China. That particular incident had a better ending. But that does not mean nor prove that knives are less lethal.
Yes, guns have the potential for more carnage due to their ability to strike safely from a distance. But if we take guns away and they disappear, never to be seen again, some psycho will just use a high power crossbow. Or molotov cocktails. And can still sit safely at a distance and lob their death whenever they please.
Focusing on guns is wrong. Its the wrong way for this debate. Gun attacks, knife attacks, Timothy McVeigh bombing, machete attacks in Mexico...they all come from people who are not right in the head. Either mentally insane, lacking total compassion, completely removed from society. Whatever. They all involve mental issues of some kind. That is where the debate should be.
Tree said, "I'll take 20 kids getting knifed and hospitalized over 20 kids getting shot and buried, any day. " and we all agree with that. But you can take out the 'knifed' and 'shot' and still have the same sentiment. And in different situations you could have a 20 person lethal knife attack and a gun attack with no fatalities. Its not about guns. Its about people.
|
|
| | | 959 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 17:29
|
If he didn't have a gun and a knife was impractical, he would have found another way. Perhaps explosives or gas.
We don't know that. He did use gas(or some accelerant) to start the fire which brought the respondents. That didn't kill anyone. It was the guns that allowed him to ambush the unsuspecting firefighters, hitting 4 of them on arrival.
Its not about guns. Its about people.
In this case, it's about both. The people had spent 17 years in prison for a murder(pleaded down to manslaughter)charge for killing his grandmother with a hammer. Not many people are capable of such brutality. Yet, he was able to obtain a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun.
As a convicted felon, it was illegal for him to own any guns, yet, there are places that bring gun buyers and gun sellers together - the easy way.
|
|
| | | 960 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 17:48
|
But that does not mean nor prove that knives are less lethal.
Do we REALLY, require proof that knives lack the lethality of firearms? REALLY?
|
|
| | | 961 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 18:17
|
Re the link in #959 at the bottom of the page:
Buyers and sellers are required to know and comply with all applicable local, state and federal firearm laws.
But do they really comply?
"Under current law, there's a gaping Internet loophole which enables gun websites to facilitate illegal gun sales that result in gun crimes and gun deaths," said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a lawyer representing Vesel's family. "Felons, the dangerously mentally ill and domestic-violence abusers can buy guns no questions asked."
This is where the NRA position is so disingenuous. LaPierre, on his Meet The Press appearance, scolded the government for investing far too little effort into enforcing the longstanding federal law that makes it illegal for convicted felons to possess guns. The federal effort to enforce existing restrictions on gun possession, he said, is “pitiful.”
In the next breath, he firmly opposed curbs on private gun sales and contended that the advocates of stringent restrictions on such sales want to put “every gun sale under the thumb of the federal government.”
link
So, if the questiion is,
"How does a mentally unstable convicted felon who isn't legally allowed to own a gun manage to obtain three?"
don't ask Wayne LaPierre.
|
|
| | | 962 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 18:27
|
Sarge, I would think you of all people on the boards would know the lethality of a knife.
PV - no, we don't know that. We only know that he set an ambush because he wanted
to do what he liked doing best, killing people.
Now, you tell me he wouldn't have found some other way? He had already killed one person with a hammer in his life. Its suspected his sister is dead. No telling how she was killed. No, we don't know for sure what method he would have used, but do you honestly believe he wouldn't have found some other way? I don't. I think he was hoping to kill people in his neighborhood when he set their houses on fire. 7 of them.
When the nutjob in Denver opened fire inthe movie theater, he left his apartment rigged with explosives. Luckily they were found and dealt with. If they had gone off, how many people in his apartment would have died? I'll say it again, if people are truly intent on making the world a safe place, then the conversation needs to be focused on people, not guns. Thats not to say we shouldn't discuss guns. But they should only be a side of the conversation, a peripheral. A necessary peripheral, but a peripheral. The focus should be on people and mental health.
|
|
| | | 963 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 18:33
|
You show me anyone Khahan..ANYONE on this entore planet, who can kill with a knife from 100 yards. I dare you. To even argue that the two weapoans are similar in lethality, is to subscribe to the absurd. Tell me, if they are so comparable, why does every army on the planet, have more assault rifles, than bayonets?
|
|
| | | 964 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 18:46
|
Now, you tell me he wouldn't have found some other way?
We can speculate all we want. The point isn't that he could have done something else with some other weapon. It is that he did that, with guns. Sure, maybe he could have attacked them with a hammer. But yet he still didn't.
One has to believe that the increased lethality of guns, along with their ability to kill at range, are an attraction (otherwise, he would have chosen a different way).
Sorry, but I think this "he was intent on killing" intentionally tries to draw the attention away from the method, which is the point. The Aurora killer didn't kill with explosives--he killed with guns. All these crazy people killed with guns.
|
|
| | | 965 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 19:05
|
the conversation needs to be focused on people, not guns.
Ok, let's focus on people.
I submit that people who have known mental illness, or convicted felons who are forbidden to own guns, be prohibited from buying guns through private sales or internet sites unless they are subjected to a complete background check. Or Knives. Or explosives. Or bows and arrows.
What good is it focusing on people if we identify them as a threat to a safe and secure society, but still allow them to get their hands on deadly weapons through loopholes in the law?
|
|
| | | 966 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 19:30
|
Has no one heard of a "suicide bomber"?...other parts of the world sure have.
|
|
| | | 967 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 20:05
|
Yep. And many components for a bomb, are monitored and reportable purchases. Not so with ammo, even if you buy 6,000 rounds at a time.
|
|
| | | 968 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 20:23
|
"Sorry, but I think this "he was intent on killing" intentionally tries to draw the attention away from the method, which is the point. The Aurora killer didn't kill with explosives--he killed with guns. All these crazy people killed with guns."
Well we have a fundamental disagreement. I think the 'he was intent to kill' IS the point. How he chooses to do it is irrelevant. The people that are dead, would they be less dead if he shot them with a crossbow? Would they be less dead if he waited until they were in a house then detonated a bomb? No, they wouldn't. He was intent on killing and he left a note that killing is what he wanted to do. Period. He wanted to kill. End of story.
The aurora killer didn't kill with explosives ONLY because they were found. If the cops or a neighbor or anybody had gone in his apartment....he would have killed with explosives. Saving lives from future mass killings needs to be about the people who are doing, not the method. BEcause when you get down to it, if you remove one method, the person with the will and desire still exists and will just find another method.
And no, 'all these crazy people' didn't just kill with guns. Only the ones who serve your purpose did.
Knife attacks
Bath School bombing
30 homocides spread out over time is still a mass killing. No gun used.
Yes,the conversation should include guns. I'll say it again. But no, the focal point of the conversation should not be guns, but the people who use them. A responsible look will consider the consequences of taking them away - people will find other methods if they so desire. And they do so desire.
And PV - reasonable goals in 965. I have no problem having to get a permit to buy a gun. The permit should be available with application and only denied in certain circumstances - prior violent felonies, mental health issues etc.
If there are no reasons to keep a gun out of a persons hands then there are no reasons to deny the permit.
Buying at a gun show, over the internet or a private exchange should require a permit, much the way changing the title of a car requires a notary and exchange of title.
|
|
| | | 969 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 20:32
|
But no, the focal point of the conversation should not be guns, but the people who use them.
Here is the problem with that position....to be truly effectve? You have to approach that Tom Cruise movie where he went back in time and busted people BEFORE they did a crime, because they were going to do something illegal. Now, how do we tell who to bust?
As one who is on record, on this forum, as saying they can have my guns, when they can take them away from me BY FORCE, I am also on record as saying that we have FAR too many guns in private hands now. FAR too many, and the last thing we as a nation need, is to continue to allow unmonitored sales at gun shows. You have ot take a test ot get a DL. You have to have a DL to register a car. You have to periodically retest to KEEP your DL and you have to renew the registration for your car every year.IN many states, you have to have your car safety inspected. Guess what?
I am in favor of both a written AND a range qualifying proficiency test, before you get the permit to purchase a firearm. I am in favr of requiring ALL firearms be registered. I am in favor, of requiring ALL firearms, to be stored in a proper gun safe. I am in favor, of allowing the local SO for ex, to inspect a premises for said gun safe, prior to issuing a permit to purchase. I am in favor of limiting ammunition purchases, to not more than 1 box per quarter, per licensed and registered weapon in the home. Cant afford a gun safe? Then you cant afford to buy a gun either. None of us, buys a car we cant afford to insure.
|
|
| | | 970 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 20:41
|
You've already lost the argument if you think this isn't about the guns. We ban all sorts of weaponry for private use (including many gun types) because the focal point is on those tools; in the hands of private individuals some weapons are considered out-of-bounds. Do any real (non-crazy) pro-gun people believe that the government has gone too far in banning those weapons?
I realize that the tricks of the NRA include trying to change the target. And, to their credit, it has worked. But that's really not going to work here.
|
|
| | | 971 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 21:12
|
I would be curious about reactions if we applied some of these standards in different arenas.
Iran is committed to wiping Israel off the map. They're going to find a way to do it one way or another, so why oppose them developing nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are just a tool. Sure, they're designed to kill a lot of people really quickly, but that's irrelevant. And scud missles are so yesterday.
Aren't many of the same people who oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons by any means possible fighting against those who want to prohibit easy availability of weapons to potential mass murderers by any means possible in this country?
|
|
| | | 972 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 21:42
|
Love the analogy PV.
|
|
| | | 973 | Tree
ID: 131137414
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 21:45
|
168 - Ted Bundy is not a mass killer. he is a serial killer, and there is a world of difference. that difference can easily be Googled, and to use a serial killer as an example of a mass killer isn't comparing apples to apples.
|
|
| | | 974 | Boldwin
ID: 3311192523
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 00:41
|
PV
Really, you can't seriously compare allowing everyone a personal nuke in their garage, with the historical RTBA.
Nor can you compare a country who has openly flaunted their intention to wipe a country off the face of the planet as soon as they achieve nuclear power, with your neighbor.
You are attempting a crude reductio ad absurdum combined with an appeal to the moral uncertainty and fear of modern man over anything connected to nuclear power.
Inappropriate mockery. Yes constitutionalists know nukes are scary. We forgot. Thanks for reminding us. We caved on this one with machine guns already. We are OK with banning them even tho they actually do fit the indisputable intended use the framers had in mind, namely balancing the general populations power with that of the government.
So stop pretending we are unreasonable.
|
|
| | | 975 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 00:56
|
Indisputable? Hardly indisputable. In fact, VERY much disputable, when one considers the meaning of words used in context with the times...ie "militia", was a citizen soldier. Today, we call those the National Guard and/or Reservists. Further, the weaponry of the day was single shot, 1 min or so to reload. 60 shots/hr was pretty solid performance. I cant help but wonder, what the FF would think of our putting weapons in gunshows, where they can be bought with ZERO paperwork...that can fire on semi-automatic and empty a 20 rd mag in under 7 seconds. Allowing one to fire in 60 seconds, on semi, an hours worth of firing at the time the BoR was written.
|
|
| | | 979 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:12
|
If so-called constitutionalists who believe in the misinterpretation that the 2nd Amendment was written to provide the people with the ability to fight off the government, also openly concede to already having acquiesced all arms that might approach the means to that end, then they clearly also believe the thing no longer serves it's intended purpose.
|
|
| | | 980 | Boldwin
ID: 3311192523
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:12
|
MITH
then you concede the thing no longer serves it's intended purpose.
Do I really have to pull out General Yamamoto's quote? You know perfectly well that refutation is out there, but you try it anyway.
|
|
| | | 981 | Boldwin
ID: 3311192523
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:15
|
constitutionalists who believe in the misinterpretation that the 2nd Amendment was written to provide the people with the ability to fight off the government
What's your alternative interpretation? The framers wanted to make sure there was a turkey in every pot?
|
|
| | | 982 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:17
|
There is no point in refuting my patronization of your misinterpretation.
|
|
| | | 983 | Boldwin
ID: 3311192523
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:24
|
So you concede that point at least.
|
|
| | | 984 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:26
|
I don't offer any alternative interpretation. Only the literal one.
I can certainly go along with the idea that it served other purposes as well, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution to work the way you think, since the state and local legislatures weren't subject to the Bill of Rights. What logical point did it serve if the state of South Carolina could just outlaw guns anyway? The right to bear arms protected for the purpose of retaining the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government would have been provided in the state constitutions (if they were so inclined).
But since the reality of how the Bill of Rights was intended to work is a completely foreign concept to you, I fully expect all this to clang right off your head and I'll be reminded of why I'm trying so hard to never ever engage you.
|
|
| | | 985 | Boldwin
ID: 3311192523
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 01:57
|
I spose the first amendment was because the FF liked to party all night long and didn't want the feds to shut down their rave party freedom of expression also. Nothing to do with tyranny. Nope. Na'uhuh.
It was about freedom and preventing the lack of it ever developing. There is no denying it. If they had liked tyranny they wouldn't have revolted.
|
|
| | | 988 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 07:59
|
Nor can you compare a country who has openly flaunted their intention to wipe a country off the face of the planet as soon as they achieve nuclear power, with your neighbor.
You don't know my neighbor.
|
|
| | | 989 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 08:17
|
B you're not even debating points. You're just opposing sentences I write with vague concepts that don't even agree with your previous vague statements.
00:41: caved on this one with machine guns already. We are OK with banning them
05:50: Four Words for Gun-Grabbers: 'Shall not Be Infringed'
Not even crowded on the edges.
Does anyone here understand Boldwin's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or how he thinks it should be applied?
Why the eff do I care. I really have to stop posting here.
|
|
| | | 990 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 08:50
|
I appreciate your knowledge and rational discourse, Mith. It's not all about me, however. Sanity should be preserved.
My rule, occasionally broken, is I don't spend more than a minute on a post that wouldn't be appreciated by folks without undiagnosed mental illness.
|
|
| | | 991 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 09:22
|
973 - I think you completely miss the point tree.
969 - I agree with most of your second paragraph, Sarge. I have no problem with permits and registrations akin to what we do with motor vehicles. And I have no problem with a field test for that permit, akin to what we do with a drivers license.
I do have a problem with this on the federal level. Let each state handle it.
970 - PD I think there are a few conversations going on. My comment about the conversation not being about guns is in relation to the people who want to take mass shootings as an example of why guns should be banned/restricted/registered etc.
They are trying to hold those events up as shining examples of why we should get rid of guns in this country. But the fact is, those examples are why we need to look at how we as a society deal with the mentally ill. Taking a tool out of their hands does nothing. They are still mentally ill and still often hellbent on their psychotic episode.
I don't disagree that we need better gun control. I agree with many of Sarge's suggestion. I just don't agree with muddying the waters of the gun discussion with those events.
But if the anti-gun people get to use anecdotes to support their side, so do the people in favor of not banning guns.
Sacramento home invasion
Good for that home owner. He protected himself, his house, his kids and the slumber party. . . with a gun.
|
|
| | | 992 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 09:46
|
No Khahan, i didn't miss the point. I just don't think changing definitions to suit a particular view of an argument is an acceptable way have framing that argument.
|
|
| | | 993 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 11:08
|
They are trying to hold those events up as shining examples of why we should get rid of guns in this country. But the fact is, those examples are why we need to look at how we as a society deal with the mentally ill. Taking a tool out of their hands does nothing. They are still mentally ill and still often hellbent on their psychotic episode.
That's fine, but then you link to a home invasion where the perpetrators are repelled by a gun-owning homeowner. I agree, good for that homeowner.
But let's consider that the perpetrators are not mentally ill, they're simply criminals bent on robbery and worse. The question remains basically the same.
"How do criminals get their hands on weapons, then use them to terrorize neighborhoods?"
Well, they're criminals, so the most obvious response would be that they stole them. The other option is that these guns were obtained by skirting the process that requires background checks, private sales via gun shows or the internet.
The question doesn't really change, whether it's a lunatic felon ambushing firefighters in Webster, NY, or gang bangers getting their due in a home invasion in Sacramento, Ca.
If we're serious about keeping guns out of the hands of those who are committed to using them for crimes, doesn't it make sense to have stronger laws regulating the private sale of guns at gun shows and on the internet? Can we have the conversation without using emotional and belligerent terms like "gun-grabbing?"
We hear a lot about law-abiding gun owners, but can we admit there exists a contingency that has no respect for gun laws, convinced that any regulation is an infringement of 2nd amendment rights, thereby justifying a continued proliferation of weapons, even if they end up in the hands of those who are not committed to using these weapons responsibly?
|
|
| | | 994 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 11:53
|
Can we have the conversation without using emotional and belligerent terms like "gun-grabbing?"
Exactly.
|
|
| | | 995 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 14:05
|
, doesn't it make sense to have stronger laws regulating the private sale of guns at gun shows and on the internet?
Yep, see my last sentence in 968 and in 991 where I parrot many of Sarge's ideas for reasonable gun control.
It does seem as if many of agree on a middle ground here. A few times various voices from differing sides have indicated their agreement that there needs to be tighter/better laws around the purchase/trade/exchange of firearms. We then turn around in the next interaction and take the extremist approach where we feel the other side is talking about completely free, unfettered, unrestricted guns vs the total elimination of all guns.
I do think more of see eye to eye on resolutions than we realize.
|
|
| | | 996 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 14:12
|
Yes, and for the most part, there's been a good exchange of ideas on this thread with a minimal amount of sniping. Encouraging.
|
|
| | | 997 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 21:05
|
After a school massacre, UK banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
---
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
---
only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun.
---
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.
---
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems. - WSJ
|
|
| | | 998 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 09:46
|
This is the US gun owners fear. We go down the same path as the UK. Add new regulations...the next crazy person still gets their hands on a gun. Need to add more new regulations...the next crazy person still gets their hands on a gun. We need to add more regulations...the next crazy person still gets their hands on a gun. We get to where the UK is now...We need to ban guns...the next crazy person still gets their hands on a gun.
And criminals...fairy tale world if you think we can ever take the guns out of criminals hands in this country. Far too many guns currently on the streets, our borders are far too open...the gun black market would rival the drug black market. Countries that had fairly heavy restrictions before the bans, less personal freedoms to begin with and many less guns in private hands before the bans...guess what criminals still have guns in those countries.
Reasonable regulations = ok, expecting to make one bit of difference to the homicide rate or stop the next mass killer - unrealistic.
|
|
| | | 999 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 09:57
|
This is the US gun owners fear. We go down the same path as the UK.
That might be the fear of US gun owners who allow themselves to get swept up in the paranoia sold by the NRA and rightist media. But those who bother to pay attention to and keep up with developments in firearms law should know better.
It's been well established by an activist Supreme Court and it's recent changes to the 2nd Amendment that firearms regulations in America cannot possibly go the way of the UK.
This ignorance-fueled paranoia is the first impediment to a fruitful discussion.
|
|
| | | 1000 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 10:39
|
That's exactly right, MITH. I'm not aware of any serious people looking to ban handguns in the United States, either. That's a very big strawman.
I'll also note, but otherwise not comment, that the Australian law (not excerpted above in #997) was built around a buyback program that no one is contemplating here.
It seems as if some on the Right would rather deal in the coin of paranoia than with the actual things being discussed. Partly this is because they have been successful at avoiding the issue by doing this same thing time after time after time.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1002 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 13:01
|
"If we're serious about keeping guns out of the hands of those who are committed to using them for crimes, doesn't it make sense to have stronger laws regulating the private sale of guns at gun shows and on the internet?"
As far as I am aware the goal of proposed new regulations would be to keep guns out of criminals hands and people who should not have guns (mentally ill). Noble goal but a bit naive. If new regulations do not accomplish much in this respect (which is what is very likely to happen)...what is the next step? Do we just say...well we implemented new reasonable regulations...yet there are still gun homicides...still mass shootings by crazies...criminals still have guns. What do we do next?...does the anti-gun crowd just say ok we implemented the new regulations now we just have to live with the violence from guns? Some how I do not foresee it working this way.
Keeping guns out of criminals hands is an impossible goal especially in this country.
|
|
| | | 1003 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 13:19
|
so does that mean we should enhance the criminals ability to gain firearms, by even more thoroughly stocking the homes of those who would improperly store them?
I'd wager, I could break into 3 random homes, and probably acquire 2 firearms in the process. That simple truth is what needs to be remedied.
|
|
| | | 1004 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 13:39
|
proposed new regulations would be to keep guns out of criminals hands and people who should not have guns (mentally ill). Noble goal but a bit naive.
I tend to agree that people bent on hurting others will still be able to get their hands on weapons but sensible regulations could still be a net positive.
As far as I know, Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner and James Holmes all used weapons that are available to the general public and were purchased legally. This might also be the case with William Spengler and I'd suspect is likely the case with most rampage shooters.
So it stands up well to reason that in the case of what seems to be typical (or at least many) rampage-style shooters, limiting the deadliness of weapons available to the general public (like limiting magazine capacity or banning flash suppressors or rounds above a certain size or with especially deadly characteristics) might limit the deadliness of the weapons in their arsenals.
Is this likely to make violent crime numbers go down or to guarantee that post-enactment rampage shootings will be less deadly? Of course not. Just like keeping a loaded gun in your house or having cops patrol our schools doesn't guarantee any increased safety, either. But also like those other measures, it certainly has the potential to make a difference and will definitely make some people feel safer.
does the anti-gun crowd just say ok we implemented the new regulations now we just have to live with the violence from guns? Some how I do not foresee it working this way.
Fortunately for the "pro-gun crowd", pretty much all of the laws are already set up in their favor. We've reached the point where any efforts more stringent than the 1990s assault weapons ban would require a Constitutional Amendment to pass. It would probably be easier to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934 and make it legal to mount a Stinger Missile launcher on the roof of your house than it would to ban hand guns or semi-auto rifles.
|
|
| | | 1005 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 14:37
|
Maybe we can at least agree that the Senate should finally move with the confirmation of an ATF director? Republicans in the Senate have blocked any confirmation by Obama or Bush for a director since they were spun out of Treasury 8 years ago.
It is all well and good to say we should follow the gun laws already on the books, but leaving the federal law enforcement bureau without a confirmed leader shows that either the GOP is playing games with the issue or doesn't believe its own memes.
|
|
| | | 1006 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 15:45
|
I'm somewhat sympathetic to Chicago TRS's outlook, if he does, indeed, live in Chicago.
While Illinois has strict laws on background checks, even at gun shows, concealed carry is prohibited.
It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about the person, except on one’s land or in one’s abode or fixed place of business. It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm on or about one’s person upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village, or incorporated town, except when: an invitee thereon or therein; for the purpose of the display of firearms or the lawful commerce in firearms; or when on one’s land or in one’s abode or fixed place of business.
I'm opposed to blanket anti-carry laws. A person like Chicago TRS(guessing)likely possesses the expertise, as well as the proper mental capacity to respect the responsibility of conceal carry. No high capacity magazines, please. There's no question, in my mind, that it's a deterrence to criminal activity.
Keeping guns out of criminals hands is an impossible goal especially in this country.
Sure, because even though a criminal must pass a background check to purchase a weapon from a private party in Chicago, all that criominal has to do is drive a few miles to
Indiana.
Under Indiana law, private gun dealers are not required to run background checks. Buyers also don't have to wait to get a gun. Since Indiana has no waiting period, anyone could walk into a gun show and walk right out the front door with as many weapons as he or she would like.
Gun rights advocates argue that most criminals are going to get their guns illegally, whether background checks are in place or not. Requiring universal checks, they say, would only create further hassles for responsible gun owners.
It would make more sense to me for Illinois(and the other 49 states) to allow conceal carry, while Indiana(and the other 49 states)require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales.
|
|
| | | 1007 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 17:10
|
PV...I live in the near Chicago suburbs. Just recently Illinois was given 6 months by the courts to institute conceal and carry...so looks like it is coming. Would I personally conceal and carry...likely not. Depends on the hoops/cost. I rarely have a case where I feel the need to be armed and if I did I would probably carry without a license and take my chances.
There was a recent study of the guns recovered from criminals in Chicago. Vast majority came from the collar suburbs and Indiana from legitimate gun stores (not private sales or gun shows). The vast majority of gang guns get there from straw buyers...girlfriends/family members/gang members with clean records. Have to understand this culture to understand how difficult it is to stop...if you are willing to pay someone a few $100 you will have people lining up to buy you a gun. Very hard to stop straw buyers unless the govt is interested in prosecuting these people...at this point the govt has not shown interest in hammering straw buyers because most of them are women or elderly or otherwise clean or smart enough to report the gun stolen.
There are a lot of shootings in Chicago but the reality is most of the gun play is limited to a handful of neighborhoods with gangs at war.
The nicer parts of the city do not have a lot of gun problems but do have a lot of problems with large groups of youth from the south side coming to the tourist areas and robbing people and looting stores in large groups. In the summer it is not uncommon for the savages to be in groups of 50-500 causing mayhem...nothing much scarier than to turn a corner and see a group of 200 15-18 year olds coming at you with intent to do harm...I do think conceal and carry would eliminate these groups...right now they have little to fear and the police have a hard time controlling them or convicting them of anything...when you are jumped by 100 people it is awful hard to identify specific people.
|
|
| | | 1008 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 17:13
|
The vast majority of gang guns get there from straw buyers
This was exactly the problem with Fast & Furious: The Mexican nationals would get a college kid, give him $5000 in cash to buy weapons legitimately, then give them the guns. It is a real problem because a gun shop owner can just look at a buyer and know something is hinky about the deal. But he's not breaking the law.
|
|
| | | 1009 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 17:32
|
Straw buyers are very difficult to stop unless the govt makes it a focus to start prosecuting these people. I think most gun owners would be good with the govt going after straw buyers.
Gun stores pretty much cannot stop it even if they think they smell something funny. The first time they kick out or refuse to sell to a black women/girl they will face a discrimination lawsuit and maybe lose their business.
|
|
| | | 1010 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 17:33
|
I lived in Chicago for a while in '93/'94, at first right on Clark and Huron(with the famous mural of Bruce Springsteen on the building) and I never felt unsafe. Never had a car, because I walked to work at Clark and Grand. My best buddy lived in a high rise out on Randolph by the lake, and I eventually moved in with him for my last couple months there before being transferred back to Salt Lake. That was even safer.
I wasn't into drugs, but I did drink heavily at the time, though no more than the native Chigoans I hung with. It was not uncommon for us to stumble out of Mother Hubbard's, Randolph's, or the Saluki Bar, making us easy targets for robbery. But it never happened.
Like most cities, there are areas where you just don't go, but I always thought Chicago got somewhat of a bad rap as a crime-infested city. Then again, I was there from November through March, so maybe it was just too cold for the undesireables to venture out far from their hoods.
|
|
| | | 1011 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 17:46
|
PV....yeah summer is a bit more dangerous. Chicago crime/murder is very much affected by weather. Though I do agree Chicago gets a bad rap...for the most part it is safe...like you say, there are just certain neighborhoods where you do not venture.
Since they have demolished the projects it seems to have spread around the gangs/criminals a bit and made some neighborhoods that were safe now unsafe. Though I will say...when you were here '93/'94 you might have thought it was safe but it was the height of Chicago murders (crack epidemic...2x gun homicides compared to now).
The large group muggings are sort of a new thing in the past 4 or 5 years. Pretty much since the release of iPhones/iPads...things that are valuable and easily spotted and stolen "apple picking". I do think conceal and carry would get rid of these groups as they are mostly teenagers who rely on safety in numbers to do their crimes...
|
|
| | | 1012 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 18:13
|
I think it likely that thanks to McDonald, some of the more stringent local and state gun regulations will probably be challenged anew and repealed.
Question for ChicagpTRS or anyone else who carries:
Why conceal? The gun culture is obviously a bit foreign to me but I'd think that if I were inclined to carry, I'd prefer it plain sight. If the idea is that the presence of a gun deters violence, doesn't it make it safer for the carrier and everyone around him (including potential attackers who would think twice) if everyone in proximity knows it's there?
Can a C&C permit holder choose to open carry instead?
|
|
| | | 1013 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 18:44
|
The deterrence in conceal & carry laws is that a potential criminal doesn't know whether a person is packing or not.
|
|
| | | 1014 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 18:44
|
Can a C&C permit holder choose to open carry instead?
In Utah, yes.
|
|
| | | 1015 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 18:46
|
Open carry, is problematic on a number of levels. Public reaction being one of the central issues. In this day and age of cell phones, how many discrete 9-1-1 calls will be made, everywhere you go? CC, allows one to still do their daily business, w/o the intimidation upon everyone around you, that an open carry scenario would create.
|
|
| | | 1016 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 18:59
|
1013 - the deterrence is the possibility that someone is packing. I don't see why turning the possibility into a reality would have any effect but further deterrence.
1015 - if I believed we'd all be safer if more people carried, it seems natural that I'd be a big proponent of open carry, urging everyone who'd listen to do the same. I'd want people to become as comfortable around guns in public as possible, whether they carry or not.
|
|
| | | 1017 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 19:08
|
w/o the intimidation upon everyone around you, that an open carry scenario would create.
Which is exactly what the bill in my link in #1014 promotes:
Ray's bill stems from an incident outside Orem's University Mall in January 2011 in which a 51-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder and carrying a handgun.
The man was handcuffed and detained for a few minutes, while officers determined the guns were unloaded. Police called his actions reckless and cited him with disorderly conduct. Ray says the bill reinforces the constitutional rights of Utah residents.
Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah board member, said open carry is bad public policy and bad for public safety.
"It makes people concerned. It makes people fearful. It makes people call the police to find out what's going on," Sackett said when contacted after the meeting. "The kind of people who think this is an appropriate thing to do are either paranoid or they want to somehow establish they're alpha males," he said.
A guy outside a mall with an assault rifle and carrying a handgun(not holstered), and the Utah legislature doesn't want the police to be able to stop the guy.
|
|
| | | 1018 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 20:09
|
Open carry is allowed in around half the country but mostly only practiced in rural areas.
Personally I am in favor of conceal and carry just because it keeps criminals from identifying targets. They need to fear anyone could possibly have a gun. Open carry can also set someone up as a target...allows a criminal or mass shooter to take out threats first or actually rob you of your gun. If you believe felon interviews...conceal and carry is a true deterrent to confrontation type crimes.
I will say initially I was a bit skeptical of conceal and carry and thought it could lead to more issues. But the reality has been that law abiding citizens who make the effort to get licensed for conceal and carry are mostly very responsible. Very few negative incidents involving conceal and carry, quite a few cases where conceal and carry has saved lives or at least stopped criminals. It does sound counter productive to have more guns on the street but when they are in the hands of good guys they tend to solve more problems than they create.
|
|
| | | 1019 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 22:18
|
In general, perhaps, but only with training. Having more would-be-heroes on the street with concealed weapons makes it worse, not better, not only because of public incidents but because most gun deaths are accidental ones from people taking gun safety too casually.
A registration process accompanied by mandatory firearms training would eliminate a lot of problems, IMO.
|
|
| | | 1020 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 10:54
|
more would-be-heroes on the street with concealed weapons makes it worse, not better
I tend to agree and suspect that increasing the number of concealed carriers could approach a breaking point in some places, particularly urban centers.
I'm sure ChicagoTRS is right that law abiding citizens who make the effort to get licensed for conceal and carry tend to be responsible gun owners. But easing the restrictions would attract less determined people to obtain C&C permits and there is every reason to think most of these people would not be quite as dedicated to responsible gun ownership. The high number of car-related deaths is a testament to the general recklessness of average people.
Despite the fact that automobile transportation is crucial to many peoples' livelihoods and even with such deterrents to unsafe driving as the cost of auto insurance, all the mandatory safety features that make cars cost more to buy, drive and repair, the extensive list of laws and regulations with expensive penalties for infraction and ever-increasingly authoritarian methods of enforcement, still tens of thousands of people are killed every year.
Every day probably every one of us sees drivers very casually do reckless things that they do not even think twice about; they tailgate and weave through traffic at high speeds, send and read text messages while driving, fail to yield the right of way, etc. And that's before you even get to the really dangerous drivers who drive intoxicated or otherwise extremely recklessly.
Legally possessing a weapon cannot possibly turn the average person into a “responsible gun owner” any more than owning a car turns him into a reliably safety-conscious driver.
|
|
| | | 1021 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 10:55
|
#1018
Open carry can also set someone up as a target...allows a criminal or mass shooter to take out threats first or actually rob you of your gun.
This makes sense to me.
|
|
| | | 1022 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 11:23
|
We have ~25 years of legal conceal and carry in this country to look at results. I am not aware of any data that shows conceal and carry gun owners as being a problem.
I do agree that there should be restrictions, licensing, even mandatory classroom time.
|
|
| | | 1024 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 11:39
|
"because most gun deaths are accidental ones from people taking gun safety too casually."
This is simply wrong. 680 accidental shooting deaths in 2008 (last year I could find data). Generally the number has been around 500-700 and declining over the years. ~2.5% of gun deaths are ruled accidental, ~60% of gun deaths are suicides, ~37.5% of gun deaths are homicides.
Even the accidental gun deaths are probably a bit inflated as there is data that suggests many deaths ruled accidental are actually suicides/homicides.
|
|
| | | 1025 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 12:00
|
I worded that rather casually. I meant to flesh it out that a *lot* of suicides (particularly teen suicides) are a result of access to guns and responsible gun owners should make that access very difficult.
The larger point remains (and one I think you agree with): Responsible gun ownership doesn't come from gun ownership itself but as a result of gun ownership training.
Unfortunately there are far too many gun owners in this country who are irresponsible with their weapons, making the responsible owners look bad and muddying the waters about the possible good effects of an armed public. It doesn't help when the NRA acts irresponsible themselves, like the GOP after an injection of Tea Party.
|
|
| | | 1026 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 13:09
|
No matter how you slice it, I think a large minority of the public should never, ever be allowed weapons, as their psych make-up is just not suited to responsible use.
Until we can accurately identify that population, we are going to have to limit broad access and ownership.
|
|
| | | 1027 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 14:19
|
"Until we can accurately identify that population, we are going to have to limit broad access and ownership."
Don't you think that ship has already sailed? There are an estimated 200+ million guns in private hands in the US. ~50% of households have a gun.
|
|
| | | 1028 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 14:38
|
Adam Lanza Dna study being proposed.
I read this article yesterday but Bili's comment in 1026 (Until we can accurately identify that population) made me think of this.
I'm not saying bili is in support of or against this study. Just that his comment made me think about it.
Personally I think the study is a great idea and has a lot potential. But I also think the information has a lot of potential for abuse. Its a very tricky position to be in to even propose this study. And the how the data is used after the fact...
|
|
| | | 1029 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 18:24
|
It will be a difficult slog, that's for sure. Like a drivers license, gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. Both are drivers and and gun owners are responsible for the deaths and injury of tens of thousands of innocents annually. It is an epidemic, and should be treated as such.
Go through a rigorous testing process, register all your weapons, be required to keep them in a gun safe so they can't be stolen. Slip up and lose your right to ownership.
I think we.should have similar policies for automobiles, but that's OT.
|
|
| | | 1030 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 18:34
|
Go through a rigorous testing process, register all your weapons, be required to keep them in a gun safe so they can't be stolen. Slip up and lose your right to ownership.
I completely agree.
|
|
| | | 1031 | Boldwin
ID: 411162810
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 20:15
|
David Gregory [a guy I generally like] breaks gun laws in DC in an attempt to shame Wayne LaPierre with the horror of horrors that are large capacity magazines [which has nothing to do with CT].
Naturally the establishment closed ranks because of course it would be ridiculous to apply the law.Thank you, David Gregory.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then your stunt is worth a thousand op-eds. In less than one minute of screen time, you demonstrated several things:
First, even “banned” magazines are ridiculously easy to acquire. How long did it take your producers to find that magazine? Five minutes? Ten minutes? There are millions upon millions of these cheap and easy-to-manufacture items in circulation, and “banning” them will have exactly the effects you so brilliantly demonstrated on national television.
Second, labyrinthine gun-control restrictions serve mainly to instantly (and often inadvertently) convert otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. It’s a media-created myth that guns are largely unregulated in the United States. In fact, they’re so heavily and complexly regulated that it’s difficult for citizens to track jurisdictional differences or even sometimes to understand the laws in their own jurisdictions.
Third, strict-liability gun offenses breed disrespect for the law. I tend to agree with your friends in the mainstream media — prosecuting you for holding an empty magazine in your hand would be a travesty of justice. You weren’t going to hurt anyone, you were merely using a prop for an argument, and — after all — the magazine was simply an inert hunk of metal. But the law is the law, and I’m sure you’ll agree that you should be treated exactly the same as any other (previously) law-abiding citizen caught with a similar item.
Was Washington D.C. made more dangerous because you held that magazine? Of course not. Would your prosecution deter a single “real” criminal? Of course not. In fact, it would be a silly farce. But does the law deter responsible citizens and make them less likely to defend themselves adequately? Yes. And that’s the real travesty. - David French
|
|
| | | 1032 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 21:00
|
in an attempt to shame Wayne LaPierre with the horror of horrors that are large capacity magazines
Gregory's attempt was successful, but Wayne LaPierre shames himself, so it wasn't that big a deal.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1034 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Dec 28, 2012, 23:11
|
The article doesn't state what kind of sentence the straw buyer could receive. It needs to be substantial enough to be a deterrence.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1036 | Boldwin
ID: 321121290
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 01:21
|
Gungrabbers in the BATF want an out of control straw purchase situation on the border. Gun stores are told to go ahead and make the sale when they report hinky buyers. That border situation is going to be their star witness in their case against the second amendment.
|
|
| | | 1037 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 02:12
|
B, why is it, an intelligent conversation on a divisive issue can be taking place, and you can not allow it? "Gungrabbers"? Really? Besides being disrespectful, you are just flat ass wrong.
Those AZ stores were allowed to proceed with the sale, because the sale itself violated NO LAWS and was in complete compliance WITH AZ gun law. The real culprit there, IS Arizona gun law.
On an aside, I want to congratulate CTRS, MITH and PV, and Bili, for engaging in intelligent discourse over a difficult topic.
|
|
| | | 1038 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 11:44
|
One big problem with new regulations, increased mental health capacity, investigating straw purchasers, bigger government, etc...etc...money. This country is already spending a good portion more than it earns...even the most optimistic tax/revenue increases are not nearly enough to meet our current demands. Not sure how we intend to pay for increased regulations/capacity. When considering solutions it is important to weigh what impact a possible solution has vs cost.
|
|
| | | 1039 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 12:40
|
Put on tax surcharge on guns to pay for the necessary regs. Problem solved.
|
|
| | | 1040 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 14:22
|
That was my thought too. Much like the so called "sin tax" on cigarettes and alcohol. Tax firearms, hunting/fishing licenses, ammunition and reload equipment/components.
|
|
| | | 1041 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 14:26
|
Do you think taxes like that would even make a dent in the amount of money that would be needed to increase this countries mental health systems capacity?
|
|
| | | 1042 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 14:46
|
I don't. Which is why we should priorize better. And bili's #1039 wasn't about additional costs as we finally deal realisitcally with the mental health problems of this country, it was about the cost of implementing better gun control (such as the cost of registration, testing, and licensing).
It should be noted that Obamacare substantially increased coverage for mental health issues. Its a start. The costs for mental health care is included in the overall costs of Obamacare, so no new outlays will be required for that portion.
|
|
| | | 1043 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 15:20
|
as for the cost of providing mental health care, what is it costing us, to NOT provide it?
|
|
| | | 1044 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 15:46
|
The cost last month was 20 dead kids.
|
|
| | | 1045 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 16:01
|
Precisely. Now I defy anyone, to place a dollar value on that cost.
|
|
| | | 1046 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 18:32
|
A better example would be the firemen ambushed in Webster, New York, even if the scope of the event doesn't come close to the Ct massacre.
Lanza's parents had the financial capabilities to deal with their son's anti-social tendencies in any number of ways, but the father was detached and aloof, and the mother was in denial, sympathisized with his anti-social tendencies, or both.
But even if his parents had been more indulgent in addressing his mental instabilities, how could they possibly have predicted he was capable of such actions, and prepared to act on them? How could anyone?
But if we're not prepared to provide what's necessary, mental health-wise, for someone who has proven they are more than willing to act on their homicidal tendencies, beyond imprisoning them for a few years, putting them on parole for a few more, then ignoring them, can we really be shocked when some of them act out their evil fantasies on family members and authority figures? This was an extreme case, but how many police officers meet the same fate on a routine traffic stop?
|
|
| | | 1047 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 19:06
|
"The cost last month was 20 dead kids."
Last year backyard pools cost us ~700 dead kids.
Last year auto accidents cost us thousands of dead kids.
Last year household chemicals cost us 100s of dead kids.
Last year alcohol cost us many dead kids.
What dollar amounts do we put on those tragedies? People act like guns are the greatest threat to our society but statistically it is simply not true...guns make headlines. I realize Newtown was a terrible tragedy but when you start talking about innocent deaths many things in our society are statistically more dangerous than guns.
How much does testing, licensing, registration cost? How many full time agents does it take to run these programs...thousands?
Expending a ton of resources that are not likely to put much of a real dent in the problem is a waste. If we successfully implemented all of the suggested regulations the end result will be: bad guys will still have guns, there will be a criminally lucrative gun black market (already is), maniacs will find other ways to kill or will still gain access to a gun, the guns that remain are still as dangerous/capable as guns that were banned. So what have you solved? Law abiding citizens will be better regulated except law abiding citizens are very rarely the problem when it comes to gun violence. Sorry I just do not buy the proposed solutions...I doubt they make any real dent in the problems people are trying to solve.
I think every car in the US should have a "blow and go"...that would surely save many more lives than any regulations to do with guns.
|
|
| | | 1048 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 19:37
|
Expending a ton of resources that are not likely to put much of a real dent in the problem is a waste
Exactly why I'm against the NRA's sole proposal.
But many of the proposals not only save lives but increase gun responsible ownership as well. At the cost of, well, some inconvenience of gun owners. Who, exactly, is advocating implementing all the suggested regulations? No one.
|
|
| | | 1049 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Jan 01, 2013, 01:35
|
5 Shot, 2 Dead During New Year’s Eve Gathering In Old Sacramento
It is 10:34 Pacific time, as I post this.
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – New Year’s Eve celebrations were abruptly interrupted by a wild scene in Old Sacramento on Monday night after five people were shot, including at least two people who have died.
The shooting occurred at Fanny Ann’s Saloon, which is at 1023 2nd Street, according to the Sacramento Police Department.
The extent of the injuries for the others shot wasn’t immediately available and no details were provided on what triggered the shooting. No arrests had been made.
MORE GUNS!!
|
|
| | | 1063 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 12:03
|
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk walks into congress for first time since his stroke.
|
|
| | | 1064 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 13:03
|
Probably faked it for sympathy.
|
|
| | | 1065 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 14:20
|
crass, but apropos.
|
|
| | | 1066 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 14:45
|
Obviously (I hope), there was a subtle tinge of sarcasm to that post of mine.
|
|
| | | 1067 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 15:46
|
there was.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1069 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 19:38
|
YOU missed the point. That word you bolded? Look at the one immediately following it. THAT, is the point.
|
|
| | | 1070 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 21:07
|
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk walks into congress for first time since his stroke.
kudos to Rachel Maddow for covering his return.
|
|
| | | 1071 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 23:39
|
Sarge
You don't want the armed or the police there, so you are in no position to nitpick. And in your universe the kids are sitting ducks for half an hour.
|
|
| | | 1072 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 23:55
|
You dont know what I, or anyone else, wants You only know what you THINK everyone else believes.
And saying ARMED police. is repetitive. The police in this country, are ALWAYS armed.
|
|
| | | 1073 | Boldwin
ID: 51036421
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 02:27
|
How many people have pretended in this forum that a total gun ban isn't the goal of the left?Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
She and Cuomo have led the way putting into play the groundwork for an Austrailia style buy back and complete confiscation. It's obvious why Obama's first action in the second term was in furtherance of a UN world-wide gun ban.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1075 | Boldwin
ID: 51036421
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 05:51
|
Realize what that whole 'let's be civil' push directed at Rush and then at Palin was, just a misdirection play. The left was planning bigtime violence and they wanted an excuse to be violent and to freeze their target."I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control, And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures."
---
"Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me." - The Des Moines Register, Donald Kaul 12/29/12 Boldwin#140 I dont think the hysteria on the left in this case [Loughner] can be so easily minimized. I see suspiciously quick political opportunism to score points against enemies, stifle free speech, ban guns, demonize people completely disconnected from the event.
Boldwin#149 PV
All those liberal agenda items are just sitting in various congressmens desks already written into legislation just waiting to be introduced on the floor when the right incident occurs and the right public hysteria has been generated.
The attack program you all picked up from the left wing blog-o-sphere and ran with, was just a trial balloon. Killed prematurely when you hit a little snag. The shooter wasnt following Palins tweets. He was a whacked out liberal if he wasnt just plain whacked out.
Boldwin#525 Maybe liberals were planning a violent reaction to the 2010 election all along and they were just building a violence ratchet. Theyve got the media looking the other way while they go on the rampage.
|
|
| | | 1084 | Tree
ID: 35054512
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:00
|
The left was planning bigtime violence and they wanted an excuse to be violent...
please share with us more of your brilliance.
 
 
|
|
| | | 1085 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:33
|
You would think this would have made the papers, considering the 'real' Crocodile Dundee was the best thing that ever happened to Australian tourism.
The Real Crocodile Dundee killed by Australia in their gun-grabbing hysteria.
|
|
| | | 1086 | Tree
ID: 35054512
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:45
|
The Real Crocodile Dundee killed by Australia in their gun-grabbing hysteria.
he died IN A SHOOTOUT WITH POLICE WHICH BEGAN WHEN HE AMBUSHED TWO OFFICERS!
once again, the people you hold up as heroes are fairly contemptible as human beings.
|
|
| | | 1087 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:52
|
To adore a crazed cop killer such as such as Rodney Ansell is so beyond the pale. Do you honestly believe that he was a great man or something? Would you be happier if he had killed all of the policemen from Adelaide during his ambush? These cops were investigating two murders from the night before.....real gestapo creeps!
Is the reason you desire that everyone be armed so that they can emulate this drug crazed psychopath and kill every cop in sight?
|
|
| | | 1088 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 15:04
|
Although police were at a loss to explain Ansell's motive (he could have easily escaped the roadblock had he chosen to), it was later determined that Ansell had been raving about Freemasons prior to his death; he was distraught, apparently convinced that Freemasons had kidnapped his two sons and were now stalking him.[1][6] Like Ansell, Hewson also suffered from severe mental illness and regularly abused drugs.[1] During the coroner's inquest, psychiatrist Robert Parker made the following observations on Ansell's mental state before his death:
Watch out for those Free Masons B.
|
|
| | | 1089 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 17:00
|
Having two of your sons go missing and being forced to destroy your business will mess with anyone's mind.
The job of domesticating just one wild buffalo, often described as the most dangerous animal in the world, is mindboggling. Imagine doing it three thousand times and then being forced by an idiotic government to put down your business one animal at a time.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
|
|
| | | 1090 | PV in GJ
ID: 1010151016
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 17:04
|
Somewhere during my 3.5 hour drive to Grand Junction, 8 posts disappeared, including one of my own.
I was just dying to see B's list of countries where Obama had put Islamists in control equalling a third of the world.
I feel deprived of a good laugh.
|
|
| | | 1091 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 17:29
|
Not sure where you got the nonsense that his sons were missing... They are, after all, the ones who arranged for his full aboriginal burial.
Even so, you seem to be making the excuse that because his sons were missing (they weren't), he had every right to ambush law enforcement.
Seriously... Why are you holding this man up to some sort of hero worship? Even for you, it defies, logic....
Or are you still too proud to acknowledge that you didn't do proper research (again), and were once again, mistaken?
|
|
| | | 1092 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 18:41
|
I never claimed to have researched this, adore or worship the man. This did however happen during the Australian total gun seizure.
I do feel for anyone in that situation.
I do feel for anyone who has his business shut down by government bureaucrats.
I don't know the details of when his kids went missing or why he felt they had been kidnapped.
The Australian total gun seizure happened and it will happen here with the same tragic stories. I don't have a gun but I totally get the 'you can only take it, if you take it from my dead cold hands'.
Life under tyranny is no fun. Arbitrary government persecution is no fun.
|
|
| | | 1093 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:07
|
So let me get this straight Boldwin. If we are in the midst of a gun seizure, it is understandable
to you that a person would ambush and kill a policeman doing his job?
You would feel for him....the shooter, not the cop.
From your posts, one would believe that he was the one ambushed. From what I understand, the guy didn't have any ID on him, the cops didn't even know who it was that was shooting at them. Do you believe that they shouldn't have returned fire and killed Ansell?
|
|
| | | 1095 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:17
|
This was as tragic as the Bill Cooper killing.
I think the cops should refuse to harass these people.
I am assuming the roadblock was aimed at Ansell.
It is the "If we are in the midst of a gun seizure" that is not understandable. Things get crazy after that as the American government has been overthrown at that point. You don't want to experience interesting times.
I'm making these statements as an outside observer. I am not making recommendations how to act.
|
|
| | | 1096 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:20
|
I think the cops should refuse to harass these people.
OK, they were manning a roadblock searching for a suspect who have shot two people in their homes the night before. It is accepted that Ansell was the shooter. This fits your definition of unfairly harassing innocent citizens? How would you have had the police handle this situation?
|
|
| | | 1097 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:31
|
I am assuming the roadblock was aimed at Ansell.
It wasnt.
I never claimed to have researched this, ...
(A) We know
(B) That didnt deter your post 1085, presenting his being killed as a by product of over zealous police actions.
So, when will you (A) BEGIN researching and (B) cease with your dubious and inaccurate allegations?
|
|
| | | 1098 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:37
|
Just taking people at their word: "When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people will hate the new world order - and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, a many of them quite gallant and graceful looking people."
H.G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."
President George Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N. February 1, 1992
"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
President Bill Clinton, U.S.A. Today, 11 March 1993
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." - THOMAS JEFFERSON Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just quoting the elites. Not making recommendations. Just appraising you of the situation.
|
|
| | | 1099 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:45
|
1098. has nothing at all to do, with the inaccuracies presented via 1085, and then defended 1089, 1092 et al.
reread and respond to 1097 please.
|
|
| | | 1100 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:48
|
Oath-Keepers
|
|
| | | 1101 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:53
|
OK. So you have no defense, and no spine with which to admit, that you have no defense.
|
|
| | | 1102 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:56
|
Sarge#1099
The government had him in a vise. The Australian government was in the middle of terrorizing people and crushing people like Ansell into disarming. A 100% gun ban, in fact all weapons down to slingshots.
I'm not going to defend his every action. I am going to point out what happens when the gun-grab begins.
|
|
| | | 1103 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 19:59
|
He did not die because of a gun grab. He died, because he ambushed 2 law enforcement officers. Then, you defend him, then you deny awareness of the situation.
I ask you, what possible reason do any of us have, for placing ANY credence, upon ANY more of your posts?
|
|
| | | 1104 | PV in GJ
ID: 1010151016
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:14
|
When you have to resort to
presenting Australia as an oppressive society, you have nothing.
|
|
| | | 1105 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:17
|
Find me a more detailed account than this and I'll examine it in more detail, but there is no denying he felt himself in a government vise. He was in fact in a government vise. Australia was in the middle of disarming all Australians, and the police in fact were going to shut down his free wheeling life in the outback and tame him or kill him trying.
|
|
| | | 1106 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:18
|
PV
I consider having the police swat team break into your house because you received a mail-order slingshot pretty oppressive.
|
|
| | | 1107 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:24
|
Baldwin, you can romanticize the events all you want, but there is never any excuse for any person or entity to resort to violence. Its unacceptable on any level by anybody. Ambushing officers? You are really finding a way to defend that? Unbelievable even for you.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1109 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:35
|
And they say MJ is harmless.
|
|
| | | 1110 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:37
|
not so much
|
|
| | | 1111 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:38
|
1110 in response to 1108
|
|
| | | 1112 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:52
|
the truth, vs fantasy dreams
Then, on Monday night, police responded to reports that a man had fired shots at locals.On Tuesday two officers were preparing to dismantle a road block they had set up to capture the attacker, when a motorist stopped to ask for directions.
Suddenly shots flew from a roadside bush, injuring the motorist and piercing Sgt Huitson's bulletproof vest. His partner returned fire, killing Ansell.
Yeah, a real "hero" that one.
|
|
| | | 1113 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:52
|
I'll admit neither Bill Cooper or Ansell's story is only a 'NWO came for them and killed them' story. There were other complications in the story. Every story has twists and turns. But you can't take their stories out of the culture clash with the NWO either. Anyone who says they weren't hounded by big brother is covering up.
|
|
| | | 1114 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:53
|
He was a paranoid, angry, failure. QUIT making excuses for him, and QUIT holding him up as a beacon.
|
|
| | | 1115 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 20:56
|
Hey, if you can only hide behind an Internet forum, and don't quite have the guts to actually BE a murderous thug in the name of your dumb paranoid beliefs, delusionally honoring the people who do is the next best thing.
|
|
| | | 1116 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:07
|
Oh no--an outlaw who killed cops was "hounded by big brother"! Someone alert Michelle Malkin!
|
|
| | | 1117 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:10
|
He wasn't a thug. He was someone who had been told by the government that he had to shoot his business between the eyes.
Funny how that tends to make your business fail.
|
|
| | | 1118 | Boldwin
ID: 1303155
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:11
|
And distrustful.
|
|
| | | 1119 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:17
|
Sane people who have their business fail don't go around shooting people as a result.
And sane people understand that shooting people because your business fails is, well, insane.
|
|
| | | 1120 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:27
|
You know all those people with the "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers?
How do you see it going down when you come for their guns?
|
|
| | | 1121 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:31
|
THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Boldwin, read up on the guy. He was one of the fringe loonies to start with. He got lost(and famous from it), NOT on a fishing trip, but on a POACHING quest. What was that guys name here in the US, survivalist that was hiding in the hills/caves of SC IIRC a few years back? THAT, is what Ansell was. A bad business decision, a bad movie story deal, drug addiction, anti-social behavior to begin with...this guy was a border looney who ultimately, AMBUSHED 2 cops.
Do we as a forum REALLY need members who idolize murderous criminals?
|
|
| | | 1122 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:44
|
Gun grabbing is the issue.
|
|
| | | 1123 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:49
|
As in the case of Ansell, I am afraid there will be shooters who shoot first.
|
|
| | | 1124 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:56
|
and there will be jagoffs, who hold them up as models i=of individuality. Doesnt make either of the two 'right', but sure as hell does make both of them wrong.
|
|
| | | 1125 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:57
|
"You know all those people with the "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers?"
Yes. They, too, are either empty bumper-sticker holders, or clinically insane retards too.
|
|
| | | 1126 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 21:59
|
"Do we as a forum REALLY need members who idolize murderous criminals?"
Obviously not, but at this point it looks like the only option is to let it be a one-man forum and let the proprietors accept that they let him run off all the other customers.
I'm about 99% of the way there.
|
|
| | | 1127 | PV in GJ
ID: 1010151016
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:03
|
Gun grabbing is the issue. If you don't like the laws(over half a million Aussies are legal gun owners), you should murder law enforcement. Damn those Aussies for not wanting the gun violence that right wing America demands. How dare they pass laws designed to develop a more peaceful and non-violent society.
|
|
| | | 1128 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:13
|
So Sarge, which post are you so desperately trying to bury?
Feinstein openly admitting she wants to ban all guns? #1073
The unbelievably violent liberal wishlist printed in The Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest and most influential newspaper? #1075
|
|
| | | 1129 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:17
|
Not trying to bury anything B. Just helping you to demonstrate what a blind partisan hack, with no regard for the truth, honesty or integrity...you truly are.
|
|
| | | 1130 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:20
|
How dare they pass laws designed to develop a more peaceful and non-violent society. - PV
It's a total mystery to me how you can say that with a straight face.Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
|
|
| | | 1131 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:51
|
The only thing anyone ever proves by attempting to correlate crime stats with gun laws is that they are an ass.
|
|
| | | 1132 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 22:52
|
Dammit I broke my rule again.
|
|
| | | 1133 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 23:47
|
The 5 Deadliest Guns You Can Buy Online — Legally
Unlicensed private sellers, who conduct their business in the online market, account for 40 percent of U.S. gun sales. And a New York City investigation found that 62 percent of private dealers sold guns over the Internet to buyers who would not have passed a background check......
M134 GE Mini-Gun
The minigun is one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed, with the capacity to fire up to 166 bullets per second. Amazingly, it is currently legal in the U.S. to own this military-grade machine gun because the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 stated that any fully automatic weapon constructed before that year was legal to own.
THAT, is insanity.
|
|
| | | 1134 | Tree
ID: 131137414
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 00:38
|
Baldwin worships cop killers.
what a lovely Christian he is.
|
|
| | | 1135 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 01:02
|
Failure to learn from history, especially hazardous for jews.
|
|
| | | 1136 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 02:31
|
Pravda:“This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth,”
“This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well, those are bullet holders for rifles.”
However, the communists weren’t stupid, he wrote, and when they took power, “One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. ”
“From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers,”
“To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere …. but criminals are still armed and still murdering and [too] often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.”
Even today, authorities “do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This, in turn, breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.”
America’s Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, “is a rare light in an ever darkening room.”
“Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but … in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position,”
“In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill, N.C.), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or ‘talking to them,’ it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.”
He continued: “Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
“So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.” - Pravda, via WND, WND's interspersed comments excised.
|
|
| | | 1137 | biliruben
ID: 21841115
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 10:33
|
Are you really glorifying a nation where, depending on date, more than half the population were peasants or serfs?
Did the serfs get swords and guns?
|
|
| | | 1138 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 11:07
|
You'd put something past a person who glorifies cop killers?
|
|
| | | 1139 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 11:37
|
...the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or ‘talking to them,’ it is a bullet in the head,...
I do not recall this passage, or anything remotely similar, in scripture. Can you point me to where Christ said something along these lines?
|
|
| | | 1140 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 11:50
|
Crazy people should be shot. For compassionate reasons. Because their continued existence (particularly those trying to "help" them) is really annoying.
|
|
| | | 1141 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:16
|
bili
Are you really suggesting Russians were better off when there were mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation ?
|
|
| | | 1142 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:23
|
PD - Can you point me to where Christ said something along these lines?
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
|
|
| | | 1143 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:29
|
No. Of course not. Where in the f did you get that load of horse crap?
Defend your own nonsense, don't make up stuff to shove in my mouth.
|
|
| | | 1144 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:31
|
#1137
|
|
| | | 1145 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:33
|
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today" ~ Homer Simpson
|
|
| | | 1146 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:34
|
Yeah. So what? That has nothing to do with glorifying dictatorship under the czars. Just because I call you on your czar-love-fest doesn't mean I think Stalin's dictatorship was preferable. Perhaps that later wouldn't have occurred if the former hadn't been such a-holes to half their population.
|
|
| | | 1148 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:47
|
*self edited 1147...going to do my level best, to not acknowledge anything further from Boldwin. He has IMHO, shown himself to be beyond human redemption, and of utterly despicable character.*
|
|
| | | 1149 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 00:00
|
You've been listening to the wrong historians, bili. The czars were just playing economic catch-up to the more advanced industrial European rivals. They weren't keeping their people down, far from it. The people's economic disadvantage came from being in a developing country.
|
|
| | | 1150 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 00:03
|
And yes I really am glorifying pre-communist Russia, compared to Stalin, practically anything is a step up.
|
|
| | | 1151 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 13:37
|
Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it? "We Can"
This is where the gun debate should start, smart gun technology.
Limiting who may purchase guns really does little to nothing to stop gun violence. If gun owners want to keep their guns and prevent unwanted accidents or violent tragedies, there is technology that would go a LONG way towards that goal.
Biometrics and grip pattern detection can sense the registered owner of a gun and allow only that person to fire it. For example, the iGun, made by Mossberg Group, cannot be fired unless its owner is wearing a ring with a chip that activates the gun. "This is not Buck Rogers type of stuff.” But gun advocates are staunchly against these technologies, partly because so many guns are bought not in gun shops, but in private sales. “Many guns are bought and sold on the secondary market without background checks, and that kind of sale would be inhibited with fingerprinting-safety technologies in guns,” Robert J. Spitzer said. A Wired magazine article from 2002 gives a glimpse of the N.R.A.’s thinking. “Mere mention of ‘smart-gun’ technology elicited sneers and snickers faster than a speeding bullet,” the magazine wrote. It quoted the N.R.A.’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, as saying, “Tragic victims couldn’t have been saved by trigger locks or magazine bans or ‘smart-gun’ technology, or some new government commission running our firearms companies.”
After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in December, Mr. LaPierre created a new aphorism: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” He said violent video games and movies were part of the problem, but he didn’t mention smart-guns as a solution.
TriggerSmart, an Irish company, has patented a childproof smart-gun. One feature is a “safe zone” that can be installed in schools and acts as a force field, disabling any TriggerSmart gun that enters a designated area. Robert McNamara, the company’s founder, has been trying to persuade gun makers to adopt the technology. He isn’t having much luck. “One gun manufacturer told us if we put this technology in one particular gun and some kid gets shot with another gun, then they will have to put them in all guns,” he said.
|
|
| | | 1152 | Boldwin
ID: 609622
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 14:47
|
“Researchers John Lott and William Landes, then at Yale and the University of Chicago, (not exactly Right Wing Schools rc) respectively, studied multiple victim public shootings.
---
“Examining data from 1976 to 1995, they discovered that mass homicides in states adopting concealed handgun laws declined by 84 percent, deaths plummeted by 90 percent and injuries by 82.5 percent. Crediting the reductions to deterrence (even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims), Lott and Landes called their findings ‘dramatic,’ concluding: ‘[T]he only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws,’” the report said.
|
|
| | | 1153 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 15:47
|
"even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims"
lol
|
|
| | | 1154 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 15:49
|
Ha! Yeah, because there's no such thing as "suicide by cop" is there?
|
|
| | | 1155 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 16:52
|
Those people are called "freedom fighters", dude. At least if they're shooting cops because they don't like the law.
Get your verbiage right.
|
|
| | | 1156 | Boldwin
ID: 24051719
Mon, Jan 07, 2013, 20:58
|
"even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims"
because there's no such thing as "suicide by cop" is there?
1) They go places that are virtually guaranteed unarmed.
2) They turn their guns on themselves as a rule as soon as they are confronted by an armed victim.
|
|
| | | 1157 | Boldwin
ID: 17051818
Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 21:28
|
Unexpectedly...
The newspaper that published all those gun owner addresses thot they could get some cover for their own irresponsibility and add to the anti-gun hysteria by inviting just kids to comment on the release of the addresses.
Oh, this is just too good. Only problem is the kids were all pro RTBA! The anti-gun hystericals are baby boomers.
I spose some will dispute the identity of the posters as kids.
|
|
| | | 1159 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 12:46
|
I'm glad to see there was complete agreement with my notion to move toward smart gun technology in my 1151 post. I envision a government subsidy to help pay for the conversion of existing arms and strict liability for the owner of any non-compliant gun for the damage it causes.
|
|
| | | 1160 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 13:02
|
I dont see any logical or honest reason to oppose such a thing Zen. I can not fathom, trying to "sell" an opposing position to the public.
|
|
| | | 1161 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 14:00
|
I want my $30 dollar Ruger, dude. That would make it at least $45. I need to kill things under budget.
|
|
| | | 1162 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 06:01
|
1) It would have to work flawlessly and quickly. Raising to fire a weapon you aren't sure will go off is a non-starter.
2) Doesn't sound like a 10 dollar add-on to me. If the choice was between an unconstitutional infringement of taxing guns into unobtainium, or an expensive biometric lock, I'd have to say the lock sounds better.
|
|
| | | 1163 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 10:17
|
an unconstitutional infringement of taxing guns into unobtainium
What constitution are you talking about?
|
|
| | | 1164 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 10:48
|
more posturing. If a sin tax is legal in cigarettes and alcohol, then a similar (if differently named) tax is legal for firearms and ammunition.
if we can require auto manufacturers to install seat belts, airbags and catalytic converters; then we can require gun manufacturers to install programmable biometric controls on firearms.
|
|
| | | 1166 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 11:30
|
No no, it's not like we are infringing or anything. We are merely making the reasonable gun control requirement that anyone who wants an AR-15 wait 85 years and pay a one trillion dollar coin for the privilege.
|
|
| | | 1167 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 12:00
|
Reaching new heights in dysfunctional posting.
|
|
| | | 1168 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 12:03
|
Your bafflement over the terms 'infringe' and 'constitutional'?
|
|
| | | 1169 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 13:00
|
We are merely making the reasonable gun control requirement that anyone who wants an AR-15 wait 85 years and pay a one trillion dollar coin for the privilege.
yes, that's it. you figured it out.
we're going to hyperbole everything to an extreme.
i love that you feel ok with lying or just making things up. then again, you praise cop killers, so i'd put nothing past you.
|
|
| | | 1170 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 13:31
|
ANOTHER school shooting. This one in Taft, CA....no details atm
|
|
| | | 1171 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 13:41
|
HuffPo on the Taft shooting
Taft High School Shooting
Taft Union High School in Taft, Calif.
A shooting has been reported at Taft Union High School in Taft, California, KERO reports.
The shooter is in custody, according to ABC 7.
Two people have been reported shot, according to the station. The first victim suffered minor injuries and refused treatment, according to KGET. The second was airlifted to Kern Medical Center. Details on the second victim's injuries have not yet been reported.
The incident occurred at about 9 a.m., according to KABC. At around 9:20 The suspect was taken into custody and students were evacuated to the football field. Parents were notified and asked to pick up their children.
Taft is 30 miles southwest of Bakersfield, in San Joaquin Valley.
|
|
| | | 1172 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 15:56
|
CEO to just "start killing people" over Obama's gun control.
Obviously this guy doesn't represent most gun owners. Or even many--more like a loud sliver. But this is back where we started: A political movement based on fear and underlying violence, stoked by a media machine disinclined to tone it down for economic reasons. Insert unassailable Constitutional rights being "threatened" and the script pretty much writes itself.
|
|
| | | 1173 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 16:02
|
And the 2nd Amendment didnt use to be interpreted this way. When I say "used to"m I am not talking ancient history here. I am talking pre-Reagan. The NRA for ex, up until circa 1980, taught shooting proficiency, not served as a lobby for Remington Arms. Just as Evangelical Christianity used to teach that life began at birth (up until Jerry Falwell), as the Christian right took over more and more and more of the GOP, the interpretation of when life begins and the 2nd Amendment...changed.
Chief Justice Bergers writings on this, are extremely relevant.
|
|
| | | 1176 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 17:53
|
B...you truly dont ave a clue do you?
1st..EOs can not contravene the Constitution
2nd...Congress can over ride an EO
3rd..of the over 33 laws that deal with firearms passed since Obama took office..ALL relaxed regulations.
|
|
| | | 1178 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 17:57
|
Obama would be foolish not to use what powers he has. Somehow this is a problem for the Right.
The rest is just UN-hating bull, spewed by people who haven't a clue what they are saying. These are the 10-year-olds who angrily steal their mom's car for a joyride. You almost pity them their ignorance. They you realize that, despite this, they can do damage to others.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1182 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 19:34
|
Turns out, Taft High normally has an armed guard, but he was snowed in.
Gotta love Southern California. Look at the pictures of the high school. See any snow? There is a mountain range to the south, heading toward Ojai and Ventura, and the Southern Sierra Nevada quite a ways to the east, which are the only areas that could have received any noticeable amount of snow.
Where does this guard live?
|
|
| | | 1183 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 19:45
|
link
corrected link for HuffPo
according to a friend of mine, Victorville (near Barstow) got snow over night
|
|
| | | 1185 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 10:25
|
i can hardly wait for the NRA to somehow twist this to their warped way of thinking.
two administrators calmly talked the shooter down. they saved a hell of a lot more lives than some yahoo with a gun would have.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1187 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 15:24
|
lmao it would in fact be difficult to display greater levels of ignorance, than that which his statements indicate he suffers.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1189 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 16:52
|
OMG....do these people know no bounds?
|
|
| | | 1190 | Boldwin
ID: 320391116
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 17:39
|
Piers Morgan sliced and diced.
|
|
| | | 1191 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 19:19
|
#1172: Another interview with the same guy.
No surprise: Tennessee suspended his handgun permit.
|
|
| | | 1192 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 22:08
|
Most Evangelical leaders back gun control
In a poll conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 73 percent of church leaders agreed that there needs to be stricter gun regulations, in hopes that tragedies, such as the ones that occurred in Newtown, can be prevented or minimized in the future.
"Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives," said Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. "The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children."
Unrelated,
but rather hilarious
Joseph Farah, the CEO and chief editor of the conservative website WorldNetDaily, who has questioned President Barack Obama's birth record, has been removed from the guest list of the sixth Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast which will take place on Jan. 21.
Merrie Turner, who founded and has hosted the event since 1993, shared with Media Matters that Farah had incorrectly been listed as a featured guest on the list, which includes most notably Rep. Michele Bachmann and televangelist Pat Robertson.
"It is against my beliefs to be openly targeting someone like the president of our country, we have enough enemies outside the country," Turner shared with Media Matters. "It was incorrectly picked up by our staff, I am going to be correcting that."
|
|
| | | 1193 | Boldwin
ID: 540371121
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 23:16
|
With friends like Obama...
|
|
| | |
| | | 1195 | Boldwin
ID: 540371121
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 00:07
|
Ed Rendell actually said that ‘The Good thing about Newtown is it was so horrific.’
- on MSNBC with former former Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania and current on-air political analyst for NBC and MSNBC, letting nothing go to waste.
|
|
| | | 1196 | Boldwin
ID: 540371121
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 04:12
|
Either we're being set up to drop our guard, relax resistance or Obama has decided all his options are too risky, too unpopular and too costly politically. According to NRO's coverage of a NYT article and reactions spinning from that, O will make the PC pronouncements and move on.
I must admit, I was thinking O was rushing the timetable. I'm still looking into American enclaves up and down the Mexican Pacific coast. But perhaps the impossibility of getting it thru the House and the outrageousness of outlawing guns by EO, has been too steep a hill. Trial balloons not floating, NRA etc., not cowed despite intense pressure.
I'd like to think Breitbart's Ben Shapiro's unquestionable public takedown of Piers Morgan was the last straw.
_ _ _ by other means then, for now.
|
|
| | | 1197 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 11:32
|
see 1176
|
|
| | | 1198 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 11:35
|
Yeah, that Ben Shapiro really gave that vital US policy maker the what-for.
Oh, Piers Morgan is a hack media stooge too? Well, gawrsh.
Congratulations on successfully slaying that windmill once and for all though.
|
|
| | | 1199 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 12:32
|
Sarge
If you really think that is an impediment, research exactly how congress would physically prevent that.
Call Eric Holder on the phone and ask him to enforce the law?
Normally a president's honor, oaths to the constitution, a watchdog press prevent that sort of thing but those factors have long fled the barn.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1201 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 12:55
|
As yet again, reality comes crashing in and ruins Boldwins facetious arguments.
|
|
| | | 1202 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 14:31
|
Oh good, they'll be happy to stop there...NOT:"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. " - Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. as reported by Richard Harris Handgun Control, Inc. was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of Sarah and Jim Brady. On October 1, 2001
|
|
| | | 1203 | Tree
ID: 410531212
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 14:43
|
Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. as reported by Richard Harris
Handgun Control, Inc. was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of Sarah and Jim Brady. On October 1, 2001
1. Pete Shields didn't found HCI. Dr. Mark Borinsky, a victim of gun violence, did.
2. Pete Shields retired as chairman in 1989, 2 years before it was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to HONOR the Brady's for their efforts.
3. The Brady Campaign's Stated Mission is:"As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."
nice try with your ill-researched and no longer current information.
|
|
| | | 1204 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 14:45
|
#1201: It is never about reality, sarge. The Far Right has worked itself up over Obama to the point where the only thing that matters is their own fears. And the fear of Obama is what needs to be reinforced, not reality. #1202, 1195, etc etc aren't interested in moving the debate. It is about staking out, and fiercely protecting, territory.
They aren't interested in the truth if it means having to change their opinion, anymore.
Luckily, this debate has allowed these people to demonstrate just where they stand on the issue, and why, so that we can understand which people are naturally unserious.
My interest in their fears don't rise to the level of actually caring.
|
|
| | | 1205 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:07
|
There isn't a single liberal here who isn't perfectly well aware that a complete weapons ban is a key component of the liberal agenda.
But see how they dishonestly ask us to walk the plank one baby step at a time. One ratchet click at a time. Never giving anything back if they can help it. Never making an honest deal. Never making an honest concession. All the while calling everyone else a liar for accurately calling them on it.
|
|
| | | 1206 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:25
|
There isn't a single liberal here who isn't perfectly well aware that a complete weapons ban is a key component of the liberal agenda.
that comes as news to this multiple weapon owning liberal. Seriously Boldwin, you have no right to speak as THE final spokesman for the Conservative side, let alone the Liberal side.
|
|
| | | 1207 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:28
|
Sure there are individual liberals. Feinstein has a gun and she openly calls for a complete ban.
The UN is calling for a worldwide complete ban, Obama called to restart that movement as his first action after re-election. Liberal opposition to Sarah Brady? Really don't think so.
|
|
| | | 1208 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:29
|
We've graduated from dangerous morons to sinister abettors.
Finally the respect I deserve.
|
|
| | | 1209 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:29
|
|
|
| | | 1210 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:30
|
Got yer NRA membership and yer 'cold dead fingers' bumpersticker, Sarge?
Didn't think so.
|
|
| | | 1211 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:32
|
MITH
|
|
| | | 1212 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:33
|
I had my NRA membership, lifetime, and then I cancelled it when they diverted from supporting firearms training and went goofy with endorsing open ownership of war arms, by civilians.
Think much yet B? Didnt believe so.
|
|
| | | 1213 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:36
|
Here is the problem with the NRA these days Boldwin. The are no longer the National RIFLE Association, promoting firearms safety and proficiency as they were founded to do. They are now, the lobbying firm for Remington, Smith-Wesson, Colt, Taurus, H&K, Glock, Mossberg, etc.
|
|
| | | 1214 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:38
|
PD#209
In the immortal words of Ben Shapiro...So?
|
|
| | |
| | | 1216 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 15:51
|
Stupid Reagan. Always getting in the way of Reagan mythmaking.
|
|
| | | 1217 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 16:03
|
There you go again.
|
|
| | | 1218 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 16:34
|
Reagan, according to Boldwin...misquoting...Reagan
''I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,'' he said. ''But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.''
|
|
| | | 1219 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 20:13
|
So Reagan was one of the sinister abettors too.
Cool.
|
|
| | | 1220 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:33
|
"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm." -- President Ronald Reagan ...NRA, www.nra.org/article.aspx?id=224
In 1980 for the first time in its 109-year history, the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate: the Republican nominee,of course, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan, they said, would see to it that the Justice Department “will pursue and prosecute those in government who abuse citizens for the political ends of gun control.” - The Nation
The future president, it happened, practiced what he preached: Shortly after the 1980 election, Nancy Reagan admitted she kept a “tiny little gun” in a bedside drawer that her husband had taught her to use.)
“It seems to me that the best way to deter murderers and thieves is to arm law-abiding folk and not disarm them…. as news story after news story shows, if the victim is armed, he has a chance—a better chance by far than if he isn’t armed. Nobody knows in fact how many crimes are not committed because criminals know a certain store owner has a gun—and will use it.” So the attorney general of the United States, Reagan said, “should encourage homeowners and business people to purchase them and learn how to use them properly.”
“After all, guns don’t make criminals. It’s criminals who make use of guns. They’re the ones who should be punished—not the law-abiding citizen who seeks to defend himself.”
As he put it in the the third part of his radio series that June, what the authors of the Second Amendment “really feared was that government might take away the freedoms of the citizens in their newly created free state. Each of those first ten amendments guarantees a freedom. the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizen to protect those other freedoms. Take away the arms of the citizen, and where is his defense against not only criminals but also the possible despotism of his government? In police states they take away the citizens’ arms first. This ensures the perpetuation of the state’s power, and the ability of police to deal with dissenters, as well as criminals.”
“So isn’t it better for the people to own arms than to risk enslavement by power-hungry men or nations? The founding fathers thougt so. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.”
|
|
| | | 1221 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:34
|
Reagan.
|
|
| | | 1222 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:41
|
President Reagan addressed the NRA membership at the NRA Annual Meetings in Phoenix, Ariz. on May 6, 1983; the only time it’s been done by a sitting U.S. president. In his 37-minute, electrifying speech, President Reagan affirmed that he shared NRA members” beliefs on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the rights of hunters. He commended NRA for its efforts to preserve the Second Amendment.
“Good organizations don’t just happen,” President Reagan said. “They take root in a body of shared beliefs. They flow from strong leadership with vision, initiative and determination to reach great goals. And what you’ve accomplished speaks for itself; more than 2.5 million members and NRA’s getting stronger every day.
“No group does more to promote gun safety and respect for the laws of this land than the NRA, and I thank you.”
- NRA
Just three years after his speech to NRA, in 1986, President Reagan signed the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history--the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners” Protection Act.
|
|
| | | 1223 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:43
|
Another fruitful day being called a liar by someone painting Reagan a gun grabbing liberal.
It doesn't get any better.
|
|
| | | 1224 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:50
|
I know I'm pretty satisfied with my work here today.
|
|
| | | 1225 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:59
|
Oh, that's disinfo Hall of Fame, stuff their, MITH!
Liberals using Reagan to advance liberalism. I marvel at the effort it must take.
|
|
| | | 1226 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:14
|
It would be like me digging up Karl Marx quotes to support capitalism.
I'm good, but I'm not that good. A man's got to know his limitations.
|
|
| | | 1227 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:49
|
"We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety....While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."
- Excerpt from a letter to Congress signed by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1994, in support of the Assault Weapons Ban.
|
|
| | | 1228 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:54
|
Reagan's 1986 signing statement for the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985It is a pleasure to be able to sign into law H.R. 3132 to ban the production or importation of the so-called cop-killer bullets, which pose an unreasonable threat to law enforcement officers who use soft body armor. This bill, similar to legislation jointly submitted to the Congress by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury in 1984, recognizes that certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited. Such action is long overdue.
|
|
| | | 1229 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:56
|
Only Boldwin will stand here and say, "Reagan didnt say what Reagan said Reagan said. No, Reagan said something different and I laugh at you for quoting him and thinking he meant what those words mean."
|
|
| | | 1230 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:59
|
NYT - 3/21/1991...former President Ronald Reagan today strongly endorsed legislation requiring a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun and urged President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill.
The White House took the former President's remarks as an occasion to indicate its willingness to reconsider the issue, and aides to Mr. Bush said he was interested in trading concessions on the handgun bill for Congressional action on his anti-crime legislation.
Mr. Reagan has endorsed waiting periods in the past, but only at the state level. His decision to back the Federal bill, named for his former press secretary, James S. Brady, appeared to have been coordinated with its supporters. It was immediately interpreted on Capitol Hill as a setback for the opponents of gun control. Right and Responsibility
"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases," Mr. Reagan said at a gathering at George Washington University marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life by John W. Hinckley Jr. "And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."
|
|
| | | 1231 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:03
|
1991 Ronald Reagan Op-Ed in the NYT titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bil". Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
|
|
| | | 1232 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:07
|
Pish-posh. You can have waiting periods and background checks but you aren't getting an endless string of bites of the apple, further restrictions until they are entirely banned. Not from Reagan. Not from the NRA. Not from pro-Americans. If and when you get it, it's time to flee the country before the bullets fly.
|
|
| | | 1233 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:08
|
Reagan at a 1988 press conference in Toronto answering a question about gun ownership I'll tell you, there's some certain things I would go for. For example, in California, for a citizen to buy a gun, that citizen has to come in and lay down the money, of course, name, address, and so forth, and then doesn't get the gun. And this goes to an agency in the State Government that looks into that person's entire background as to who and what they are, and then they come back after that investigation, and if they don't have a record of any crimes or mental problems or anything of that kind, they are allowed to take their gun home. Now, I would like to see that generally, and I think that all States ought to take a look at that system. But in addition, I think that maybe we could tie to that making sure that they aren't just totally absent of any knowledge of weapons. I taught my entire family out at the Ranch how to shoot a gun in case they ever had to. And I think maybe there could be some restrictions, that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1235 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:15
|
But see how they dishonestly ask us to walk the plank one baby step at a time...
Sinister Abettor.
|
|
| | | 1236 | Boldwin
ID: 260151219
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:20
|
#1233
I am really really tired atm, can barely read, been going since 2 AM with a couple hours off napping, but I don't see a problem with Reagan's position. I don't know why you think this is a gotcha.
|
|
| | | 1237 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:26
|
I don't see a problem with Reagan's position
Does it surprise anyone else that Boldwin has suddenly come out in favor of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which was explicitly supported by Ronald Reagan)?
|
|
| | | 1238 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 00:37
|
I don't see a problem with Reagan's position.
Even though you paint all those with similar positions as gun-grabbing liberals. To borrow one of your pet phrases:
"You like to pretend....."
|
|
| | | 1239 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 01:20
|
I am really really tired atm, can barely read, been going since 2 AM with a couple hours off napping,
haven't heard one of those in a while. i'd missed them. tomorrow night you'll be off playing video games or something.
the last 35 posts or so have you being totally schooled. it's fun to see your excuses, and especially the parts where you suddenly agree with positions you've disagreed with.
we can go back to statements like There isn't a single liberal here who isn't perfectly well aware that a complete weapons ban is a key component of the liberal agenda as being a key part of your problem (well, other than the dishonesty and lies).
blanket statements are rarely true. i'm a liberal and have ZERO desire to see a complete weapons ban. Sarge has said the same. i'm sure there are others. those few examples debunk your silly theory.
|
|
| | | 1240 | Boldwin
ID: 10042139
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 11:02
|
Where is the gun ban in #1233? I'm awake now and I still don't see it.
|
|
| | | 1241 | Boldwin
ID: 10042139
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 11:04
|
His position in that interview is basically the same as the NRA's and any other lifetime member of the NRA.
|
|
| | | 1243 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 11:27
|
Ronald Reagan supported the Assault Weapons Ban.
|
|
| | | 1246 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:14
|
Some "lifetime members" quit as a result of the NRA stances.
You can practically smell the desperation in shoring up Reagan as a Far Right Founding Father.
|
|
| | | 1247 | Boldwin
ID: 540231311
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:23
|
Indeed there was an exodus of lifetime members when the Reagan wing took over and kicked the Sierra Club members out.
|
|
| | | 1248 | Boldwin
ID: 540231311
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:28
|
Ronald Reagan supported the Assault Weapons Ban.
If the NRA has to support another Assault Weapon Ban, they will only do so because they feel that is the defensible line in the culture war. If they can prevent all bans for responsible owners they'll do that instead.
|
|
| | | 1249 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:42
|
I said RONALD REAGAN SUPPORTED THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, not the NRA. The NRA opposed the 1994 ban.
The NRA has also made clear that it would oppose a new Assault Weapons Ban.
|
|
| | | 1250 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:44
|
MITH: Boldwin's point is that there is no difference between the NRA and Reagan (Nor between Reagan and the Tea Party for that matter).
You say Reagan and automatically the NRA pops up.
|
|
| | | 1251 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:48
|
Right right I always forget; Ronald Reagan, NRA, Jesus, Orly Taitz, Glenn Beck -- all the same entity.
|
|
| | | 1252 | Boldwin
ID: 540231311
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:51
|
Politics is the art of the possible.
You tell me Reagan supported it. I tell you he supported the least gun control he could get in that political climate.
|
|
| | | 1253 | Boldwin
ID: 540231311
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:55
|
And if you are telling me Reagan was sitting around with a liberal mindset, wringing his hands trying to figure out how to disarm Americans, you are a liar.
|
|
| | | 1254 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:16
|
And if you are telling me Reagan was sitting around with a liberal mindset, wringing his hands trying to figure out how to disarm Americans, you are a liar
and if you're telling me that the liberal mindset is trying to figure out how to disarm Americans, you are a liar. again.
several "liberals" here have told you they're not interested in eliminating all guns. you prefer to be delusional.
|
|
| | | 1255 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:20
|
I tell you he supported the least gun control he could get in that political climate
He was 6 years out of the Oval Office. What political climate could have possibly forced him to support any gun control at all? GHWB didn't support the 1994 AWB. Why couldn't Reagan have been as conservative as Bush on the matter?
if you are telling me Reagan was sitting around with a liberal mindset
Nope, that's not the point I'm making at all and it's one that I frankly do not believe. But it is logic that is absolutely demanded by your own argument in 1211. So you're going to have to either relent somewhere or continue to be called out for talking out of both sides of your mouth.
|
|
| | | 1256 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:33
|
The point of course is that Boldwin, like Reagan, like Obama, like me, believes in gun control.
The four of us likely have different ideas about where the proper balances are in the debate, but I know for a fact that none of us wants a daisy cutter in his neighbor's basement.
So there is very obviously common ground here, and it is only Boldwin's hate for his fellow Americans that he refuses to acknowledge this fact, preferring instead to poison the discussion by demonizing any "liberal" who speaks in favor of any gun control measures, whatsoever, as a gun grabbing fiend who plots a complete firearms ban.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1258 | Boldwin
ID: 80221316
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:22
|
#1256
Tell it to Diane Feinstein.
Tell it to the Brady Campaign.
|
|
| | | 1260 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:47
|
Tell it to the Brady Campaign.
we've already established the Brady Campaign doesn't want to ban all guns. you can lie all you want and make up what you think their mission statement is, but that doesn't make it reality.
|
|
| | | 1261 | Boldwin
ID: 80221316
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:52
|
"Were going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]ell have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, wed be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. " - Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. as reported by Richard Harris
|
|
| | | 1262 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:55
|
repeating the erroneous post 1202, which was debunked in 1203, does not suddenly make the lies of 1202 accurate truths.
Richard Harris, can report whatever the hell he wants to. Pete Shields, did not found Handgun Control Inc.
See 1203 for clarification and reality.
|
|
| | | 1263 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 18:35
|
in how many threads are you going to re-post previously debunked posts?
read 1203. or keep lying. your choice.
|
|
| | | 1264 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 01:42
|
yea, didn't think we'd see him back to respond tonight.
|
|
| | | 1265 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 08:24
|
Tell it to Diane Feinstein.
Tell it to the Brady Campaign.
Why? They don't speak for me any more than Ronald Reagan's support for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban spoke for you.
|
|
| | | 1266 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 09:01
|
Now Mith, we all know that Reagan didn't support the 94 Assault Weapon ban, and that people only believe that because of the liberal media spin.
/tin foil hat
|
|
| | | 1267 | Boldwin
ID: 270551422
Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 23:56
|
Let's be like Switzerland. Give every American a gun like Gabrielle Gifford's.
|
|
| | | 1268 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 06:28
|
Classic Boldwin subject change.
|
|
| | | 1269 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 08:59
|
also, classic Baldwin ignorance.
if he knew about Swiss gun laws, i'm pretty sure he wouldn't want the same laws here in this country.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1271 | Tree
ID: 100241510
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:28
|
Funny thing is Switzerland is a very safe place.
not funny. expected. gun ownership is actually quite restrictive, and optional. additionally, the purchase of munitions is heavily regulated.
Mexico only has one legal gunshop for the entire country and as you know it's very safe there.
Mexicans have the Constitutional right to keep and bear fire arms. Article 10, of their Constitution. They were smart enough, however, to make that two distinct clauses - the right to bear is dependent on other regulations.
the number of gun shops is completely irrelevant.
|
|
| | | 1272 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 13:39
|
Want a country with no meaningful gun controls? Look no further than Somalia. (Might wanna watch Blackhawk Down as a primer though.)
|
|
| | | 1273 | Boldwin
ID: 11020158
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 14:14
|
That's actually a bigger problem than you realize.
|
|
| | | 1274 | Boldwin
ID: 70101517
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 19:47
|
The city of Chicago has more gun homicides than AK, DE, HI, IA, ID, ME, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, RI, SD, UT, VT, and WY combined. And more gun control I think.
|
|
| | | 1275 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 19:53
|
bet it has more gang members too.
|
|
| | | 1276 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 19:58
|
There's a logical inconsistency in such arguments. There is no indication that more guns in that situation would result in fewer gun accidents and deaths.
Nor is there any indication or evidence that gun deaths are higher as a result of gun control.
It is the definition of co-relational "proof" in lieu of actual evidence.
As with any issue, we need to stop letting the wackos frame the debate (this goes for those who want to ban all guns).
|
|
| | | 1277 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 20:36
|
1274
Already had this discussion with ChicagoTRS. It doesn't do any good for Chicago to have somewhat tight gun control laws when someone can simply drive a few miles to Indiana and buy a gun with no check. The other problem is straw buyers. Get tough on the straw buyers, when a gun is found registered to them and used in a crime, and watch that problem subside.
|
|
| | | 1278 | Boldwin
ID: 15057166
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 07:57
|
|
|
| | | 1279 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 07:59
|
see 1231
|
|
| | | 1280 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 10:08
|
pish-posh, gun grabbers.
|
|
| | | 1281 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 10:35
|
the quote in 1278 is another example of misinformation, or maybe even dishonesty.
i am curious if Baldwin, or any Conservatives who are using in while discussing the issue of guns, have ANY clue when Reagan said it, or why Reagan said it.
here's a hint - it was YEARS before he was elected president when he said it, and it had nothing, zero, zilch, nada, zippo to do with guns.
The full explanation can be found at this link, but for those who are too intellectually dishonest to bother, the answer is July 31, 1968, at the Republican Convention that nominated Richard Nixon.
the subject? nope, not guns or anything even close. Instead, it was Reagan arguing against even more social programs that were proposed after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
so, nice try with that meme, but as is the norm, it's not relevant nor related.
|
|
| | | 1282 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 11:00
|
Get tough on the straw buyers, when a gun is found registered to them and used in a crime, and watch that problem subside.
that assumes the gun is then traceable. This is all a pointless argument, there are what 300 million guns in the US? The train left the station years ago and I willing to bet that just like Prohibition did for alcohol use stricter gun laws will only increase the problem. If you want to stop gun violence stop violence.
|
|
| | | 1283 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 11:12
|
i do believe that the Smart Technology that SZ posted about is the way to go, and would address some of what was posed in 1282.
there was very little discussion about it, because there isn't much that can be said against it, although fools will sure try.
|
|
| | | 1284 | Tree
ID: 480541611
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 12:54
|
Obama unveils sweeping plan to battle gun violence
President Barack Obama on Wednesday rolled out a sweeping plan to combat gun violence, including a universal background checks for every gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and ammunition clips that hold more than 10 bullets.
1. Universal background checks
2. Ban on assault weapons
3. Ban on clips that hold more than 10 bullets
how any law-abiding, common sense gun owner can be against those things, would be beyond me.
|
|
| | | 1285 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 13:59
|
Tree which part of 300 million do you not understand? While I have no problem with smart technology you are still going to have 300+ million guns without them.
Re:1284; they said the same thing about Prohibition. None of those laws will combat gun violence. Because none of them combat violence. The only law that I know of that has limited gun violence have been mandatory waiting periods, which I am not sure if that is part of the plan or not.
The reality is this all just a illusion, illusion that politicians are doing something, and illusion that they make a difference. We might as well be arguing about the best way to find big foot.
|
|
| | | 1286 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 14:29
|
Just so we're all on the same page discussing Obama's announcements, here are the 23 executive orders he's announced. I actually havent' read them yet myself. Just found the list and am posting it. Will look later when I have more time:
Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
|
|
| | | 1287 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 16:57
|
A divide in gun violence leads to divide in reasoning between gun laws.
The horrifying toll of gun violence on black America explains why black Americans are so much more likely than whites to favor gun control. Conversely, fears of being victimized by violence explain why so many white Americans -- especially older and more conservative white Americans -- insist on the right to bear arms in self-protection. They see gun violence as something that impinges on them from the outside. They don't blame guns for gun violence. They blame a particular subset of the population. And they don't see why they should lose their right because some subset of the population abuses theirs.
|
|
| | | 1288 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 17:20
|
And they don't see why they should lose their right
None of these proposals are about losing their rights. Yes, there are proposals to ban certain types of weapons, but the basic right to bear arms is not infringed. There are certain regulations as to what kind of vehicle you can drive on a public street. That doesn't infringe on someone's basic right to drive on a street.
Nobody will be losing their rights.
|
|
| | | 1289 | Tree
ID: 200571615
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 18:00
|
re 1278 and its dishonesty.
i went back and tried to find a quote from Reagan about guns from the late 60s. something actually about guns (and not something else), and something actually in context, from the time frame you're choosing to align with.
i was successful.
Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." He called guns a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will."
In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t "know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded." The Mulford Act, he said, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."
from The Secret History of Guns
it should also be noted that this came at a time when The NRA also supported gun control.
by the way, try to come up with a reasonable response. your "oh, now you're going to tell us Reagan was a liberal, hahaha" responses are old and tired. come up with something new.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1291 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:00
|
Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
I thought this was an excellent article.
I am not opposed to some of the recommendations coming from the president but am very opposed to bans on assault weapons...for many reasons I have already discussed.
Smart technology is great but 300 million boats already left the pier. Plus it is still not where it would need to be...is limited. I think it is a fine option for households who want an extra level of protection.
I still do not get where the gun control debate is going...I do not see anything on that list that will solve any real problems. I see all sorts of new levels of bureaucracy...I see us spending a lot of money but I do not see much return on the investment. All sorts of new regulations that effect law abiding people but nothing that will prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun and nothing stopping some one in a hundred million maniac from going on a rampage. Nothing that solves any of the real causes of gun violence. Law abiding people are rarely ever the problem when it comes to guns.
I see it as nanny government controlling the citizenry. I see it as a reaction to a tragic event but no one understanding that there are events you cannot control or regulate away. I see it as a direct attack on the fundamentals of 2nd Amendment.
|
|
| | | 1292 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:13
|
1291 - the first paragraph of your link It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it tends to make someone with common sense about gun control shy away.
it completely "disregards" the fact that the majority don't want to violate the second amendment, which, once again, is about the right to bear arms - no the right to bear whatever you want to.
a few paragraphs later, it jumps the shark with the phrase "gun grabbers." and that's when i stopped reading, because when a writer uses language like that, the writer isn't attempting to make a rational argument - he or she is pandering to what they feel is their base.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1294 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:17
|
Tree....you should keep reading...though I know you are the most anti-gun in this debate so it really does not matter...nothing is going to change your mind.
Banning assault weapons is a direct attack on the fundamentals of the 2nd Amendment. Assault weapons are exactly what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect.
|
|
| | | 1295 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:19
|
#1291: The previous AWB did not prohibit previously-owned assault weapons. Only the sale of new ones. There is no reason to think a new AWB would handle the problem any differently.
Half of all shooting sprees we've ever had in this country have occured since the GOP allowed the AWB to expire. Many people don't think this is a coincidence. While you might see this "as a direct attack on the fundamentals of 2nd Amendment," others see this as a proper balance of rights, as rights are always in balance.
To insist on an unbalanced weighing of rights isn't going to solve very much.
|
|
| | | 1296 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:21
|
though I know you are the most anti-gun in this debate so it really does not matter..
uh. not sure at all where you got that.
i'm very much pro-Second Amendment and absolutely believe in the right to bear arms.
i don't believe you need assault rifles, i don't believe you need clips holding a ton of bullets, and i don't believe you have the right to own whatever firearm you want.
i do believe in closing the gun show loophole, i do believe in more comprehensive background checks, and yes, i also believe that includes mental health evaluations.
Assault weapons are exactly what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect.
and if by "assault weapons" you mean "muskets", you're absolutely correct.
really though, we have NO IDEA what our founding fathers sought to protect from the second amendment beyond the fundamental right to bear arms (read: not any and every weapon available).
|
|
| | | 1297 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:28
|
The assault weapons that were in the AWB were not yet invented when the Second Amendment passed (let alone debated).
Really, if you are going to let the Founding Fathers decide this, you are probably not going to win the debate. I'd be careful putting your argument entirely in the hands of a group who were, to a man, horrified by the idea of a standing army in this country.
|
|
| | | 1298 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:34
|
"Half of all shooting sprees we've ever had in this country have occurred since the GOP allowed the AWB to expire. Many people don't think this is a coincidence."
Whoever thinks this is an idiot. The ban basically banned about 30 different weapons that were redesigned immediately so they were no longer banned. It did NOTHING. It banned a gun from having too many accessories.
"really though, we have NO IDEA what our founding fathers sought to protect from the second amendment beyond the fundamental right to bear arms (read: not any and every weapon available)."
We do know exactly...we can read many clarifications from many of the the founding fathers.
Noah Webster said it best:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
By removing the weapon types that puts US citizenry on nearly equal ground as government forces the 2nd Amendment is defeated.
|
|
| | | 1299 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:39
|
If it did "NOTHING" then why are you of the belief that it is a direct attack? You really can't have it both ways.
Virtually no serious person is asking the people to disarm. As noted, this "direct attack" did not require anyone to turn in guns they already owned--even assault weapons that were banned from new sales. You continue to believe that those who want any restrictions to make it difficult for people who shouldn't have guns are merely trying to take away all guns.
That simply isn't true. I'm sorry, but that is an unserious response to a serious problem.
|
|
| | | 1300 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:40
|
you are arguing that civilians should have tanks, bazookas, Anti-aircraft guns, jet fighters, and so forth?
|
|
| | | 1301 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:41
|
All that does is motivate Sheriffs to buy tanks. Which they are doing.
You don't want to initiate an arms race with your own people.
Either we are a society or we are not.
|
|
| | | 1302 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:42
|
Another quote from one of our founders:
Founding Father, Trench Coxe said it this way, “The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
|
|
| | | 1303 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:44
|
...because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
This was true, when civilians and military owned the exact same type of weapons. Since civilians dont much own F-22s with stand off air-ground missile capability, or M1 Abrams tanks, or F-117 Stealth.......the whole of the population would in point of fact, be little more than cannon fodder were the Feds to actually come at them.
That, is a specious argument.
|
|
| | | 1304 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:49
|
Lessons From Guns and a Goose
The N.R.A. might say that guns don’t kill people, geese kill people, but in the absence of firearms they wouldn’t have menaced each other with axes or hammers...
...To reduce auto deaths, we’ve taken a public health approach that you might call “car control” — driver’s licenses, air bags, seat belts, auto registration. The result is a steady decline in vehicle fatalities so that some time soon gun deaths are likely to exceed traffic fatalities, for the first time in modern American history.
|
|
| | | 1305 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:51
|
I am for certain restrictions...background checks, closing loopholes, increased mental health, etc...
But no one is really explaining what banning assault weapons accomplishes? They are the most rarely used firearm in gun violence in this country. They are not taking away the multi-millions of rifles that are already in the private sector.
It does not stop or even slow down some maniac bent on killing. It basically removes rights from millions of law abiding gun owners because we think it might make it a little more difficult for a 1 in 100 million maniac. But the reality is the maniac has many options that are just as deadly if not more so.
Really I should be for the ban as it makes my guns far more valuable. I just do not see the reason for the ban and I do think the ban neuters the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
| | | 1306 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 22:58
|
Sarge...really? You were in the military...you think a civilian force is cannon fodder? Have you paid attention to any of the current wars we are fighting...it is awful difficult to control armed civilians even when you have superior fire power.
Guns are already highly restricted...even as it is our federal and state governments do not enforce all of the current laws. Like I said...I am for reasonable restrictions....but banning an entire class of weapon that is rarely used in gun homicides is BS and a direct attack against the people of this country.
Ask the people who defended themselves in the LA Riots, in the Katrina disaster, in other cases of civil unrest. No thanks I will keep my tactical rifle.
|
|
| | | 1307 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 23:13
|
*PREFACE*: This is an entirely theoretical and insanely unlikely event. I am not in any way, shape or form, indicating a belief that anything like this is about to take place.
Americans TRS, are soft. Look at Syria, Libya. The American population, wouldnt stand and fight in the face of an approaching armored column. They'd run, until they were out of real estate. Then boxed in, some would fight and die, most would surrender.
*IF*, the Feds marched with armed intent upon "any city", USA...it would be a short 'battle'.
|
|
| | | 1308 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 00:18
|
the train left the station years ago and I willing to bet that just like Prohibition did for alcohol use stricter gun laws will only increase the problem.
people said that about DUI laws too.
but we enacted change anyway, and saved countless lives.
if something is wrong, you fix it. if you can save lives, you take steps to do so.
|
|
| | | 1309 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 00:53
|
I think you highly underestimate the resolve of the populace of this country.
Agreed currently very unlikely, but..."Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"...impossible to know how the world will change in the future.
Anyway...I pretty much agree with all of Obamas resolutions depending on costs...I do not think Congress will pass much.
|
|
| | | 1310 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 01:07
|
Tree...the difference between a DUI and shooting someone is pretty vast. Most DUIs and drunk drivers are otherwise law abiding people. Choosing to shoot someone is not generally a careless decision made by a typically law abiding person.
|
|
| | | 1311 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 01:38
|
No TRS. I think you, and everyone else who thinks civilians armed with 30.30s can stand, underestimate the firepower of the US Army.
|
|
| | | 1313 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 07:26
|
I fully agree with ChicagoTRS re the 1994 AWB. I haven't seen the details of the new federal proposal (presumably they won't just adopt Feinstein's bill, which is such an overreach that to try to pass it would be a pointless exercise) but if it mirrors the 94 ban there's no way I could support it.
The notion that a firearm that is basically the same thing as a small caliber handgun (except that it's bigger and not as easily hidden from potential victims) should be federally banned is ridiculous.
Fortunately, I believe the president's stated support for an AWB is mostly just lip service. After over 5 years as a candidate and president, he's said very little in favor of gun control and there's no reason to think at this point that it has moved to the top of his agenda as something that he will expend political capital on.
Regarding the stuff about the effectiveness of an armed populace rising up against the US military - if you believe the US military fights its wars aligned to its stated goal of limiting harm to civilians as much as possible, then it makes sense that they would be more subject to attack from civilian firearms and small and home made munitions.
But if the US government became truly tyrannical - well they could direct some pimple-faced kid sitting at a console 2,500 miles away to reduce my house and the surrounding square mile to a pile of gravel.
The 2nd was written (either in part or entirely, depending on how you read it) to keep private militias effectively armed for the purpose of a national defense. This was because one of the few things the federalists and ant-federalists agreed on was that they opposed a standing army.
To successfully defend the union from foreign militaries, it was necessary to permit private citizens to possess howitzers and and the most destructive bombardment weapons of the day.
Obviously we've evolved past the private militia since the 1790s and given our modern military capabilities, the notion of an effective militia providing our national is quaint, especially since I don't know anyone who thinks the 2nd protects the right of citizens to possess tanks and Apache choppers and whatnot.
|
|
| | | 1314 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 09:32
|
sarge...really do not even want to debate this subject any longer. It is definitely far fetched and frankly your statements turn my stomach...are you American? There are a lot more ex-military than there is active military. The US civilians are hardly limited to 30.30s (at least so far). A million man standing force which would probably be very conflicted in such a scenario would have a very difficult time controlling 100 million gun owners. It is not like a tyrannical government would be able to carpet bomb its civilian population.
Anyway I see the presidents proposals as mostly reactionary and to pacify people. I do not think congress is interested in passing new legislation on this subject.
|
|
| | | 1315 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 09:53
|
It is not like a tyrannical government would be able to carpet bomb its civilian population.
They wouldn't have to. They'd just have to identify facilities and depots to destroy. Presumably American rebels would not employ third world insurgent tactics of hiding military targets within civilian populations but even if they did, a truly tyrannical government wouldn't let that stop them.
The notion is romantic but it is so far fetched that it is basically fantasy. The further we get from the effectiveness of a semiautomatic small caliber firearm on a modern battlefield, the sillier the idea becomes.
|
|
| | | 1316 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 11:14
|
The further we get from the effectiveness of a semiautomatic small caliber firearm on a modern battlefield, the sillier the idea becomes.
Bingo.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 1320 | Boldwin
ID: 510151819
Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 20:16
|
|
|
| | | 1321 | Boldwin
ID: 510151819
Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 20:37
|
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 1329 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 00:34
|
“It is deeply troubling that law enforcement found this man, with a prior homicide conviction, in possession of an arsenal.”
How does a person convicted of manslaughter obtain 18 assault weapons and other firearms, along with 40,000 rounds of ammunition? Well, according to NBC News, a White Supremacist from Ohio who also happens to be a convicted felon did just that.
Yeah, we dont need to close gun show, internet or private party sales loopholes.
|
|
| | | 1330 | Boldwin
ID: 130502011
Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 12:50
|
Bill Clinton remembers one of his biggest mistakes, the assault rifle ban cost him the house and his party, the speaker of the house position.
|
|
| | | 1331 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 12:54
|
Over reaction by the voting public, and ten ton of money from the firearms manufacturers marketing errr, I mean the NRA, cost the Dems in the 90s. Times have changed, and this time around, fighting it will cost the GOP.
the world B, is passing you by. Best pay attention, or get blinded by the billowing dust cloud that is trailing.
|
|
| | | 1332 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 13:13
|
Yes, don't trivialize the people with guns (just as those with guns shouldn't trivialize the beliefs of those without them). But relying on bad history to demonstrate a point seems to be a lot of what drives arguments coming from the Right these days--Foley was defeated because of the term limits controversy more than anything else. Others (like Brooks, and others) were probably walking the plank a bit because they had already voted for the Brady Bill earlier.
|
|
| | | 1333 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 13:16
|
Assault weapon/rifle semantic blunders aside, the point in 1330 should be well taken (filling the blind squirrel quota for a while).
And it will be by more than enough Democrats. There will be no 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. And the White House knows and accepts this, lip service to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
| | | 1335 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 09:22
|
I think we can all agree this kind of paranoia is WAYY over the top.
On one extreme we have the NRA insisting anything done is too much. On the other extreme we have this crap to contend with. Again, can't we just tell the extreme's of both sides to shut up and let the adults handle this?
|
|
| | | 1336 | Boldwin
ID: 10055219
Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 10:55
|
That right there is the party of tolerance and self-esteem, engaged in radical shaming.
~ Gun owners should be made to cower in shame. - Eric Holder
Except drug lords and M13 gangbangers. We should supply them.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1338 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 22, 2013, 15:19
|
Tue shooting at a Texas campus
This was about, 2 hrs ago:
At least two students were shot at Lone Star College in Texas on Tuesday, a school official said.
According to Jed Young, a spokesman for the school, the shooting "involving two individuals" took place shortly before 12:30 p.m. local time. Two students were shot in the crossfire, the spokesman said, and at least one of the suspected shooters was shot and taken into custody. The extent of their injuries were not known. A second shooter fled the campus, the spokesman said. The Harris County Sheriff's Office said the situation remains "ongoing" but confirmed that a "person of interest" was detained and is in custody.
According to Houston's ABC affiliate, both victims have multiple gun shot wounds and are in serious condition.
According to CNN, a fourth victim suffered a heart attack during the incident.
It's unclear if the suspected shooters were students at the school.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1340 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Tue, Jan 22, 2013, 22:38
|
can someone please translate Wayne LaPierre's speech to me. i'm listening to it, and wow, it's rambling and doesn't make much sense.
|
|
| | | 1341 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 22, 2013, 23:13
|
guns...more guns....guns solve all...more guns, solve more than all....
thats it in a nutshell
|
|
| | | 1345 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 12:48
|
More incompetent hysteria and again its in Pa.
Unbelievable. Hope that teacher gets reprimanded in front of his/her colleagues for being an idiot.
|
|
| | | 1346 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 13:15
|
Agreed. But schools are, essentially, no-free-speech zones. They are (or at least act like) little communist countries. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
|
|
| | | 1347 | Boldwin
ID: 310182420
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 21:43
|
You are all for this PD. Couldn't even let a post pointing out that this was just radical shaming against the gun culture to go uncensored.
|
|
| | | 1348 | Tree
ID: 200562420
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 21:56
|
i am getting so sick and tired of Baldwin tell every poster here what they're for. Sarge in another thread, PD in this one, and countless other times.
you're not all-knowing. in fact, based on most of your posts, you know very little.
|
|
| | | 1349 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 22:19
|
Do what I do tree: Stop responding to him. I haven't made a response to him directly in over three months.
He's simply not worth it.
Eventually he'll move on to a more moist and warm environment.
|
|
| | | 1350 | DWetzel
ID: 5411161018
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 22:32
|
Advice from Robert Downey Jr. will probably not be heeded but is applicable:
link
|
|
| | | 1352 | Razor
ID: 240322422
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 23:32
|
PD has things figured out.
|
|
| | | 1353 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 08:20
|
Don't even read the posts, or, just stop when you realize that it isn't worth it. There are occasionally lucid posts, but the majority are not worth the time.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1355 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 14:35
|
Agreed--there is no better way to attract criminals with guns to the state than passing this as law.
Of course, given their lax gun laws anyway, they already were attracting criminals to their state. Maybe now they will stay.
|
|
| | | 1356 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 15:02
|
When did Virginia become the political version of Florida?
|
|
| | | 1357 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 15:05
|
Wouldnt that constitute "Obstruction of Justice"? I dont see, where such ;aw as that would fail to get over-turned.
|
|
| | | 1358 | Boldwin
ID: 230502710
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 11:50
|
|
|
| | | 1359 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 12:15
|
For those who are moved by emotional anecdotes as arguments for what broad policy should be, I'll note that there's no question that Colin Fergusen would have hurt and killed more people on the Long Island Railroad train he shot up if he had bigger clips. He was tackled by pass angers while reloading.
I don't care how quickly a rodeo clown can swap out a magazine. Just as a nearby armed civilian might potentially increase potential victims' survival chances, so might limiting the shots the shooter gets off before having to reload.
|
|
| | | 1360 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 13:23
|
good point MITH.
and of course, Carolyn McCarthy - who's husband was killed and who's son was severely injured by Ferguson - became a gun control advocate, and eventually, propelled her run and election to Congress.
she has become one of the nation's strongest gun control advocates.
Gratia and McCarthy. two different people who survived traumatic mass shootings, two different reactions.
|
|
| | | 1361 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 13:43
|
McCarthy is my rep. My least favorite thing about her are her somewhat extreme and imo counter-productive gun control positions which, as Tree notes, stem from the tragedy that propelled her to congress.
|
|
| | | 1362 | Boldwin
ID: 230502710
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 17:24
|
MITH
It's not about the emotions of Hupp's circumstances. It's about the logic of her argument. She could have and would have saved her parents lives if not for the unconstitutional, illogical actions of her state legislature. Something which her election helped rectify.
It is just a natural fact that her parents would be alive today but for those legislators. It wasn't the gun which made the decision, it wasn't the madman who made the decision as he was not competent to make such a decision, it was the legislators who made the decision which killed them.
|
|
| | | 1363 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 18:19
|
just a natural fact
Sadly, no. Add "fact" to the ever-growing list of words you have discarded the meaning and importance of.
|
|
| | | 1364 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 10:21
|
A little perspective courtesy of Joe Nocera:
Last Weeks' Gun Roundup
Stuff like this happens in our country faaaaaaaaaar too often, far too regularly, and really is unnecessary. Unfortunately, with 300 million guns, it's gone too far to be remedied (although one could argue that an aggressive buy back program could cut into this gun population). There are thousands of responsible gun owners. No one argues that. However, it only takes a few irresponsible owners, or a little accidental oversight by a typically responsible owner for tragic outcomes. IMO, public safety trumps this right or privilege. The rewards of ownership do not come close to out-weighing the risks associated with the uncontrollable accidents, outbursts, incidents, road rages, hobbies/sports/games gone awry, and other isolated events where it is clearly just very easy to hurt, maim or kill someone with a gun. It's plainly easy for these incidents and accidents to occur, with incredibly grave consequences. It belies common sense to me.
|
|
| | | 1365 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 10:28
|
There's a very interesting recommendation made by one of the individuals who posted in response to Nocera's column:
How about a requirement to watch a video of a gunshot victim being treated in an ER or buried, and listening to statements from the bereaved, before a gun purchase can be made?
How's that for an equivalent to forcing women seeking abortions to have an internal ultrasound? I wonder how THAT would go over with the same crowd? (rhetorical).
Another poster sincerely said:
Great idea keeping a weekly tally of gun violence at the end of your columns. It would be helpful if a weekly tally of how many home invasions, car jacking's, muggings or other violent crimes were stopped because the potential victim was armed. I read 3 newspapers every morning. We only read about the violence but rarely read a story with a headline "home invasion thwarted by pistol packing grandpa" . Then we could compare the score and decide if it is worth it.
Really? There are folks who really believe that there could be an equal number of deterrences due to guns than crimes or accidents? I wonder where this calculus comes from? Dreams? Wishful thinking? Propaganda? Unreal.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1367 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 10:56
|
This post, from the same list of comments, is amazing.
Aside from my weapon training in the army, I had no interest in or experience with guns until my adult son invited me to a range with him. Over the next year I bought, successively, a Beretta .380, a Beretta 9mm (more macho), an S&W .38, and a .38Ruger with a 2 1/2 " barrel (to keep in my jacket pocket). One night I was awakened by strange sounds coming from the kitchen. My wife was asleep beside me, & I had tucked my 2 young children into their beds, so I was, needless to say, alarmed.
I fumbled for my S&W (the only one in the bedroom) & carefully made my way toward the sound, gripped with the tension that I might be facing a "bad guy". When I looked thru the crack in the door, there was my 8yr old son raiding the fridge. Next day I got rid of all my guns. Police & the military are trained to evaluate in 1 or 2 seconds, without emotion, a potential threat. How many of the millions of civilian gun owners are that well trained?
And he's being generous on the training. Looked what happened outside of the Empire State building last year when police opened fire on a suspect. Bystanders were hit. More guns is so ludicrously not the answer.
The Constitution is so dated, and curent reliance on the 2nd amendment as justification for gun ownership is just wrong on this. There is no threat of tyranny. Anything else is either selfishness or paranoia. Australia did an aggressive buy back program. We should do the same. The vocal minority of gun owners and the powerful economics behind the gun lobby have an incredibly disproportionate amount of clout.
Hunting rifles, okay. Handguns and other easy to conceal weapons -- we need much more stringent requirements. Assault rifles or large magazines -- absurd. Toys. Dangerous toys. As my man Henry would say: "Uncivilized. Freedom, you want your freedom...Yeah, and now you're dying for it."
|
|
| | | 1368 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:09
|
I would wager that just about every robbery foiled by an armed resident is reported loudly. And above the fold. The public loves these stories, and they sell newspapers. There just not that many of them to report.
|
|
| | | 1369 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:09
|
Walk
The Constitution is so dated
The constitution was effectively updated in 2010, to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and establish that local hand gun bans like we had in Chicago and Washington DC are now - for the first time in American history - unconstitutional.
|
|
| | | 1370 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:16
|
The Constitution is so dated, and curent reliance on the 2nd amendment as justification for gun ownership is just wrong on this.
You can't be more wrong here Walk. Reliance on the 2nd amendment IS justified. The justification IS the second amendment.
There is no need or cause to restrict ownership of firearms, even 'assault' weapons. Why are people caught up on 'assault rifles'? Because the media has been throwing them into every article about guns. Nothing more t han that. Even when its not justified.
And as has been discussed, banning them will not change motives or actions.
Plain and simple, a ban on a rifle is unconstitutional.
With all that said, putting reasonable restrictions, as has been discussed in this thread many times, on the purchase of guns is not unconstitutional. Background checks, mandatory licensing, safety classes, license renewals etc. All that will do much, much more.
And if anything, that story you posted is just highlighting a GOOD gunowner. One who is weighing his needs, wants vs potential risks. He is making a personal decision for HIMSELF and his family. There is no need for the government to step in and make that decision for us. Especially when the highest law in our land says the government cant.
|
|
| | | 1371 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:35
|
Khahan that has to be the worst post I've ever seen from you.
There is no need or cause to restrict ownership of firearms
This sentence shows a terrible lack of understanding of the history of American gun laws. A howitzer cannon is a firearm - one that was most certainly understood to be included under 2nd Amendment protection by the Founding Fathers. A a .50cal machine gun is a firearm too. I'm quite sure I can make some very compelling arguments in favor of restricting ownership of those things.
Why are people caught up on 'assault rifles'? Because the media has been throwing them into every article about guns. Nothing more t han that.
I think you mean to say that people are caught up on "assault weapons". Anything that qualifies as an "assault rifle" has been mostly banned from personal use in this country for decades. In your defense, I've seen the media (all media, including rightist media) confuse assault rifles with assault weapons almost interchangeably.
And the suggestion that people are caught up on assault weapons solely because "the media has been throwing them into every article about guns" is not really true, either.
Do you understand the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle? Are you sure you know what either term really means?
Background checks, mandatory licensing, safety classes, license renewals etc. All that will do much, much more.
How in the world can you write that in the same post in which you claim there is no need or cause to restrict ownership of firearms?
|
|
| | | 1372 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:40
|
Forgot one:
Plain and simple, a ban on a rifle is unconstitutional.
Dude, an assault rifle is a rifle. They've been effectively banned in America for 80 years.
|
|
| | | 1373 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:47
|
A howitzer cannon is a firearm
I am pretty sure this is not a firearm. Either way pre civil war you could own anything you wanted.
|
|
| | | 1374 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:53
|
MITH,
I thought it went w/out saying that when we are discussing firearms in relationship to the 2nd amendment and personal purchase we are not going to the realm of mounted cannons, grenades and hyperbole that boldwin likes to bring up to defend extreme points.
My comment about 'restricting ownership of firearms' while a bit ambiguous is just referring to a blanket law that says, "X kind of pistol or rifle is banned," as walk seems to be angling towards. Yes, that was not the clearest language I could have used.
And yes, I understand the difference between various assault weapons and assault rifles. Again, I was referring to Walk's comments and to the incessant media use of 'assault rifles' in the stories.
Sandy Hook is a perfect example. The article references the 'assault weapons' ban which includes the AR-15 which was "used in the sandy hook shooting." It was not used. It was found in his car after the shooting.
That was my point - the media is confusing the issue and constantly putting it out there that these types of guns are being used...when in fact they are not in every case.
As for the background checks etc, look at it this way: The constitution states a 'well regulated' militia. Letting a loonie-bird have a gun is far from well-regulated. The constitution does NOT, in my eyes, restrict the government from allowing individuals to purchase any type of firearm. But it does stop the government from stating, 'That firearm is illegal.'
|
|
| | | 1375 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:54
|
I am pretty sure this is not a firearm.
For the purposes of a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, it is of worthy note that howitzers and other bombardment weapons were most certainly included (specifically so, in fact) under the heading of "Arms" by the Founding Fathers.
And as far as I know, prior to 1934 you could pretty much own whatever you want.
|
|
| | | 1376 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:12
|
Khahan
I thought it went w/out saying... we are not going to the realm of mounted cannons, grenades and hyperbole
Well a cannon was just one example for why your statement, "There is no need or cause to restrict ownership of firearms" is very foolish. Obviously there is plenty such cause to restrict all manner of firearms.
...just referring to a blanket law that says, "X kind of pistol or rifle is banned,"
Again, this is just plain wrong. There is plenty of precedent for banning specific kinds of firearms.
I was referring to Walk's comments and to the incessant media use of 'assault rifles' in the stories.
But in your next sentence you went on to link a story that uses the term assault weapon.
It was not used. It was found in his car after the shooting.
This is wrong. Lanza did use an AR-15. The gun he left in the car was a shotgun. There is very clear video easily found on youtube showing police removing a shotgun. An NBC report filed the day after the shooting on the Today Show that I've seen pushed by Sandy Hook Truthers was wrong.
The constitution does NOT, in my eyes, restrict the government from allowing individuals to purchase any type of firearm.
Huh?
But it does stop the government from stating, 'That firearm is illegal.'
At the risk of being accused of hyperbole again, since we know you can't own a gatling gun, we obviously know this is not the case.
|
|
| | | 1377 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:20
|
I actually looked it up and as of right now there is not much from stopping you from owning a cannon outside of some paperwork the same goes for .50 cal or about any other weapons you choose. So theoretically I think I could buy a second hand tank from some 3rd world country and drive it around the woods hunting turkeys.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1379 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:25
|
This is wrong. Lanza did use an AR-15. The gun he left in the car was a shotgun. There is very clear video easily found on youtube showing police removing a shotgun. An NBC report filed the day after the shooting on the Today Show that I've seen pushed by Sandy Hook Truthers was wrong.
does this matter? he could have gone around shooting children with an hand gun just as easily, probably more easily. Does the fact that he did not use hand gun change the argument? The point is the use or not use of assault rifle would not have changed what happened.
|
|
| | | 1380 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:27
|
An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.[citation needed] The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4 Good luck.
|
|
| | | 1381 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:31
|
boikin
does this matter? he could have gone around shooting children with an hand gun just as easily, probably more easily. Does the fact that he did not use hand gun change the argument? The point is the use or not use of assault rifle would not have changed what happened.
Well if you'd been following Khahan's (admittedly scattered) posts, his point was that we are only talking about assault weapons because the media injects them into every story about guns. He then cited a story about Lanza, mistakenly claiming that the media's report about him using an assault weapon was wrong.
Of course in the sentence right after the one in which Khahan assured us he knows the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon, he mixed up the terms again. So it's been a challenge trying to pin down his arguments here.
|
|
| | | 1382 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:55
|
re 1374...No K, it was a shotgun found in the car, not a Bushmaster. The AR-15 was used in the school shooting. I believe one was also used in the Aurora, CP theater massacre.
Rightwing logs continue to claim the Bushmaster was found in the car. It was not. Tat was a shotgun, according to the police on the scene. Of course, Newtown "truthers", just claim that as further evidence of the phoniness of the whole thing.
As for why we focus on assault rifle, defined as any semi-automatic rifle designed to appears as a military rifle and capable of holding large capacity magazines? Because with just a wee but of practice, a 30 rd mag can be emptied, replaced and a 2nd one emptied, in about 20-25 seconds. Thats 60 rounds, of 5.56mm ammo, potentialy ripping through a crowd, in under 1/2 a minute.
|
|
| | | 1383 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 12:58
|
Khahan -- my point is really simple. Get rid of the second amendment. We don't need it. We also really don't need guns. The risk/reward is completely out of whack. There is zero common sense to the notion that one person's right to have a handgun outweighs many others right to safety. Too many incidents, accidents, and such. It's just not fair. Sorry, but in my view, it's a sacrifice a great many responsible folks would have to make for the public good (of course, I realize this will not happen, but someone has to say it, given the incredible number of loud voices demanding gun liberties).
The spirit of the second amendment is moot. The government is not going to barge into one's home and move in, demand taxes, and take one's land. I'm okay with hunting type rifles, but easy to conceal guns or assault type weapons are unnecessary toys. AND, if the argument is that we need them cos the criminals have them and we have to defend ourselves, then it goes to the point that the gun proliferation is completely out of control. Unfortunately, what I want is idealistic and not readily feasible. However, that is my stance. I am fine with changing the constitution. The constitution is supposed to be changeable. Is that not in the document? Do we not seek continuous improvement in how we run our lives, businesses, parent our children. Clearly, the glut of guns in this country does much more harm than good. IMO, one's hobby or fears do not outweigh others' safety. Everything else -- what MITH said (so much more eloquently than moi).
|
|
| | | 1384 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:00
|
As for why we focus on assault rifle, defined as any semi-automatic rifle designed to appears as a military rifle and capable of holding large capacity magazines?
Sarge got it wrong too. The definition he provides here is for the term "assault weapon". Assault rifles are actual military weapons, not the civilian versions of them.
|
|
| | | 1385 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:03
|
Walk
Everything else -- what MITH said
For the record I don't agree with either of you!
But you are correct in that to realize your preferred level of gun control, we'd have to amend the constitution. That won't happen in our lifetime.
|
|
| | | 1386 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:12
|
Okay, so that is my view, my wish, but again, I realize it is not realistic. I like to present the utopia because I do feel, in my head & heart, that humans just cannot handle guns. We are not yet evolved, responsible, whatever. However, what should be done, pragmatically, in our country given that we'd have a tough time controlling the glut of guns? Pretty much what you said -- greater restrictions, rules, etc. I do think that it is currently far too easy to obtain a weapon, and it should be pretty much the opposite. It should be really freakin' difficult to obtain a weapon.
And the second amendment as justification is then unfortunately to me, backwards reasoning, because if the law says it's okay, then my view is change the law. It's a stupid law. It does not work. Too many people get hurt or killed. It is not pragmatic. It is not civilized. Of course, the real solution here is more like I'd have to move to a different country, as the likelihood of the second amendment being repealed is pretty remote. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that it is far less radical to advocate repealing the second amendment than it is to advocate for legal handguns, let alone "assault weapons" (quotes because I have zero interest in the debate about what makes an assault weapon. Unless it's an obvious hunting rifle, in my warped view, it's unnecessary and not good for society).
|
|
| | | 1387 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:16
|
Oh MITH. Then I will have too much cognitive dissonance if what I say is what I say, and that I say it is also what you say since I usually agree with what you say!
So, to say in summary -- I have too points -- (1) unrealistic wish list to repeal second amendment because my philo view is that, in general, life is more important than gun liberty (I am pro life! -- that's thew new pitch gun controllers should take, btw); (2) pragmatically, far greater restrictions on gun ownership, in general.
|
|
| | | 1388 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:21
|
Walk I recall we've disagreed on this issue previously.
It's the only issue I recall disagreeing with you on. Your (our!) cognitive dissonance is warranted. (haha)
|
|
| | | 1389 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:30
|
Aha! Ok, MITH. I can live with that. [The other disagreement might have been on the specific sentiment behind your moniker -- this goes waaay back. I love Donnie baseball; he just didn't have the lifetime #s.]
|
|
| | | 1390 | Khahan
ID: 400542912
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:54
|
1386 - Walk, when there are no guns in the world, I agree the 2nd amendment will be out of date.
But considering that there are guns in the world, I'd prefer to let the legal citizens stand a fighting chance.
|
|
| | | 1391 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 13:58
|
I hearya, Khahan. I do get it. I guess there are so many dang guns in our country, compared to most of the westernized world, and it's a bit over the top. There are far too many random killings and accidents. The weekly NYT Nocera column and the Slate column shows that we are just off the charts on this. Does it have to be this way? The status quo is really not acceptable -- not for a modern, world class Democracy, IMO.
|
|
| | | 1392 | Boldwin
ID: 300542912
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 14:14
|
Really? There are folks who really believe that there could be an equal number of deterrences due to guns than crimes or accidents? I wonder where this calculus comes from? Dreams? Wishful thinking? Propaganda? Unreal. - Walk
Really it is just incredible liberals are so viscerally bassackwards, especially the numbers smart people typical of this site.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually.
There are 32 gun deaths a day from use other than suicide.
That’s 11,680 deaths a year, roughly half the number killed in car accidents.
|
|
| | | 1393 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 14:29
|
2 million was probably BS in 1993 and is definitely BS in 2013.
And there are an awful lot more crimes committed with guns than the number of people who happen to get killed by them.
B is probably the last person who should comment on the viscerally bassackwardness of numbers smart people typical of this site.
|
|
| | | 1394 | Boldwin
ID: 300542912
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 14:33
|
I show you the results of 14 scientific studies [which the anti-science folks call BS] and you provide a helpful sneer.
|
|
| | | 1395 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 14:35
|
At least you acknowledge that it was helpful.
Those studies are 20 years old. There was an awful lot more gun violence to deter 20 years ago.
You fully know this but you presented those numbers are current anyway, which is dishonest.
That gets a sneer.
|
|
| | | 1396 | Boldwin
ID: 300542912
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 14:51
|
Oh please, somehow the ratio of 2 million to 11,680 has changed that significantly in the meantime.
Certainly not outside the range provided in the studies. I certainly gave Walk all he needs to know his gut estimation is backwards.
|
|
| | | 1397 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:01
|
Wiki Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz cite between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year. The number of deaths from gun violence is a dishonest straw figure. Considering 1/4th of all robberies are committed by someone with a gun, the number of crimes or accidents resulting from guns is obviously much, much higher than the number of people who simply get killed by them.
Double sneer.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 1400 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:21
|
One an only surmise, what the "A" stands for, in AR-15. (It isnt "automatic", because the AR-15 is NOT, an automatic weapon)
|
|
| | | 1401 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:31
|
Sarge - AR-15 was originally an umbrella that numerous guns fell under, including the military issue M-16 version.
Wiki: The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers. The AR designation may well have originally meant automatic rifle. The A could have also stood for ArmaLite, the company that originally manufactured the gun.
|
|
| | | 1402 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:33
|
Indeed, I should have read a little further down before posting:The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semi-automatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9]
|
|
| | |
| | | 1404 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:38
|
Of course, the original manufacturer. Wit the AR-15 produced under license by others, the fact that Armalite (the "A") was the originator had obviously slipped my mind.
Guess its true what they say about what happens when you....what was the rest of that? Cant seem to remember........
|
|
| | |
| | | 1406 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 15:56
|
1396: Certainly did...not. You did not tell me everything, let alone really anything, I need to know to change my estimation of the extent to which guns do more harm (contribute to violence) than good (prevent violence).
1399: Thank you. Well done. Time for Mattingly to get into the Hall, me thinks!
|
|
| | | 1407 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 16:12
|
And 1405, which came out while I was writing 1406.
There's also a reasonableness check here. No way would our country have less gun-related violence if we kept things status quo or did not (somehow) significantly reduce the number of firearms in ownership or circulation. It's so much easier to hurt someone with a firearm than with a bat, knife, chain, hands/feet, nunchuck, zombie pet, canned ham, verbal insults, body odor, bad humor (pun intended).
There's a reason why bazookas and tanks are illegal to own. Why should the logic stop at that? As a collective society, we clearly cannot responsibly handle guns. While the majority of folks can, a significant proportion either cannot, or choose not, and that has consequences that far outweigh the the benefits of ownership.
So, to Khahan's point about if there are no guns in the world, then the second amendment is out of date: I think our country is a great leader on so many fronts in the world. We have some great laws and policies that are role model. Our second amendment, and its consequences, are not one of them. At least not for a long time since firearms became so prevalent and easily accessible. We messed that one up. Is our pride and perceived freedom from our gun liberties worth the harm that comes with it? I guess if one really believes that more guns equals more safety, but how does the disproportionate number of gun-related injuries and fatalities in our country, compared to most other western countries, jive with safety? It doesn't. I fear a lot more about random gun-related violence than I do about "tyranny" and the need for a well-armed militia.
|
|
| | | 1408 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 16:50
|
1405 - I think the real stat that matters is the one we have unfortunately no access to and no real way to figure out:
Of the 2/3 of all homicides that came from firearms, how many would not have happened if a legal firearm was not available?
How many of them would not have happened if we had stricter controls on how one acquires a gun?
Those are the stats that are meaningful, but those are the stats that are, quite frankly, impossible to get as of now. We could put a change into investigations into homicides and start collecting *some* data going forward. It wouldn't be 100% accurate, but it would provide some information to start going by.
|
|
| | | 1409 | Razor
ID: 177192916
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 17:17
|
Republicans, backed by the gun lobby, have no interest in researching the potential dangers of gun violence. The suppression of research on this matter is disturbing. Thankfully, the President values information and an open discussion and has reauthorized using federal dollars to research the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
|
|
| | | 1410 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 17:17
|
or we could just apply a little common sense.
I argued a while back, that more guns inevitably means, more gun violence; and most people here in torched me for it. Yet now, those same people, have now picked up that same banner.
Human beings, work on the bell curve, in virtually every aspect. There is a statistically definable portion of any adequately sized population sample, that will be far left on that bell, and approx equal nr on the far right, and the vast majority in the middle.
If as our population, we use "The nr of guns in public circulation", and we look at that portion of the population that WILL improperly store/secure them, the more guns there are, the more unsecured weapons there are. It is an unarguable truth.
Now, the more unsecured weapons there are, the more weapons which will be stolen and/or misused. (accidental discharges for ex)
The more which are stolen/misused...the more innocent children are going to die.
Those truths each follow the preceding one, as surely as night follows day follows night.
|
|
| | | 1411 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 17:58
|
Khahan
Of the 2/3 of all homicides that came from firearms, how many would not have happened if a legal firearm was not available.
You mean was available. And the answer is probably not as many as you think. The overwhelming majority of shootings in this country happen when young armed men shoot other young men whom they know are also likely armed.
This is also why support for gun rights as a statistically effective crime deterrent is such an intellectually lazy position.
|
|
| | | 1412 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 19:09
|
Razor 1409
I don't give Democrats any more points. The Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton signed in 1994 (which effectively defined the term "assault weapon" was a ridiculous law. It banned rifles and carbines based more on how scary they look than on how much damage they could do. Diane Feinstein's proposed ban defines them the same way, as does the new law just signed in NY State.
I'm a little bothered by liberals who go along with the team even in support of an authoritarian policy that is demonstrably so much more about showmanship than public safety. I'll give Obama credit for not wading too far into the gun control debate through the years. Probably pretty moderate for a big city Democrat. Of course it doesn't take a political genius to see that in the current climate, it isn't a smart issue to stake out a far-left claim on. But publicly he still says he supports an assault weapons ban.
I have no idea why that piece of crap legislation is still a thing, much less why otherwise seemingly intelligent pols look like they are held hostage by it. Maybe, aside from being (for some reason) politically expedient, an AWB proposed in congress could get negotiated down to something sensible, like bans just on big magazines and flash suppressors.
Everything else on the list that defined a gun as an "assault weapon" was guilty of nothing more than looking scary. A pistol grip? telescoping stock? bayonet bolt? Come on. It's half sheep pacification and half reflexive, pointless taunting at the political opposition.
|
|
| | | 1413 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 19:51
|
It wouldn't be 100% accurate, but it would provide some information to start going by.
I agree--better information is important, and necessary.
However, if might not be altogether useful to the pro-gun side if the argument is that people either have to wait a period (for a background check, for instance) or merely have to have a certain class of guns (assault weapons) unavailable.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1415 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 10:01
|
1413 - that may be true that its not as useful to the pro-gun side. But if you really look at my last post you quoted, I'm not talking about the pro-gun side or the anti-gun side. I'm talking about gathering real facts to help refine the information we have and make more intelligent, educated decisions.
I do think police should start gathering more specific information on gun crimes and compiling this information. Some of the information is collected but not really compiled. Some is is both collected and compiled. But the whole investigation needs to be expanded:
Who the owner of the gun was? Was the owner the user? Did the owner and victim(s) know each other? What kind of gun (year/make/model serial), clips, bullet size?
What kind of crime was it - opportunity? passion? pre-meditated? Other crime gone wrong? Was it driven by mental health issues? Was it driven by greed (robbery, mugging, break-in etc)?
So much of this information is already gathered its just a matter of compiling actual statistics.
|
|
| | | 1416 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 10:22
|
So much of this information is already gathered its just a matter of compiling actual statistics.
Are you sure about that?
Reality is a world away. There is no national database of guns. Not of who owns them, how many are sold annually or even how many exist.
Federal law bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from keeping track of guns. The only time the government can track the history of a gun, including its first buyer and seller, is after it's used in a crime. And though President Barack Obama and numerous Democratic lawmakers have called for new limits on what kinds of guns should be available to the public and urged stronger background checks in gun sales, there is no effort afoot to change the way the government keeps track – or doesn't – of where the country's guns are.
And tracing a gun is a decidedly low-tech process.
|
|
| | | 1417 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 10:59
|
PV, when the police investigate, they do gather a lot of that information in their reports. The lack of a database is exactly what I'm saying the problem is.
|
|
| | | 1418 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 11:04
|
I should read the article first. I'm not necessarily advocating a registry or database for tracking. I think thats a different debate than what I'm talking about.
I'm just saying we have piss-poor crime statistics.
People always says, "how many times did the gun-toting citizen save the day?" and "guns are in too many crimes, take away guns and the murder stops" Which is often meant with "people who want to murder, will, regardless of the weapon."
I'm saying we need to track this as best as possible. Out of 1000 gun deaths last months, 3 were crimes of passion. 800 were committed by people not registered as owners. 120 occurred during the course of other crimes like a robbery. 25 were from mass shootings.
Those kind of statistics. Much of that information is gathered on an individual basis. Lets start tracking it and compiling the information.
|
|
| | | 1419 | Mith
ID: 1311443016
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 11:26
|
Richard Davis: How the ban on creating a federal database of firearms transactions came to be Early in 1978, the proposal we developed was relatively simple: Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers would file reports of sales of firearms with the bureau, but to avoid the argument that the bureau was impermissibly creating a national registry of gun owners, retailers would not be required to list the name of the retail purchaser.
Proceeding with what can only be described as youthful naiveté, the day the proposed regulations were published, I convened a briefing for interested parties, including the NRA and other anti-gun control groups. After all, none of these proposals would in any way alter the rules relating to gun ownership.
The hope was that understanding the limited nature of the proposal would mute their opposition. I was very wrong. We had to withdraw the proposals, and Congress punitively reduced the bureau's budget and ultimately banned it from creating such firearms transaction databases.
The opposition to the proposed regulations was intense, with opponents writing hundreds of thousands of often angry letters, both to Treasury and to members of Congress. Little of the opposition, however, focused on the actual proposals themselves.
One common thread to the opposition was the "slippery slope argument," which argued that the regulation would create a centralized list of all gun owners' names -- which it would not have done -- or would lead to the creation of such a list, which would then enable the government to seize everyone's weapons and put us on a path to dictatorship.
After all, it was argued, this is what the Nazis had done.
Another often-used argument was that what we were proposing would not stop all criminals from securing or using firearms, and therefore it was not something worth doing.
Arguments like these prevent an honest discussion of any proposal to address the problem of gun violence in America. The assumption that any regulation of firearms sets us on the path to confiscation of weapons is not only ludicrous on its face, it ignores all political reality. And, if the test for any proposal is whether it totally solves the problem being addressed, then no action would be taken addressing so many of society's important issues.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1421 | walk
ID: 41019299
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 11:43
|
1419, nicely put MITH. While I would like to do an I Dream of Jeanie blink and make all of the guns and second amendment go away, I realize that is not going to happen, either through a blink, or some other more realistic means. However, I do think that stricter regulation, closing of loopholes and stricter enforcement is doable and should be done. I do not think that the school shield program, with armed guards in schools, is an appropriate solution (per LaPierre).
|
|
| | |
| | | 1423 | walk
ID: 41019299
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 11:51
|
So, all Baker and Dingell really said is that we need to come together on this, and compromise and deal with gun control from a very macro perspective, taking into account gun regulation, mental health/video games/media, common sense, and bipartisan collaboration. Kinda like a big D'Oh!, but I guess it's unfortunately needed to be explicitly said by some senior legislators because there is not enough action on any level with regards to this issue. Culturally, quite interesting, yet somewhat quite sad.
|
|
| | | 1424 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:50
|
mental health/video games/media
I am starting to doubt this as cause or at least a treatable cause since gun violence has gone down(not up as 1422 would imply)while these possible causes have gone up. You want to address guns then ask your self what do any of these laws do control for the fact there are 300 million guns all ready in circulation? Do you actually think all these laws will effect actual gun violence? When most crimes are probably committed by guns not obtained through legal means already?
|
|
| | | 1425 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:55
|
mental health, I think is an issue. Video games, I do not think are an issue.
This generations "older" generation points to video games and blames those. When I was in my 20s, the "older" generation blamed Dungeons and Dragons. When I was a little kid, my grandparents blamed rock-n-roll music. I'm fairly certain, the older generation in the 50s, blamed James Dean and motorcycles.
What ever is current, ALWAYS seems to catch hell, from that eras "older" generation.
|
|
| | | 1426 | walk
ID: 41019299
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 13:44
|
Agreed 1425 and 1424. I think there should be stricter regulations around access to weapons, including those with documented mental health issues, but IMO, those issues are very secondary, and essentially skirt responsibility. The extreme stand point is that guns DO kill people. People would have much more difficult time easily killing others if there were fewer guns, and more difficult access to guns. It's a very convenient hurting tool. When I read/hear folks on the other side of this issue say things like: "So, we should ban knives, too?" I know they are being disingenuous.
In my view, I see this as a public safety issue, albeit with a very difficult pragmatic solution -- reduction in our gun glut -- that is distorted or disguised around liberty, personal protection, sport/hunting, and the economics of the firearm industry. Any increase in restrictions and regulation will impact profits of the industry, and perceived liberties of some. Yet, "life" is more important. We have more regulation around many other less harmful products and services.
|
|
| | | 1427 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 17:22
|
There Was a Shooting in Phoenix During the Gun-Violence Hearing in the Senate
Sgt. Tommy Thompson of the Phoenix Police Department said officers believe one suspect is responsible for the shooting and that the suspect is still on the loose. Thompson said one man walked into the building and shot several people.
He said the suspect is a white male and that police believe the shooting was a targeted act and that an altercation occurred prior to the shooting.
|
|
| | | 1428 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 18:47
|
Idaho gun-nut lawmakers freak out over man with gun in state Capitol
“Events like that should disturb all Idahoans,” said House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. “It certainly disturbed me.”
Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill said: “To think that somebody is bold enough to have followed these children around with a sidearm in plain sight — who is also bold enough to go through trash cans, take pictures of representatives’ desks and shuffle their papers — all of that created a great deal of concern.”
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 1436 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Feb 03, 2013, 12:51
|
Just heard Wayne LaPierre say that no matter what they say, they are coming for our guns.
Why do we let wackos like this lead the debate?
On the other hand, the more he has a spotlight on him, the more regular folks realize he's simply a bitter and angry man.
|
|
| | | 1437 | Boldwin
ID: 411312
Sun, Feb 03, 2013, 13:06
|
The debate is an influence battle between President Barack Obama’s Democrats and Wayne LaPierre’s NRA. Of the top 25 stakeholders in the debate, there is only 1 prominent Republican politician (Chris Christie – who is pro-gun control). Barack Obama leads the pro-gun control voice with a net influence score of 268. LaPierre leads the anti-gun control side with a net influence score of 240.
It’s a Marathon, not a sprint. It seems the NRA has the stamina to out-run the pro-gun control movement. They are persistent, un-yielding and gaining influence. It will be interesting to see how the pro-gun control voice responds and how the influence between the two groups changes as the debate persists.
The pro-gun rights voice is rapidly gaining influence while the pro-gun control voice has tapered in recent weeks. Momentum is shifting and the gun control debate is becoming a platform benefiting gun rights advocates.
The pro–gun control group is fragmented whereas the pro-gun rights voice is united and strong. Of the top influencers on the pro-gun rights side, the majority of the most prominent voices are from the NRA. The pro-gun control voice is split between Obama and several gun control advocacy groups which dilutes the message. Good thing because the second amendment doesn't come back once it is lost. Every time it goes to vote it's do or die forever.
Forbes
|
|
| | | 1438 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Sun, Feb 03, 2013, 13:08
|
MITH beat me to the punch on #1434. Mr. Kyle, it seems like you were on the wrong end of the karma calculus...
|
|
| | | 1439 | Boldwin
ID: 45133619
Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 20:34
|
When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizona by Jared Loughner, the left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it...
As Life News notesCorkins [who shot up the Family Research Center - B] said he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The prosecutor said they reviewed the family computer and found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site. I hope my friends in the media who spent much time talking about Sarah Palin’s political target map will now talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s routine and reckless use of the label “hate group” with which is smears conservatives.
By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets . . . Redstate
|
|
| | | 1440 | Tree
ID: 6145620
Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 21:45
|
Corkins bought his guns legally. more proof that we need tighter restrictions on the purchase of guns.
|
|
| | | 1441 | Boldwin
ID: 45133619
Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 22:01
|
Or as Ace of Spades calls him, SPLC's Pet Assassin.
|
|
| | | 1445 | Tree
ID: 131137414
Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 21:37
|
how idiotic to write, even more so to believe.
|
|
| | | 1446 | Boldwin
ID: 36114188
Mon, Feb 18, 2013, 20:38
|
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
|
|
| | | 1447 | Boldwin
ID: 221322014
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 15:32
|
Not a big believer in coincidences here.
|
|
| | | 1448 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 15:41
|
Not worth it.
|
|
| | | 1449 | Tree
ID: 341292011
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 15:44
|
so, a guy from Connecticut got shot in Colorado, and this is proof of some hoax?
oy.
|
|
| | | 1450 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 15:55
|
Not worth it not worth it.
|
|
| | | 1451 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 16:09
|
Ha! So true...
|
|
| | | 1452 | Boldwin
ID: 221322014
Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 21:23
|
|
|
| | | 1453 | Boldwin
ID: 14158212
Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 03:58
|
Concerning 300 guys, to whom it may concern:
"MOLON LABE"
The most famous words in military history and the resistance to which we owe our freedom.
|
|
| | | 1454 | Boldwin
ID: 511322113
Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 21:11
|
Is this really how libs want to treat our returning ex-special forces?
|
|
| | | 1455 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 01:23
|
I'm confused. Are you saying that we should ignore the law, because he's a vet? Should we do the same for Nidal Hasan, Tim McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph?
|
|
| | | 1457 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 09:37
|
add mass killers and terrorists to the people Baldwin supports. lovely.
|
|
| | | 1459 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 10:08
|
prosecutorial discretion
from the article in #1454:
Nathan was charged with 5 felony counts for possession of empty 30-bullet magazines.
Nathan had a court appearance today. I have confirmed that prosecutors insist on pursuing criminal charges, offering Nathan the opportunity to plead guilty to 5 Class A Misdemeanors. The plea would not result in jail time
Maybe someone should explain prosecutorial discretion to Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 1460 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 10:12
|
The NRA loves nothing more than the enforcement of existing gun laws.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1462 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 18:30
|
My favorite line from that piece, PD:
But Solomon wasn’t finished: “I believe they will put together a racial force to go against an opposite race resistance, basically a black force to go against a white resistance, and then they will claim anyone resisting the black force they are doing it because they are racist.”
Howard agreed: “You may be right because he has been sowing the seeds of racial hatred; we were healing quite well as a nation on racial issues until Obama came along and now we have a lot of racial discord.”
BWAHHHHAHHHHAHHHH!!!
|
|
| | |
| | | 1464 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Fri, Feb 22, 2013, 20:46
|
Lmao. You actually believe these things you post?
|
|
| | | 1465 | Boldwin
ID: 1317234
Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 05:08
|
Selective prosecution is no justice at all.
Inadvertantly leaving an old empty clip in a truck is the sort of thing a prosecutor is supposed to understand and overlook or at the very least use a different level of severity towards. Failing to do the paperwork on full auto machine guns is not something a prosecutor would be expected to overlook. Even for Blackwater operatives and execs who live in a different world when it comes to needing and using guns.
|
|
| | | 1466 | Boldwin
ID: 45151272
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 03:54
|
The answer to two questions: Are they coming to disarm America, and why does every last government agency think they need so many hollow-point bullets?
|
|
| | |
| | | 1468 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 08:55
|
re 1466....and you have a problem with recognizing that LE Officers can and will be faced by such targets from time to time on todays world...why?
|
|
| | | 1469 | Frick
ID: 157331422
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 09:32
|
Do you really believe the terrible photoshops in 1466 are real?
|
|
| | | 1470 | Tree
ID: 1910562515
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 10:25
|
Do you really believe the terrible photoshops in 1466 are real?
it is one the g*ddamned internet! you bet your a$$ they're real!!
the internet has made us dumber as a society. it's sad.
|
|
| | | 1471 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 11:46
|
The images are real, made by a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc.
Note that the placard in 1446 doesn't say that DHS obtained or uses targets with these images, so the warning that "Looks like DHS is planning a door-to-door gun grab if these are their targets" is a little curious.
Looking for more info, I found this Examiner Article about them (shady-looking popups there). The Examiner makes the unsourced claim that:Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., a company that sells law enforcement and federal agencies “realistic” paper targets for firearms training, is providing the Department of Homeland Security with images of “non-traditional threats.” They don't elaborate on the claim but follow it up with a quote from Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars
IN the 2/19 article Watson appears to be much more careful with his language, until the final sentence, a lead-in to most of the photos in 1446 which says: See the other “non-traditional threats” that are being provided in the form of shooting targets to the DHS and thousands of law enforcement agencies below.
That phrasing is strange, because Watson doesn't refer to any previous "“non-traditional threats” that are being provided in the form of shooting targets to the DHS". The photo of the armed pregnant woman is at the top of the article, but there is no caption or other text indicating that this or any other "non-traditional threat" image had been sold or provided to DHS.
However the article does include links to two other Watson articles at infowars, which he refers to as Updates.
The first delivers a 2/20 article called: Company Behind Shooting Targets of Children Received $2 Million From DHS Excerpt:Following concerns that the issue could be linked with Homeland Security’s purchase of around 2 billion bullets over the last year, which many fear is linked to preparations for domestic disorder, it has now emerged that Law Enforcement Training Inc. has racked up contracts worth almost $2 million dollars with the DHS over the last three years.
The vast majority of those contracts were for “training aids” and “paperboard,” according to the USASpending.gov website, which lists numerous different contracts each in the region of $150,000 and $180,000 dollars stretching back to early 2010 and running through to July 2012.
While it is not known whether the DHS purchased the “no hesitation” targets, a company representative admitted to a customer that law enforcement agencies had “requested” at least one of the images which depicted a pregnant woman as a “threat”.
A customer who called Law Enforcement Inc. yesterday told Infowars that the company informed him [...that they had a bit role in Quicksilver, which starred Kevin Bacon] the targets were, “strictly for Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies.” The second link delivers a 2/20 article called: Law Enforcement “Requested” Shooting Targets of Pregnant Women.
It includes a youtube audio recording of a discussion that a reporter had with a Law Enforcement Inc. rep. Excerpt:As you can hear in the YouTube clip above, Blaine Cooper enquired about the company’s “no hesitation” targets, which also feature children, elderly gun owners and mothers in playgrounds, and was told that the target showing a pregnant woman was a “requested law enforcement target for training.” Curiously, I listened to the Youtube and didn't hear that exchange. Maybe someone else can find it.
I did notice a comment from a reader with the moniker FreedomOverTyranny (skip past the one mocking the company for making targets with images of white people) who wrote:When I called the company (LET) on Friday 22 February, a “Larren” told me DHS did not order these heinous targets, he said they were ordered by “local law enforcement”. He also told me the $2M amount reported as the order size was incorrect.
|
|
| | | 1472 | Tree
ID: 51332711
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 12:33
|
Looking for more info, I found this Examiner Article about them (shady-looking popups there). The Examiner makes the unsourced claim that:
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., a company that sells law enforcement and federal agencies “realistic” paper targets for firearms training, is providing the Department of Homeland Security with images of “non-traditional threats.”
as someone who writes for examiner.com (when i lived in NYC, i wrote a food review column, and now here in Texas i cover the local roller derby scene), i can tell you it doesn't take much to be a writer there.
they advertise "job openings" on all the typical sites, and you apply. they ask for a writing sample, and that's that.
they claim to "review" your first few articles, but considering that the articles appear online as soon as you hit "publish", i tend to doubt that.
the reason i chose the subjects i did was because they're fluff. there's not much to them - one was opinion, and the other is largely to help spur the growth of roller derby in a tiny way.
but in no way would i consider examiner.com to be any thing reputable as a source when it comes to subjects such as politics.
and considering the principle owner of examiner.com is Phil Anschutz, i certainly don't think they'll take much to task in regards to the truth and reality on conservative and christian politics.
in fact, Jim Pimental, executive editor of examiner says as much in regards to accuracy and attribution: "(Examiner has) a less-strict standard for accuracy and attribution in stories that appear on the Web than for publications in print)."
|
|
| | | 1473 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 12:43
|
And while Paul Joseph Watson has done some admirable work in his career, when your career is conspiracy theory journalism, there's a constant need to cover conspiracies even when their legitimacy is questionable at best.
|
|
| | | 1474 | Tree
ID: 301402714
Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 16:28
|
and then there's this...
Colorado TEApublican Threatens To Kill Democratic Lawmaker, Daughter
Tea Party-type psycho Franklin Glenn Sain, 42, was arrested on Feb. 22 on charges of harassing Rep. Rhonda Fields (D) and unlawfully attempting to influence a public official. This sounds bad, but wait until you see what this degenerate Tea Party-type lunatic actually said and did.
In an email dated February 15th Sain said,
“Hopefully somebody Gifords [sic] both of your asses with a gun,”
referring to Representative Fields and her colleague, state Rep. Beth McCann (D).
|
|
| | | 1475 | Boldwin
ID: 41245422
Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 00:35
|
We are being asked to believe that the same people who expel our kids from school for nibbling their pop-tart into the shape of a gun, aren't also coming for our guns.
|
|
| | | 1476 | Tree
ID: 3222128
Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 01:00
|
last time i looked, the people that run your school district weren't in congress.
then again, the difference in a local school board and Congress may be something you can't grasp.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1481 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 34019238
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 11:46
|
This is why we have a homicide problem in this country:
Man killed because of the way he wore his hat
"Garcia(18) has 30 previous arrests as a juvenile and adult - including six convictions for domestic battery, LaRue said. Rebollar-Verara(24) has eight previous arrests, including two weapons convictions, he said."
30 previous arrests, 2 weapons convictions...yet these two proven thugs walk the street as free men. What do we expect will happen when you release known violent predators on society? Why exactly do we need new laws when we do not enforce existing laws?
|
|
| | | 1482 | Tree
ID: 58211411
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:02
|
This is why we have a homicide problem in this country:
you're correct. imagine if they didn't have such easy access to those guns.
they would have been flashing gang signs all day, and people would have started pointing and laughing because of how silly they looked.
or, they would have gotten them an interpreter.
|
|
| | | 1483 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:02
|
Which existing law is not being enforced?
|
|
| | | 1484 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:03
|
Re 1481 - I wonder who Geraldo would blame for this incident?
|
|
| | | 1486 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:15
|
1481
why we have a homicide problem in this country
I'm pretty sure the root problem is not that the Land of the Free doesn't imprison enough people.
|
|
| | | 1487 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:18
|
"Which existing law is not being enforced?"
When someone has 30 arrests for violent crime...the other has two weapons convictions...yet they are free to walk the streets. Pretty much no law is being enforced...how were these two not already serving very long prison sentences?
Tree...you highly underestimate criminals if you think a couple of new (relatively light) gun laws will stop gang bangers from obtaining firearms. The UK has had strict guns laws, many less guns in private hands compared to the US, an outright ban going on 20 years...guess what...criminals in the UK still have easy access to firearms and there is now a thriving (violent) black market. It is deluded to think these new restriction would have ANY effect on these type criminals who are responsible for the vast majority of shootings in this country.
In Chicago...criminals many times serve less than 25% of their sentences, get plea bargained down to no time behind bars, or get charges simply dropped. We wonder why people are shooting people? Well when you let proven violent predators free...what do we expect them to do?
|
|
| | | 1488 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:25
|
"I'm pretty sure the root problem is not that the Land of the Free doesn't imprison enough people."
Imprisoning convicted violent predators is the one sure way to decrease homicides and violence in this country. Imposing further restrictions on law abiding citizens who are not the problem would not seem to solve any of our problems.
The reason the homicide rate is so high in Chicago is directly related to the revolving door justice system in this city. ~90% of the shooters AND victims in the city of Chicago have extensive criminal backgrounds...multiple arrests...multiple convictions.
|
|
| | | 1489 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:30
|
Searching for the article I read...can't find...but something like 95% of the homicide victims last year in Chicago had extensive criminal records. Many of the other victims were killed in crossfire between violent predators or were associated with gang members (family, friends), were killed by bullets meant for gang members.
Does it not make sense if you take known/convicted violent predators off the street there are less of them to shoot at each other?
|
|
| | | 1490 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:36
|
Gun laws might, or might not, slow the flow of guns in Chicago. But surely this "hands thrown in the air" response is really no response at all?
Most of the guns involved in crimes in Chicago come from places with much more lax gun laws. In fact, 20% of guns recovered from crimes come from one particular store.
I simply don't guy that efforts to slow massive gun purchases to people who shouldn't have them is a bad thing. In fact, the efforts of pro-gun people to continue to make it easy for the criminally-minded to get their hands on such weaponry makes all pro-gun people look bad, IMO.
|
|
| | | 1491 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:45
|
1488
Imprisoning convicted violent predators is the one sure way to decrease homicides and violence in this country.
I can't say I'm quite so sure about that. I don't think it's that simple.
In the early 1970s the US incarcerated fewer than 2% of it's male citizens.
By the late 1980s the percentage had tripled. And yet somehow the rate of violent crime in America during that time exploded anyway.
Today America puts more people in prison than any dictatorship on Earth.
I'm sorry but more prisons and guns isn't the solution.
|
|
| | | 1492 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:47
|
Perm...we just live in reality. Personally I AM for reasonable laws...but I am not deluded enough to think that new laws would keep guns out of the hands of one criminal. It is not a throw your hands up in the air approach...most gun owners advocate focusing on the criminals doing the shooting, obtaining guns illegally, focusing on gangs who are responsible for most of the shootings in this country, putting punishments/laws in place that force our justice system to punish those who break the laws.
EVERYWHERE has more lax gun laws than Chicago...there is not one gun shop in Chicago city limits...so 100% of guns in Chicago come from outside of Chicago. The shop that sells 20% of the recovered guns...just happens to be the closest shop to Chicago.
Lets start arresting and investigating straw purchasers. There are plenty of laws against straw purchasing on the books...they are just rarely enforced or investigated. When someone commits a violent crime with a firearm or has a weapons violation...lock them up for a long time.
|
|
| | | 1493 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:50
|
Does it not make sense if you take known/convicted violent predators off the street there are less of them to shoot at each other?
To be clear - of course this makes sense. I'm all for clearing nonviolent drug offenders out of our jails to clear space for longer sentences for people who pose true threats to communities.
But the phrasing in 1481 - why we have a homicide problem in this country is way, way off. The problem is whatever causes the need to lock up so many people to keep us safe compared with the rest of the first world.
|
|
| | | 1494 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:51
|
Mith in the past 20 years the US homicide rate has declined 50%...in the same period the prison population has increased 3 fold. Directly related imo.
There is a very small percentage of people who do a majority of the shooting and killing. The more of that percentage you keep locked up...the less on the streets to kill people.
The US has the highest gang demographic of any first world country...it is directly related to our homicide problem. Gun laws do nothing to solve this problem.
|
|
| | | 1495 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:53
|
Lets start arresting and investigating straw purchasers.
Hear hear! Do you explain this position to your fellow gun rights advocates to demonize Michael Bloomberg for his efforts to realize that very endeavor?
|
|
| | | 1496 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 12:54
|
Why the gangs exist and flourish? The illegal drug trade. It is so profitable that you cannot offer these people anything that would make them consider leaving this trade. Root of a lot of the problems.
|
|
| | | 1497 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 13:03
|
the prison population has increased 3 fold. Directly related imo.
On this we disagree. It worked in the past 20 years but not in the previous 30 years while the violent crime rate tripled?
I think there were other, much more prominent factors at work.
Gun laws do nothing to solve this problem.
I would say very little rather than nothing, but generally agree. But understand that works in both directions - both when you ease and restrict access.
|
|
| | | 1498 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 13:08
|
you cannot offer these people anything that would make them consider leaving this trade
It's not a matter of profit. Most gangbangers make around minimum wage selling drugs.
It's more about community and protection for the vast majority.
But I do agree the organizations flourish and become hyper-violent because of the drug trade.
Another argument for decriminalization.
|
|
| | | 1499 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 13:10
|
In 1495 I meant to refer to ...your fellow gun rights advocates who demonize Michael Bloomberg...
|
|
| | | 1500 | Tree
ID: 58211411
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 13:16
|
EVERYWHERE has more lax gun laws than Chicago...there is not one gun shop in Chicago city limits...so 100% of guns in Chicago come from outside of Chicago. The shop that sells 20% of the recovered guns...just happens to be the closest shop to Chicago.
Lets start arresting and investigating straw purchasers. There are plenty of laws against straw purchasing on the books..
i agree with you, but perhaps you look up the laws in Indiana, where many guns in illinois come from.
you obviously don't know them.
|
|
| | | 1501 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 22:12
|
Japan has VERY strict gun control laws, has approx 1/3 our population, yet in 2008 they had 11 gun deaths vs our 12,000. In 2006, Japam had TWO, T-W-O; gun related deaths.
Gun control doesnt work....BS.
link
|
|
| | |
| | | 1503 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 00:26
|
Really? The best you guys can do is Japan? I hate to burst your fantasy world bubble but this country will never be Japan. Different demographics...different gangs...different society. If we only looked at the Asian or white homicide rate in the US...we compare favorably to most countries. I bet the US has around 100x the stabbings, beatings, domestic abuse, drug abuse, drunk driving, etc...etc... compared to Japan...is that because of guns?
Lets get back to REALITY...there are 300+ million unregistered guns in the United States. No one here is talking about gun prohibition (at least that is what I have read on here).
What value is there in implementing expensive new regulations? Do you really believe if guns were even very strictly regulated that it would be possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, gang members, and lunatics? If we do not enforce (cannot afford to enforce) the current regulations what use is new regulations?
If the US implemented all of the currently proposed restrictions and the result is homicide rate unchanged, still gangs, still lunatics shooting up people. What's the next step? I thought you libs were against expensive wars that cannot be won? How is that war on drugs coming along?
In my opinion just the wrong path to fix the homicide problem in this country. A gun is a tool...it does not turn someone into a killer. Homicide is a societal issue that goes far deeper than a gun.
|
|
| | | 1504 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 00:45
|
possible to keep them out? No, but less likely? Yes.
If you argue otherwise, you are basically abandoning any reason, for having any laws, what so ever.
|
|
| | | 1505 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 01:27
|
Exactly. We believe that well-crafted and enforced laws can take a large bite into the ability of criminals to get as many guns as they do.
CTRS is basically arguing that since speeders will always speed, we might as well do away with all speed limits. Or at least do away with that silly "set speed traps" idea.
|
|
| | | 1506 | Tree
ID: 2510132311
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 04:36
|
In your first paragraph, you rail against a comparison to Japan, but in your second to last paragraph, you argue in favor of a comparison to the war on drugs.
Why does your analogy make sense, with no data to support it, while the other analogy, with supporting data, does not?
If the US implemented all of the currently proposed restrictions and the result is homicide rate unchanged, still gangs, still lunatics shooting up people . I thought you libs were against expensive wars that cannot be won?
And what if the homicide rate does go down? Would "you conservatives" still argue against common sense, since that is what it appears you want to do?
|
|
| | | 1507 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 11:13
|
If we only looked at the Asian or white homicide rate in the US...we compare favorably to most countries.
On one hand, I'm glad you stopped beating around the bush and just came out and said it, but on the other it is always disappointing to learn that someone you liked is a racist. It explains a lot.
I'm out.
|
|
| | | 1508 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 34019238
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 12:01
|
"If we only looked at the Asian or white homicide rate in the US...we compare favorably to most countries."
I only made that statement in response to comparisons to Japan. Truth is truth...it is a different society with different demographics. It is a fact that a majority of homicides and homicide victims in this country come from two very specific demographics...those two demographics do not exist in Japan.
"We believe that well-crafted and enforced laws can take a large bite into the ability of criminals to get as many guns as they do."
If you believe that I guess I understand why you are choosing the particular path. I am not saying we should not have reasonable regulations but if you think this will have ANY effect on criminal access to firearms you highly underestimate criminals. As long as firearms are legal for you and me...criminals will have zero problem obtaining a firearm.
The reason comparing the drug war to guns in this country is fair and not the same as a comparison of the US to Japan...is because it is a comparison within the same society. It is comparing apples to apples...not apples to oranges.
As for the homicide rate going down...it has declined 50% in this country in the past 20 years while gun rights/availability have increased greatly in the same period. Household gun ownership is approaching all-time highs...yet crime/homicides are decreasing?
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
|
|
| | | 1509 | Tree
ID: 35229159
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:01
|
The reason comparing the drug war to guns in this country is fair and not the same as a comparison of the US to Japan...is because it is a comparison within the same society.
ok, if that's your standard.
we made tougher laws for DUI. much tougher than they had every been.
DUI deaths plummeted. they were not eliminated, but they declined significantly.
thusly, by your standards, if we make tougher laws for guns, gun deaths will plummet. not be eliminated, but reduced significantly.
thank you for accepting these comparisons.
|
|
| | | 1510 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:08
|
"i agree with you, but perhaps you look up the laws in Indiana, where many guns in illinois come from.
you obviously don't know them."
Pretty obvious you do not know them. As an Illinois resident...if I buy a firearm in Indiana. Number one I am background checked. Number two I have to have that firearm shipped to an Illinois federally licensed firearm dealer before I can take possession.
|
|
| | | 1512 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:20
|
Actually, it's not the truth. The stats are available, but white rates are still mic higher.
|
|
| | | 1513 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:23
|
As for comparing DUIs to Guns. Great comparison! I agree! It is exactly what most gun advocates are advocating for...tougher laws/punishments for gun violations.
DUI laws did not make it more difficult to buy a beer. DUI laws did not make me register to buy a beer. DUI law did not ban cases of beer. DUI laws did not ban whiskey or hard alcohol. DUI laws did not make me ID and keep records of anyone I serve a beer on my private property. DUI law changes made the punishments much stricter....see it works!
|
|
| | | 1514 | Tree
ID: 35229159
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:28
|
DUI laws did not make it more difficult to buy a beer
actually, they did. go ask a bartender who has lost his/her job, been fined, or even been arrested and jailed for over-serving.
there was an onus put on the person serving the liquor. perhaps we should put an onus on the person selling the gun?
also - liquor is to bullet as car is to gun. and the car? it has to be registered, inspected, and its driver has to be licensed.
Number one I am background checked. Number two I have to have that firearm shipped to an Illinois federally licensed firearm dealer before I can take possession.
if I buy a firearm in Indiana. Number one I am background checked. Number two I have to have that firearm shipped to an Illinois federally licensed firearm dealer before I can take possession.
as we've seen, background checks are farcical and don't go far enough.
here's a good article detailing some of the issues, such as 1,300 confiscated guns coming from one dealer just outside Chicago.
|
|
| | | 1515 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 13:44
|
"such as 1,300 confiscated guns coming from one dealer just outside Chicago."
Chuck's Gun Shop is the closest gun shop to the Chicago city limits...is it really a surprise that most Chicago residents buy their firearms from this gun shop?
"(cars) are registered, inspected, and its driver has to be licensed"
Ok...and what exactly does that have to do with decreased DUIs? Cars were registered, inspected, licensed before the DUI law changes.
Do you really believe the fact that bartenders/bars potentially face some liability is the reason for the decline in drunk driving? I tend to think the people who get behind the wheel realize the punishments for DUI are severe enough that they no longer make the choice to get behind the wheel after drinking.
|
|
| | | 1516 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 14:33
|
As for bars/bartenders being liable for over serving. Have you ever known someone to be cut off before reaching the legal DUI limit? Do bars generally cut someone off after they have had 4 or less drinks? I do not think bars cutting off drunks has had any effect on the DUI issue.
If being caught with an illegal gun, a crime committed with a gun, weapons violation, or straw purchasing meant a severe mandatory sentence I think it would help deter gun crime and unlawful gun use. Severe consequences might make those who would use a gun unlawfully to think twice...or at least those who ignore the consequences would spend a lot less time in free society. Consequences work.
|
|
| | | 1517 | Tree
ID: 8241514
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 15:04
|
"(cars) are registered, inspected, and its driver has to be licensed"
Ok...and what exactly does that have to do with decreased DUIs? Cars were registered, inspected, licensed before the DUI law changes.
it doesn't. but cars are registered and inspected, and their drivers licensed.
but it's on topic with the comparison of laws.
As for bars/bartenders being liable for over serving. Have you ever known someone to be cut off before reaching the legal DUI limit? Do bars generally cut someone off after they have had 4 or less drinks?
i have seen bartenders stop serving someone more times than i can count. In Texas, over serving someone can get you a year in jail.
I do not think bars cutting off drunks has had any effect on the DUI issue.
well, you'd be wrong. simple logic dictates that if less people are drunk, then there are less drunks on the road.
but i wouldn't expect logic to come in to play for someone who doesn't think reducing guns would also reduce gun deaths.
|
|
| | | 1518 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 15:59
|
I do not think bars cutting off drunks has had any effect on the DUI issue.
Well, if you believe that then I can see how you don't think restricting guns would have an effect on gun crime.
You would be wrong, but certainly consistent. Studies have shown the a strong (and enforced) policy against over-pouring at the bar/pub level has net positive effects on DUI arrests and accidents (and it seems to be more effective when combined with other tools, such as random checkpoints, ignition interlocks, strong carding policies, etc).
All of which makes some sense.
|
|
| | | 1519 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 17:02
|
Must be different in different parts of the country. The only times I have seen someone cut off is when they are already blind drunk and well over the DUI limit.
Increased enforcement, education, and penalties are the main reasons for declining DUIs.
|
|
| | | 1520 | Tree
ID: 8241514
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 17:08
|
Must be different in different parts of the country.
beginning with yours. Illinois is ranked #5 by MADD in regards to DUI Safety.
if you're not seeing it, it's probably because you're not paying attention, which brings us back to your outlook on the gun issue.
|
|
| | | 1521 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 17:23
|
Tree...I have seen it. The point is I have never seen someone cut off who was not already blind drunk and well above the legal limit. I have never seen someone cut off at a time where they would still be able to legally drive or really were even capable of attempting to drive...not even close to the legal limit. Have you seen someone cut off before this point? Someone cut off after less than 6 drinks? Very much doubt it...
|
|
| | | 1522 | Tree
ID: 8241514
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 17:35
|
i'm baffled at how easily people dismiss evidence - statistical, factual, and even anecdotal, because they are so passionate about an issue.
|
|
| | | 1523 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 17:43
|
Tree...I agree. Take a look in the mirror.
The evidence and statistics are strongly on gun advocates side...that is why the left is having a very difficult time getting buy in.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Homicides and violent crime is decidedly down in this country over the past 20 years. While gun rights/availability have increased significantly in the same period. Difficult to dispute facts.
|
|
| | | 1524 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 21:12
|
Increased enforcement, education, and penalties are the main reasons for declining DUIs.
I totally agree with statement there has definitely been a change in attitudes towards drinking and driving I know plenty of people who never thought twice about driving home drunk now plan out there nights so they do not have drive. If you have any doubts look at old movies where drinking and driving was seen as joke to be made fun of not as dangerous idea.
|
|
| | | 1525 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 23:07
|
The point is I have never seen someone cut off who was not already blind drunk and well above the legal limit.
And how often have you looked for that? I dont recall ever entering a bar, and watching to see who was or wasnt served. Odds are high, you only notice it, when you are waiting to order your drink, the guy cut off is sitting next to you OR, the guy cut off gets belligerent about it.
Rather than rely upon anecdotal evidence, ask a few barkeeps.
|
|
| | | 1526 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 23:11
|
That would also be anecdotal evidence.
You need to do a study, surveying a random sample of bartenders, if you want to know the impact of regs that effect them. I would hazard a guess that something like this has been done. I'll do a lit search and see, if I get around to it.
|
|
| | | 1527 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 23:15
|
The Dutch bartenders didn't seem to care about the regs - of course perhaps that was because the Dutch don't drive to the pub:
One More Beer? Serving Alcohol to Pseudo-Intoxicated Guests in Bars.
Gosselt JF, Van Hoof JJ, Goverde MM, De Jong MD.
Source
Department of Communication Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Consuming large quantities of alcohol might result in negative consequences for both individual drinkers (alcohol dependency and addiction) and society (violence, traffic crashes). In order to decrease the prevalence of alcohol abuse, many countries have adopted regulations prohibiting the catering industry to serve alcohol to intoxicated guests. This article investigated compliance with these regulations in the Netherlands.
METHODS:
A study was conducted in which pseudo-intoxicated actors tried to order alcoholic drinks in 58 bars. A 2 × 2 design was used, based on (i) the number of actors involved (1 vs. 2) and (ii) the level of intoxication (moderately vs. very drunk). In contrast to earlier studies, research accomplices checked afterward whether the bartenders noticed that the actors appeared intoxicated.
RESULTS:
In 86% of the cases, the actors were able to buy alcohol, without comments or questions. In 10%, the actors were refused entrance by a bouncer. Only in 4%, the bartender refused to serve. In 81% of the cases, the bartenders remembered the actors: In 93% of those cases, they noticed that the actor appeared intoxicated. Only the "very drunk" script involving 2 actors led to refusals.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results show that compliance with the regulations regarding overserving to intoxicated guests is problematic in the Netherlands. Misinterpretations of the situation could be ruled out: Most bartenders noticed that the actors appeared intoxicated but served nonetheless.
|
|
| | | 1528 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 23:19
|
I'd read about this legislation, and thought it was pretty neat. It appears to work too.
---
Efficacy of frequent monitoring with swift, certain, and modest sanctions for violations: insights from South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Project.
Kilmer B, Nicosia N, Heaton P, Midgette G.
Source
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA. kilmer@rand.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
We examined the public health impact of South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Project, an innovative program requiring individuals arrested for or convicted of alcohol-involved offenses to submit to breathalyzer tests twice per day or wear a continuous alcohol monitoring bracelet. Those testing positive are subject to swift, certain, and modest sanctions.
METHODS:
We conducted differences-in-differences analyses comparing changes in arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), arrests for domestic violence, and traffic crashes in counties to the program with counties without the program.
RESULTS:
Between 2005 and 2010, more than 17,000 residents of South Dakota-including more than 10% of men aged 18 to 40 years in some counties-had participated in the 24/7 program. At the county level, we documented a 12% reduction in repeat DUI arrests (P = .023) and a 9% reduction in domestic violence arrests (P = .035) following adoption of the program. Evidence for traffic crashes was mixed.
CONCLUSIONS:
In community supervision settings, frequent alcohol testing with swift, certain, and modest sanctions for violations can reduce problem drinking and improve public health outcomes.
Enough OT.
|
|
| | | 1529 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 12:40
|
sarge33rd - so your assertion is that there is a significant effort to cut off people from additional drinks before they are clearly intoxicated? Are you serious?
My anecdotal evidence comes from frequenting many establishments and seeing many people clearly intoxicated and continuing to be served. I have seen people cut off many times but not before they were already fall down drunk.
The primary reasons we have been successful in changing the DUI culture:
#1 Stricter penalties...in the 70s-80s a DUI would cost a person a few hundred dollars. Today...minimum $10K plus loss of driving for 6 months or more.
#2 Education and anti-DUI marketing. People are more aware of the consequences.
#3 Harsh penalties and restrictions for repeat offenders. "Blow and go", ignition locks, prisons, active monitoring, etc...
#4 Stricter enforcement. DUI traps...police targeting DUIs. Financial incentive to bust drunk drivers.
#5 Stricter underage alcohol enforcement.
I think similar strategies would have an effect on gun violence. Focus on the people breaking the laws. We did not put blow and gos in every car...we did not make people get a special license to buy beer...we did not limit the number of drinks someone could buy or own. We focused on the people who broke the rules.
But...Gun violence and DUIS are very different in my opinion. DUIs are/were mostly committed by otherwise law abiding people so they are a bit easier group to manage and change their behavior. The vast majority of gun violence is criminals and otherwise non-law abiding people. Makes it a lot more complicated as this group is a lot more difficult to control.
|
|
| | | 1530 | boldwin
ID: 172181517
Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 14:56
|
Great job ChicagoTRS! Please take over for me in all threads. I am worn out.
|
|
| | | 1531 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 15:08
|
The vast majority of gun violence is criminals and otherwise non-law abiding people
How do you know this? Seriously--data on gun violence is notoriously difficult to track.
You aren't talking about just murders. What constitutes "gun violence"? Suicides? Threatening people with a gun? How about a robbery in which a gun is shown but not shot?
Any links or sources to demonstrated that gun violence is vastly done by criminals? (Please--no self-referential definitions. For example, gun violence is itself usuall a crime and therefore nearly 100% of them is by criminals by definition...)
|
|
| | | 1532 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 23:42
|
DUIs are/were mostly committed by otherwise law abiding people so they are a bit easier group to manage and change their behavior. The vast majority of gun violence is criminals and otherwise non-law abiding people.
Adam Lanza
James Holmes
Jared Loughner
Nidal Hasan
Robert Hawkins
Seung Hi Cho
Mitchell Johnson
Andrew Golden
Kip Kinkel
Dylen Klebold
Eric Harris
to name a few.
by all means, please let us know their criminal records prior to their mass killings.
|
|
| | | 1533 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 00:16
|
"Research consistently shows that populations of homicide offenders and victims generally have higher-than-average rates of arrest and conviction for a variety of offenses. The National Criminal Justice Commission estimates that about 30 million Americans--approximately 15% of the U.S. population over age 15--have an arrest record (citations omitted). Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past (usually more than once; see [Wolfgang, Marvin E. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. P. 177]) and about 50% have been convicted of an offense (see Kleck and Bordua, :293)
"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
"A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”"
"Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests—in addition to their arrests for other crimes."
"2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest"
"In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder."
"Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories."
"60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country's 50 largest metros."
The majority of gun violence in this country is carried out by criminals and most of their victims are other criminals.
|
|
| | | 1534 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 00:47
|
which simply reinforces what most of us say...put fewer guns into private hands, and you have fewer guns for thieves to steal and use in the commission of violent crimes.
there is no intellectually honest way to argue that contention. One can obfuscate, skirt the reality, and ignore simple logic. But if there are 10,000 guns in private hands, there will be fewer stolen than if there are 100,000 in private hands.
|
|
| | | 1535 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 13:12
|
The majority of gun violence in this country is carried out by criminals and most of their victims are other criminals.
You seem to be using "gun violence" interchangeably with "murder." (Worse, IMO, is that you use "murder" as shorthand with "murder by guns").
No one is denying that a majority of murders are committed by guns (that is, after all, what guns are for). Nor that a majority of those who commit murder by guns have criminal records. But you haven't proved your point about "gun violence."
Unless, of course, by "gun violence" you mean "murders committed by guns." If so, you should come out and say it.
|
|
| | | 1536 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 23:33
|
Gun violence...armed robbery, shootings, homicide, domestic violence....not sure what we are debating here? The vast majority is committed by people with long criminal histories. However you want to slice it...I do not think this is really disputed? Are you asserting that the majority of gun violence is otherwise law abiding gun owners who one day decide to turn to a life of crime or cap their neighbor?
Here is the REALITY. There are 300+ MILLION unregistered firearms in the US right now. Thinking any of the proposed restrictions will prevent criminals from accessing firearms is deluded. As long as someone can buy a gun legally, guns will make their way to the criminal market. Guns are plentiful on the street. The more guns are restricted the more profitable and violent the gun black market will become...same path as drugs. In this country when there is a demand for something a supply will be found.
Reasonable restrictions are fine and should be in place for law abiding people to manage firearms. To think these restrictions will have an effect on criminals is ignoring logic. Strict enforcement of criminal gun violence...those who are breaking the rules...is the one sure way to lessen the impact of criminals on society.
The point...trying to fix the homicide and violence problems by restricting guns is pointless and has never worked anywhere. Homicide and violence are societal problems and have very little to do with gun availability.
|
|
| | | 1537 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 23:38
|
btw I do not include suicide in gun violence.
"There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. In the absence of firearms, people who are inclined to commit suicide kill themselves some other way." (143 - WHO)
|
|
| | | 1538 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 09:48
|
Thinking any of the proposed restrictions will prevent ... {emphasis added}
And therein lies the flaw in yoour logic. Nobody said it will PREVENT. We said, and we maintain, that it would make it more difficult and thereby REDUCE the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals.
Now, tell us why you think that reduction would be such a bad thing.
|
|
| | | 1539 | Boldwin
ID: 21227188
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 10:20
|
When guns are outlawed only the abusers will have guns.
|
|
| | | 1540 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 10:54
|
When one side chooses only to knock down moronic a strawman, withy pithy nonsense, they do a disservice to thoughtful humans.
|
|
| | | 1541 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:14
|
"There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. In the absence of firearms, people who are inclined to commit suicide kill themselves some other way."
This is simply untrue. Guns are far, far more effective at it than virtually every other means, and the availability of guns make successful suicides several times more likely.
If one believes that a suicidal person would simply try some other means (a dubious claim, but lets go with it) than having guns nearby make it far more likely (by several factors) that the attempt will be successful.
This may seem like a distinction without a point, but those who attempt but do not succeed at a suicide attempt are left alive and (at odds with the point above) are not likely to try again.
|
|
| | | 1542 | chode
ID: 212581213
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 12:42
|
I like how the guy who seems so intent on parsing others' word choices is so brazen with gross overstatements like "[murder] is, after all, what guns are for."
*Murder*! RGPD, here to protect and serve. Keep at it!
|
|
| | | 1543 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 12:51
|
Call it what you want, but guns are for shooting. What else is it for? Even a homeowner protecting his property has it in order to shoot a home invader (if necessary).
If there are any points of context I've posted you want to refute or agree with by all means do so. But to insist that guns are not made in order to take a life then you perhaps haven't thought about them deeply enough. With all due respect.
|
|
| | | 1544 | Tree
ID: 32251812
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 13:05
|
from the very first guns - invented over 1,000 years ago by the Chinese - guns were designed with the purpose of killing one's rival.
to deny this, is to deny history.
|
|
| | | 1545 | chode
ID: 212581213
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 13:47
|
So in your mind, shooting a home invader is "murder"? Killing one's rival is always "murder"? Oversimplify much?
Tell me again - who's the one not thinking deeply enough here ...
|
|
| | | 1546 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 13:48
|
jeebus chode; handguns, were designed for one purpose and one purpose only...to kill another human being. THAT, is the very reason they were developed in the first place.
|
|
| | | 1547 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 13:49
|
and btw chode...why do you take such exception to the use of the word murder here, but not when Boldy goes off on the death of T Schiavo and calls that murder, or when a woman exercises her right to choose and aborts a pregnancy, and he calls that murder. Where is your pragmatic indignation then?
|
|
| | | 1548 | Boldwin
ID: 21227188
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 13:56
|
Murder involves innocent human life.
|
|
| | | 1549 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 14:06
|
Ladies and gentlemen of the internet, I introduce to you...Judge Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 1550 | Tree
ID: 32251812
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 14:26
|
So in your mind, shooting a home invader is "murder"? Killing one's rival is always "murder"? Oversimplify much?
never said that. just saying why guns were developed - to kill. do the research. guns were developed by the chinese military to kill their rivals.
that being said, shooting a family member which one mistakes for a home invader - and that happens much more often than actually shooting a true home invader - is murder. or at least a homicide that shouldn't have happened, and likely wouldn't have without a gun in the house.
|
|
| | | 1551 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 14:59
|
'Murder' was a poor choice. PD himself backed off the term in #1543, as he also clarified the point.
Pretty much all of the following posts to this point are time spent that we won't ever get back.
Carry on.
|
|
| | | 1552 | chode
ID: 212581213
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 15:31
|
Re: #1547 Jim, this may come as a shock to you and Boldwin and Josh and Fred and the 3-5 other posters who account for 95+% of this Forum's posts, but I don't check this site twice an hour, 365. I am happy to provide you with my own general impressions as to where Boldwin's views on Terri Schiavo lands on the hyperbole/reactionary scale, if you think it will advance this conversation.
Re: #1551 I wish that were the case. I actually found the attempted dismissal in #1543 a clear confirmation of PD's conflation in #1535 of the "murder" vs. "shooting" issue, which to me strikes at least in part at the core of the issue here, i.e., it's dangerously easy to lump all "shootings of people" into a very specific, legally defined category of "murder" and have that drive one's opinions on gun-related issues. And I'm NOT saying he/you/many/any posters here do suffer that lack of distinction, but I DO think it's very relevant to the bigger issue, worthy of a couple posts in a couple thousand.
The misplaced bravado at the end of #1543 was to me indicative of something else altogether, all too common in these parts, and not unrelated to the fact that there are so few regulars in this Forum.
|
|
| | | 1553 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 15:19
|
1536: trying to fix the homicide and violence problems by restricting guns is pointless and has never worked anywhere. Homicide and violence are societal problems and have very little to do with gun availability. Not only is this intuitively just wrong, but here is a piece which includes some facts. Please.
Effects of Gun Laws on Violence in Australia (John Major)
|
|
| | | 1554 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 15:30
|
1553: Nonetheless, the political will to do anything about it, because of fears of being painted wimpy (the irony), losing elections, etc. will likely result in little change. The assault weapons ban will not be reinstated (boggles the mind), but maybe, just maybe, mandatory background checks (what's the over-under on the number of loopholes?) will get passed.
But, it's moot, really
I do take the view shared by some others that less guns means less EASY ability to do great harm. It's really hard to slash, beat, whip, brass knuckle, spam, insult, someone in a fit of rage. It's of course do-able, just not easily do-able. Guns are easy (and also so easy to do it wrong -- how about the guy who shot himself in the head showing others how safe it was to use a gun).
Gun Crazy America
|
|
| | | 1555 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 15:38
|
Just in the last week or so here in Seattle we had some dude accidentally shooting his wife, thinking she was an intruder, and some dude getting into an argument with a couple of other dudes, runs and get his shotgun, they take it away from him and beat him to death with it.
|
|
| | | 1556 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 15:45
|
If it weren't so sad it would be comical. Anyone who has any feeling that every life is precious HAS to be for some controls on weaponry. Anyone who is not is either stupid, a liar, a hypocrite - or a stupid, lying hypocrite.
|
|
| | | 1557 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 15:51
|
Washington has become one of the few states where gun deaths now outnumber car deaths. Wahoo!
We lose an entire decent size town to each every year. An a large city's worth of ancillary victims.
If Iran nuked a town every year, you think we would do something?
|
|
| | | 1558 | walk
ID: 41019299
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 16:18
|
Great points, bili. It is truly illogical and irrational, and certainly one of those instances where I feel as humans (in this case, Americans), we are not responsible, caring, or intelligent enough to make these gun rights decisions individually.
Often in our poli debates, at least recently, the question comes up about when should government intervene? I think this is one instance. "Tyranny!" cry the gun advocates. After replying, "Really?", -- "Life!" I say. It's really a pro-life agenda. What a spin that would be if the Dems, my Dems, had the balls to do it.
The entire individual rights, risk-reward scenario for guns does not add up, and is only truly seemingly appreciated when one loses a loved a one (and if not then, then the person is just being a stubborn fool). It's a big shame. Such a shame. I love our country, but on this one, we got it wrong. Cost of guns does not outweigh the benefits of gun ownership. Sigh.
|
|
| | | 1559 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 16:41
|
#1555: Now, bili, that isn't, technically, a gun death since the weapon wasn't fired. Can't you keep to a simple, me-directed narrative? You Socialist.
|
|
| | | 1560 | Boldwin
ID: 11261819
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 19:32
|
Don't get any 'bright' ideas. We aren't giving up our vehicles either.
|
|
| | | 1561 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 19:46
|
Exactly. Over your dead body. Unfortunately, mine too.
|
|
| | | 1562 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 22:37
|
"Anyway I see the presidents proposals as mostly reactionary and to pacify people. I do not think congress is interested in passing new legislation on this subject." (AWB)
I guess I should have said the senate...can't even muster 40% of the vote in a Democrat controlled senate. Another loss for gun control.
Seems doubtful anything of real substance will be passed.
|
|
| | | 1563 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 22:43
|
out of abject fear of the rightwings misrepresentations. It is highly unfortunate, but it appears fearmongering has won again.
|
|
| | | 1565 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 23:13
|
The main reason why the gun restrictions are failing in the senate is because democratic senators represent states where gun rights are held sacred. There is an election in 2014 and they understand when you are a democrat representing Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana...etc...etc...voting yes on an anti-gun bill will likely get you voted out.
I think universal background checks still have a chance to pass. But I could see the cost of the program defeating it. Government can't afford to enforce many of the current gun regulations. Adding layers of bureaucracy on top of an already overextended system may not be possible. There are 300 million unregistered guns in this country. The cost of implementing control on this inventory is significant to a government that is already spending much more than it makes. Senators like a lot of things until they are presented with a bill and are forced to make spending decisions/priorities.
|
|
| | | 1566 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 23:33
|
Right...political costs, imposed by the rightwings fearmongering lies, are what stopped those Dems from voting in favor of the restrictions. You say "where gun rights are held sacred"...NOBODY, is honestly trying to take the guns away from anyone. That whole "sacred" thing, is a vile smokescreen, devoid of integrity or fact.
|
|
| | | 1567 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 00:03
|
"NOBODY, is honestly trying to take the guns away from anyone."
What is an assault weapon ban?
People outside of the urban centers of this country DO hold firearms sacred and experience very few of the problems that cities do with guns. Politicians in mostly rural states realize future elections are in jeopardy if they vote against their constituency. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Personally I think it is pathetic to blame "rightwings fearmongering lies" on your democratic senators inability to vote against guns. Get a backbone and vote your conscious if you feel strongly on an issue. Blaming republicans because you can't get a vote through a democrat controlled senate is laughable.
|
|
| | | 1568 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 00:13
|
Democracy is a wonderful thing? HAHAHAHAHA The majority of Americans SUPPORT the assault weapons ban, along with greatly expanded background checks.
I find it ironic, that you find the truth, to be pathetic.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1570 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 01:28
|
What is an assault weapon ban?
It won't happen. But if it did, it would apply to new purchases (just as the previous one did). The one the GOP let expire didn't take one gun out of the hands of anyone. And the one that was contemplated was virtually a mirror of that one. If you believe that it would take guns out of your hands then you are being lied to. And you believe it. Despite the actual history. And the actual text of the bill.
Blaming republicans because you can't get a vote through a democrat controlled senate is laughable.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but are you aware of how the US Senate works? Unless a party has a 2/3 majority, the minority party can hold up virtually any piece of legislation it wants. Which is why the ASB has no chance of passing.
|
|
| | | 1571 | walk
ID: 41019299
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 09:19
|
Sir Henry (1994) has always got it (unfortunately, he saw his friend gunned down):
a gun in your hand makes a fool out of you, oh yeah
a gun in your hand makes a target out of me, oh no
freedom, you ain't no freedom, you want your freedom,
your freedom is killing you man, freedom
you can't handle your freedom, hey
and now you're dying for it
|
|
| | | 1572 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 10:23
|
What I find pathetic is you blaming the right for not being able to get a bill through the democratically controlled senate. The reason the AWB can't pass the senate is the democrats can't even muster the democratic votes...the democrats say they can't even get 40 votes out of their own party. Hard to blame the republicans when you can't even get your own parties vote. If the vote was split on party lines and did not pass...you would have the right to blame the right...but given the fact you can barely get half of the democrat senators to vote for the ban...hard to blame the right...need to look at your own party.
The reason democracy is wonderful...while the democrats have a majority...there are still enough red states and each state sends two senators to congress...thus it is hard for the democrats to push through controversial bills without offending their constituency. They still need to answer to the voters who elected them.
An assault weapons ban is a ban...and while it does not take away existing guns it prevents new purchases.
|
|
| | | 1573 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 11:17
|
Who is blaming the Right, in this case? I'm merely stating the facts.
They still need to answer to the voters who elected them.
Except, in this case that an assault weapons ban has a clear majority support of the people in this country. You might well strongly support no AWB, but you can't do so by appealing to "answering the voters" who actually believe the opposite.
|
|
| | | 1574 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 11:44
|
The AWB failed to pass because, as far as gun control legislation goes, it was a steaming pile of rancid disease-ridden garbage that can only further damage the notion of sane gun control.
All of it's supporters should be ashamed of themselves for getting behind such rotten filth.
|
|
| | | 1575 | Boldwin
ID: 302532010
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 12:59
|
The honest truth is that for the percentage who support the RTBA it is their most important right. The one on which all others depend.
And that is exactly why the activist liberals want it removed. It is the one thing preventing them from removing all natural rights and replacing them with the whims of the ruling class, in which position they put themselves.
|
|
| | | 1576 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 13:02
|
And that is exactly why the activist liberals want it removed.
No shortage of steaming piles of filth around here.
|
|
| | | 1577 | walk
ID: 41019299
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 13:55
|
That's right, my interest in public safety is really a subterfuge for removing all natural rights and replacing them with the whims of the (my) ruling class. And I thought I had been so clever in my plotting. Drat! Foiled again!
|
|
| | | 1578 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 14:00
|
Walk! You declared an oath you would never tell our underlying true desires.
Do you hear the helicopters yet? Run! Run!!!
|
|
| | | 1579 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 14:55
|
Except, in this case that an assault weapons ban has a clear majority support of the people in this country.
This is Representative government not a direct democracy so national polls do not necessarily represent the will of voters and by will of voters I mean the voters the Representatives directly represent.
|
|
| | | 1580 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 14:57
|
The Representatives are irrelevant. It failed to get out of the Senate. Because it was garbage.
|
|
| | | 1581 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 15:00
|
perm...sarge was blaming the right for the AWB not being passed/voted upon in the Senate.
"out of abject fear of the rightwings misrepresentations. It is highly unfortunate, but it appears fearmongering has won again."
I just have a bit of a problem with blaming the right when you cannot even gain support of the left senators.
I 100X agree with Mith that the entire AWB ban proposal hurts all of the presidents proposals. Attempting to ban a weapon that is only very rarely used in gun crimes and is easily replaced by just as effective still legal weapons is disingenuous and hurts your entire cause. I know personally I would have been much more open to other changes if this change was not proposed.
|
|
| | | 1582 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 15:34
|
For the record, gun rights supporters should praise the Senate Democrats for omitting the AWB from the upcoming bill, in the face of what must have been considerable pressure from various sources.
The intent is to put together a bill that will receive support on both sides of the aisle. An included AWB, on top of being an utterly useless measure that in simply won't make people any safer, would also undermine any chance the bill has at easy passage.
|
|
| | | 1583 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 20:57
|
Really MITH? Useless Might I suggest you read walk link above re Australia, and their assault weapons ban. 4 mass shootings in roughly 20 years, none since the ban, roughly 20 years ago. Yeah, worthless. Worthless my ass.
|
|
| | | 1584 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 20:58
|
Australia collected guns. The US would not be doing that. Huge difference.
|
|
| | | 1585 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 21:05
|
1. Australia ain't America.
2. Calling Australia's comprehensive firearms restriction an "assault weapons ban" and attributing to it the entirety of any change in the rate of mass shootings has the odor of something you pulled from what you call your worthless ass.
|
|
| | | 1586 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 21:24
|
Current gun control:
Out of 76,000 prohibited persons flagged by the instant check system, only 13 were successfully prosecuted nationwide. Vice President Biden said they don't have time to prosecute those people.
So the answer is lets create more gun laws when the feds don't enforce the current ones when background checks raise a red flag?
|
|
| | | 1587 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 22:20
|
the feds don't enforce the current ones when background checks
I'm not sure I get this argument. It is a federal crime to attempt to purchase a firearm if you are restricted from doing so?
What kind of penalty are we talking about?
I'm under them impression that the point of the system is to make it difficult for restricted people to buy guns, which it seems to do.
|
|
| | | 1588 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 23:32
|
It isnt a matter of prosecuting 75,987 people It is a matter, of not selling firearms, to 76,000 people. Why is that simple reality, so evasive of the right?
|
|
| | | 1589 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 00:00
|
As far as I know, the penalty in that law is to the gun seller (which is their incentive to actually do the background checks).
I haven't looked at it for a long time however. I'm far more concerned with making sure that background checks are consistent across the nation.
|
|
| | | 1590 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 00:31
|
When a felon attempts to buy a gun it is against the law. It is not worth prosecuting a felon who is actively trying to acquire a firearm? and we wonder why there is so much crime/homicide/repeat offenders in this country?!? Remember the discussion from a few days ago?...most homicides are committed by criminals/felons.
The bad guy is telling you he is in the market to purchase a firearm and you think it is enough just to block the purchase attempt? What do you think happens...Mr Felon goes home and gives up? Or maybe felon tries again since there is now no penalty for trying or maybe he goes to the black market...I guarantee one thing he does find his gun.
"felon attempting to possess a firearm is a crime punishable by up to a year and a half in prison, with more time added for prior offenses."
What problem are we trying to solve again?
|
|
| | | 1591 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 09:26
|
Can you link that Biden quote?
|
|
| | |
| | | 1593 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 12:35
|
I'm confused. You want to prosecute the 76 thousand people who were denied? For what?
|
|
| | | 1594 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 13:38
|
When a felon attempts to buy a gun it is against the law.
Technically, they were filling out a form, not buying a gun. And it isn't clear (perhaps you have a link?) that these were all felons.
But really the bigger point is that the link you provide above mixes up the statistics: It says that 72,600 applications were denied because of background checks. It also says that only 62 cases were considered for prosecution of people lying on those forms.
Nowhere does it say that 72,600 people lied on the forms. Only that they were denied. It isn't clear at all if the 62 cases were people denied or not--only that they lied on the forms and were caught. These are two different sets of data which may or may not overlap.
In fact, there seems to be a good likelihood (because they were denied) that those who were denied did not, in fact, lie on the forms (which is how they were denied). In any case, there's no information above or in the link that the point you make is valid: That there were 72,600 prosecutable cases that Biden is saying the government can't be bothered to prosecute.
|
|
| | | 1595 | Tree
ID: 292462112
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 13:46
|
re 1592 and 1586 -
from your link -
1. Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."
i see someone saying what he believes Joe Biden said. Did Biden say that himself to any media outlet, or is it just what a rep of the NRA is reporting? that is a big distinction.
2. Are you suggested that we need to go after everyone who fills out a form wrong? willing to see your taxes raised to do so?
|
|
| | | 1596 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 14:17
|
I am saying when someone makes false statements on a form in trying to defeat a background check we may have a problem. There is no doubt a percentage can be thrown out because of innocent mistakes. But when a felon tries to purchase a gun and fails because of a failed background check that is a prosecutable offense. When someone purposely attempts to deceive the background check it is a prosecutable offense. These are the people who are most likely to commit a firearm crime and the people we most benefit from taking off the street. In theory every failed background check is supposed to spur an investigation - in reality far less than 1% are investigated.
If the US Government cannot afford to enforce existing laws what good are more laws we cannot afford to enforce? We cannot afford to investigate straw purchases. We cannot afford to investigate failed background checks. We cannot afford to keep convicted criminals behind bars. Why are we surprised that current gun laws are ineffective and why do we need more? Why are we surprised we have gun crime when we fail to investigate and prosecute people responsible for crime?
|
|
| | | 1597 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 14:20
|
> When a felon attempts to buy a gun it is against the law.
"Technically, they were filling out a form, not buying a gun"
The only reason you submit to a background check is to purchase a firearm. Technically when you lie on the form, are a felon and attempt to purchase a firearm...you are breaking the law and can be prosecuted.
|
|
| | | 1598 | Tree
ID: 292462112
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 14:43
|
I am saying when someone makes false statements on a form in trying to defeat a background check we may have a problem.
and Biden's alleged remark is that there are so many forms that are filled out incorrectly, that the government cannot possibly pursue every one of them.
When a felon attempts to buy a gun it is against the law.
btw, this is an incorrect statement. many, many felons have had their gun rights restored, THANKS TO THOSE FINE FOLKS AT THE NRA.
|
|
| | | 1599 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 15:03
|
Technically when you lie on the form, are a felon and attempt to purchase a firearm...you are breaking the law and can be prosecuted.
I think, in a narrow sense, you are entirely right that lying on the form is a criminal act. That isn't the same as buying a gun however (legally, intention does not equal the act, just like intending to blow a red light isn't the same as actually doing so).
I don't know anything about whether those who were caught were felons or what the reason was that got them caught.
And, BTW, I entirely agree that people getting caught lying on the forms is a problem. And it is a problem because, without the forms or the background checks, those people are likely to be getting actual guns. If you share the idea that this is a problem, then please support consistent and comprehensive background checks and accompanying federal enforcement of the law.
Because the real problem isn't that people are lying on the forms. It is that the people lying on the forms shouldn't be getting guns.
|
|
| | | 1600 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 15:46
|
Perm - an attempt by a felon to buy a gun/pass a background check is against the law. If a felon handles a firearm or is even around firearms they can be locked up.
|
|
| | | 1601 | Tree
ID: 292462112
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 16:01
|
Perm - an attempt by a felon to buy a gun/pass a background check is against the law. If a felon handles a firearm or is even around firearms they can be locked up.
again, not necessarily true.
|
|
| | | 1602 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 16:20
|
CTRS
Just a few things.
Your article claims: In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.
In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. I'm sure you see the subtle but problematic subject change there, and how you were duped into believing the claim you made in 1586. The Daily Caller does this all the time.
According to Wiki there are at least 9 distinct reasons for why a person can be restricted from purchasing firearms in a background check. Only one of them is that they are a felon.
You say that it's illegal for a felon to try to purchase a firearm and while I'm not familiar with that law, I'll take your word for it.
But we don't know whether it is illegal for drug addicts or undocumented immigrants or people who were dishonorably discharged from the military to attempt to buy firearms. And we don't know what percentage of those 70-something-thousand were felons.
More importantly, we have no idea how many cases were pursued against felons (or anyone else) who attempted purchases, since the Daily Caller only tricked you into thinking they were giving you that figure, rather than the entirely different thing they provided.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1605 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 16:34
|
By the way - I might be ok with prosecuting felons and possibly others who attempt to purchase firearms. Not sure that I'd see them locked up for a year (probably depends on the felony) but we can leave that aside. And I can agree that it sounds likely that existing laws might be inexcusably unenforced.
But I'd need to know a lot more than any of us seem to about these laws and the actual rates instance vs rates of prosecution before offering much more. And I'm quite certain that I won't get reliable information on that from the NRA or the Daily Caller.
Also, I have a hard time believing that much of the gun lobby really desires increased prosecution of these cases.
I'm not accusing you of being dishonest here, CTRS, but in my experience most ardent gun rights supporters are not the type who generally ever support increasing authoritarianism and bureaucracy in any form.
|
|
| | | 1606 | biliruben
ID: 402161912
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 16:35
|
Looks like they investigated 76,142 denials to some degree in 2010.
No idea out of which ass the Daily Whiner pulled their numbers.
|
|
| | | 1607 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 18:59
|
Looks like a shade under 60% of all NICS denials were because of felons apply for a permit (note that this includes explosives applications as well, I believe).
I'm unable to determine, with the light research time available to me, whether it is illegal for a felon to apply for a gun permit. Since some felons can legally own guns (thanks, GOP!) this appears to be a far murkier area than ChicagoTRS is painting (see above--not all denials were because of felons).
And, as noted above, there is no indication that the people apply for these background checks were lying on the forms.
|
|
| | | 1608 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 10:38
|
Here is what I know about felons vs guns. No sources, info comes from experience with felons.
Many of the felons who get their gun rights restored are felons who were convicted of crimes many years previous (20+), youth crimes...It is not a simple or cheap procedure to get the rights restored. It takes hiring a lawyer, investigation, going in front of a judge. Should they have their ability to own firearms restored? I do not have a strong opinion...imo should be case by case and should err on the side of denial...should not be a cheap process and should require a thorough vetting. Example...friend of mine got a felony conviction when he was 18 for dealing marijuana...he is now in his 40s, married, has kids, is a successful businessman, is about as law abiding as they come. Should he lose gun privileges for the rest of his life because a mistake he made when he was 18 for dealing a drug that will likely be legal in the next few years? It cost him around 10K but he got the felony expunged from his record and got his voting and gun rights restored.
Doing a little research it looks like some get their rights restored that probably should not. No doubt the NRA pushes laws that makes the process easier. IMO should be case by case and it should not be a rubber stamp process...should err on the side of preventing felons (especially convicted violent felons) from regaining the right to own firearms.
Seems state laws control much of what felons can and cannot do in regards to firearms. In the state of Illinois felons cannot even be around firearms. Example if I have a gun/bullet in my vehicle my friend legally could not even be in my car. In this state if a felon walked into a gun shop and even handled a firearm he could be arrested. If he applies to purchase a firearm could/should be arrested.
Given Perms info above I stand by my statements that government does a very poor job of preventing, prosecuting people who cannot legally own a gun or attempts to purchase a gun. What it highlights is enforcing gun restrictions are not cheap. Adding new/expensive regulations are hardly viable if the country does not have the law enforcement resources to investigate and enforce the current laws. The FBI is currently having a very difficult time completing background check in the required period.
Like DUIs...gun control should focus on people breaking laws, focus on people who are responsible for the majority of gun crime, should punish people severely who use guns in commissions of crime. IMO this is the most effective way to decrease gun violence in this country.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1611 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 11:27
|
Assuming the account is accurate and the kid didn't make any threatening moves other than refusing to leave (probably in a dumbfounded stupor) yeah I'd say the homeowner unnecessarily used deadly force, which I easily classify as doing something wrong.
But it sounds like the law leans in the favor of the person protecting his property. So assuming that's right I wouldn't charge him. Its a gray area to begin with and and can see why a state would prefer to protect the resident over the intruder in situations where the details might be hazy.
|
|
| | | 1612 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 11:33
|
I was reading about that yesterday. What a tragedy. I agree with MITH--I don't think he should be charged.
|
|
| | | 1613 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 11:34
|
From link in #1610:
The homeowner, Donald West Wilder II, heard his burglar alarm go off and confronted Caleb. He fired a warning shot and told the teenager to leave. When he didn’t, Wilder shot again, fatally striking Caleb, law enforcement officials said.
Tragic, yes, but not unlawful IMO. Somewhere along the line, there has to be some responsibility assigned to the teenager. Unlike Trevon Martin, who was minding his own business and innocently walking down the street, this teen was apparently so drunk that he didn't even know he wasn't at his own house, then, when confronted, didn't take the opportunity to flee after a warning shot. Completely justifiable.
|
|
| | | 1614 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 11:59
|
Definite tragedy. But really hard to blame the homeowner. 2:30am, alarm blaring, met by a 6' stranger coming up your stairs, ignores verbal warning and warning shot. Homeowner is obviously scared out of his mind at this point...probably have 1 or 2 seconds to make a decision before the intruder closes the distance and you no longer have the upper hand. Not shooting risks your own life if it is a real intruder, which at 2am someone entering through a window likely is a real intruder. Tragic but the teen made a lot of fatal decisions that night.
As for the legality:
a person can defend himself against a stranger breaking into their home, even if they're not sure if that person is armed.
"You don't have to know whether they have a weapon or not. You're actually kind of allowed to presume that they do, that they're in there for a very bad and evil purpose,"
Homeowners are given a lot of latitude for good reason. Generally they have seconds to make a decision and generally if someone is breaking into an occupied home you are in extreme danger.
|
|
| | | 1615 | Boldwin
ID: 332562122
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 12:30
|
Tragic and highly regrettable but legal, forgivable and understandable.
|
|
| | | 1616 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 14:10
|
#1614: I agree, and frankly give the guy kudos for a warning shot.
So long as the gun was legal, this is one of those horrible tragedies for which the homeowner is already being punished for having made a tough decision. I don't envy either of those families right now.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1618 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 10:52
|
However, David Burnham, co-director of TRAC, says LaPierre “had it 100 percent right. On a per-capita basis Chicago ranks dead last for prosecuting gun crimes.” Burnham explained that according to case-by-case U.S. Justice Department information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by TRAC, there were 52 prosecutions in Illinois North (Chicago) in 2012, or 5.52 per million in population. By this measure, compared with the 90 federal judicial districts in the U.S., the prosecution rate in Chicago was the lowest. What qualifies as a "gun crime"? I don't even understand the argument the writer is trying to support with this point. That Obama only wants criminals to have guns?
|
|
| | | 1619 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:00
|
The point is...why is Chicago dead last in prosecuting criminals with guns? Why does our federal government choose not to enforce current gun laws? Why do we need new gun laws when the current laws are not enforced and rarely prosecuted? Why is it a surprise that there is so much gun crime when we do not prosecute people committing the crimes?
|
|
| | | 1620 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:06
|
More reasons why Chicago is the murder capital:
Only 132 of the 507 murder cases in the city last year were closed last year. That makes for a homicide clearance rate of 26 percent—the lowest in two decades, according to internal police records provided to Chicago. (The true picture is even worse; more on that later.) To put it another way: About three-quarters of the people who killed someone in Chicago in 2012 have gotten away with murder—so far, at least. “Those stats suggest a crisis,” says Arthur Lurigio, a criminologist at Loyola University Chicago.
It’s a crisis every bit as pressing as the city’s high homicide rate, because the former feeds the latter. If murderers aren’t apprehended, they’re free to kill again. If other bad guys get the feeling that there are few consequences for their actions, they too will be emboldened. “The word has to be out [on the street] that the cases are not being cleared,” Lurigio says.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 1623 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:19
|
ChicagoTRS
The point is...why is Chicago dead last in prosecuting criminals with guns?
Seriously - what does that mean? There's obviously a terrible violent crime problem in Chicago - and perhaps this has to do with law enforcement tactics (or inefficiencies or corruption or some other problem with policing).
But it looks like you're all over the place, mixing up some very different fruit here, some of it far less applicable than others.
|
|
| | | 1624 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:25
|
more guns, is very clearly the solution to prosecuting "gun crimes".
|
|
| | | 1625 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:34
|
no...prosecuting gun crimes is clearly the solution to having less gun crimes/homicides. When we do not prosecute gun crimes...what do you expect will happen...more gun crimes.
|
|
| | | 1626 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:42
|
Here's some info from an actual news source rather than an essay written by someone who hates the president about why the president wants people to get murdered or whatever regurgitated LaPierre point CTRS has been suckered into:This report shows federal gun prosecutions at a level about the same as 2002 - down after a decade-long high in 2004. Though no specific data points to or ranks Chicago for 2012 gun prosecutions.
Looking at just the last decade, the records show that from FY 2002 to FY 2004 prosecutions jumped from 7,948 to 11,015, up by more than a third (38.6%). From the 2004 high, however, prosecutions declined to 7,465 in FY 2011, down by 32.2 percent. Then, in just the last year, prosecutions increased up to 7,774, or 4.1 percent higher than in the previous year.
But examined over the last quarter century, a somewhat different picture emerges. Despite the recent ups and downs, federal prosecutions today are a great deal higher than in the pre-9/11 era. Figure 1 shows that the volume of federal gun prosecutions has in fact had two distinct peaks of activity. The earlier peak occurred precisely twenty years ago, in FY 1992.
The detailed 2012 report - available for a fee - indicates federal gun prosecutions are actually at a tracking high in the last four years:
UPDATE, 11:09 a.m., 3/25/13:
The report LaPierre is referencing is a measurer of gun prosecutions per capita by rank - available here for a fee. The breakdown shows the Northern District of Illinois - not limited to Chicago - as 90th ranked, falling above only the U.S. territories.
When not ranked on a per capita basis, however, the entire state of Illinois - all three districts - falls into the medium-high rank of the prosecution spectrum:
The Northern District falls about in the middle in 2012 ranking in a non-per capita comparison with 52 gun prosecutions. That's down from 2011, when 65 were tallied. The other totals since '07:
2010 - 95;
2009 - 60;
2008 - 56;
2007 - 40.
These numbers are largely without context, however [SHOCKER! -mith] not taking into account where and how gun crimes are being prosecuted - plea deals for larger prosecutions and the fact that many gun purchases and trafficking and the subsequent legal outcomes take place away from Chicago, for instance.
|
|
| | | 1627 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 11:44
|
Taking NRA-provided statistics at face value will make you look foolish every time.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1629 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 13:01
|
Reminds me of those who say Obama is "soft on illegal immigration" despite the fact that he's increased funding and number of Border Patrol officers and sent back more illegal immigrants than any previous administration.
They've decided what Obama believes (the opposite of them) and they will say and spout anything in response.
|
|
| | | 1630 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 13:16
|
Re 1626: that is terrible miss use of statistics if you are ignore per capita stats then of course Chicago is going to have more prosecutions then a small town.
|
|
| | | 1631 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 13:29
|
I'm pretty sure the point you are countering is different from the one being made, Boikin.
The point isn't that Chicago had more gun prosecutions than Jackson Hole. The map is just one of several data points that together show that ranking gun prosecutions in Chicago according to per capita is the real misuse of statistics.
It (and the NRA and ChicagoTRS) assumes numerous things that either just aren't true or can't be proven with the information available.
|
|
| | | 1632 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 16:07
|
Mith how is ranking per capita misleading, when number of prosecutions is directly related to size of the population?
|
|
| | | 1633 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 16:16
|
Because it's a gross oversimplification. Just read the last paragraph of that post.
The number of firearms prosecutions in Chicago does not offer a relevant answer to the questions of whether prosecutors in Chicago adequately enforce gun laws currently on the books.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1635 | Tree
ID: 592492712
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 20:02
|
Cracked is surprisingly an entertaining, and good source of information. when they re-invented themselves online (after spending decades as a Mad print magazine imitator), they actually became quite good.
|
|
| | | 1636 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 14:46
|
re 1633: I will buy that argument, but then why even make post 1626 then? Just post the last paragraph, what you imply in your post is that stat is not useful not that most stats in this case are useless. Of the stats posted while maybe not really relevant is more relevant than the ones posted that when not accounting for the size of the population are completely useless.
|
|
| | | 1637 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 15:02
|
Because I was countering not just that single point but the bulk of the claims made, and continuing a case I've been making for years that info provided by the NRA is not reliable.
|
|
| | | 1638 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 19:39
|
But that is not what you tried to show you tried to show that there stats were wrong, but not only where they right but backed there point to some degree. If you had just come out and said yes Chicago does have the worst per capita gun conviction but that is basically uninformative statistic and shown why, but no you listed a bunch of stats that make Chicago look better but are completely useless measures and there for pointless. Basically you did what you accused the NRA of.
|
|
| | | 1639 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 21:23
|
you tried to show that there stats were wrong
You know this from telepathy?
You obviously didn't read the preceding discussion, particularly 1622, where I questioned the relevance of "only 52 prosecutions", not the accuracy.
And please stop telling me what I mean by my own words. I will grant you that it's not a well organized or explained post but your assumptions here only accomplish what they often say about assumptions.
|
|
| | | 1640 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Fri, Mar 29, 2013, 13:08
|
You are right I can not read your mind, and even though no else has ever done the same for me, I going to say you know what I made an incorrect assumption about what your intentions in the post and I pretty much lead this thread astray. Whoops, I try not do that again or at least keep things on topic.
|
|
| | | 1641 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Mar 29, 2013, 13:17
|
Excellent forum leadership by example. We should all be as magnanimous.
|
|
| | | 1642 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 00:30
|
Texas DA slain in his home; had armed himself
1. i do believe this is going to become something of a bigger story. Kaufman County DA Mike McLelland and his wife were found shot to death in their home.
this comes about two months after one of his assistant DAs was also murdered. McLelland had felt the Aryan Brotherhood played a role in the murder of his subordinate, and if so, this is going to become a much bigger story.
2. on the topic in this thread, this is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of having a gun to protect yourself in your home is, statistically, not going to do you much good. by his own words, McLelland was armed at all times, and was, perhaps, a bit too over confident: "I'm ahead of everybody else because, basically, I'm a soldier," the 23-year Army veteran said in an interview less than two weeks ago."
|
|
| | | 1643 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 09:16
|
I'm ahead of everybody else because, basically, I'm a soldier
That is immediately followed up by, 23-year Army veteran. Tree, your comment seems to imply that that he felt like a soldier because he carried a weapon. Without hearing the rest of the quote, the context appears to be related to being in the Army for for 23 years.
I disagree that having a gun in your home is not doing much statistically. I'll speculate wildly that he was target for very specific reasons, and knowing that he was armed "at all times" probably gave pause to his killers or other potential attackers.
I agree that having a gun and making it known probably isn't going to stop a drug addict from breaking into your house, but would it give pause to others.
Reading the article I can't say I blame him for wearing a gun on a regular basis, and it isn't an uncommon attitude or practice from some other Prosecutors that I know.
|
|
| | | 1644 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 09:41
|
YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of having a gun to protect yourself in your home is, statistically, not going to do you much good.
No Tree, this is not statistical evidence. This is anecdotal evidence. Statistically this is 1 incident and too small of a sample to draw any conclusions about the larger issue.
|
|
| | | 1645 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 10:24
|
I disagree that having a gun in your home is not doing much statistically.
-Spoken exactly like someone who has never bothered to look up the statistics.
|
|
| | | 1646 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 10:46
|
parsing grammar doesn't change the facts Khahan.
|
|
| | | 1647 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 10:51
|
Nothing in 1644 is incorrect. The studies that you linked looked at multiple cases, where you could begin to draw conclusions about larger issues. The fact that the first study included police officers, seems to be biased in their effort to support their hypothesis, guns don't make a person safer.
Since the studies included self-inflicted wounds, and didn't consider if the original purpose of the attacker was successful, I see some holes in the hypothesis and results.
That being said, I agree with the conclusion about limiting guns and who can have them.
|
|
| | | 1648 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 10:59
|
I'm not parsing grammar tree. I'm bashing methodology.
|
|
| | | 1649 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 11:00
|
Frick
Nothing in 1644 is incorrect.
You mean 1643, yes? I didn't comment on anything in post 1644. Anyway:Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. [...]
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. That's just the first study mentioned in the link. Where do you see that their definition of an assault includes self-inflicted wounds and police shootings?
|
|
| | | 1650 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 13:53
|
My mistake, I misread it in the full-text of the article. Police officers were excluded, I originally read it as they were included in the methodology.
I also thought you were referring to 1644, not 1643 in your response, so again my mistake.
A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.
I agree with the above, but how do account for assaults that didn't take place because the person did own a gun. I doubt that it is enough to compensate for the increased risk of escalating a conflict, but it does have a value. I also wonder if there is a value to gun owners who, in essence, look at their gun as a placebo. It provides them some comfort that they control over their life. That likely leads to the quote above, but I doubt that anyone on either side is going to agree to mental reasoning skills being added to the requirements to own a gun.
|
|
| | | 1651 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 13:58
|
That's the big hole--and it is a hard one to fill. I do believe many on the NRA side of the argument overstate that portion of the equation about the ability of having a gun to deter crime, but that is difficult to measure.
After all, many people in the inner city are armed (including store owners) but, nevertheless, armed robbery and home invasions continue at a high rate.
|
|
| | | 1652 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 10:07
|
I agree that it is very hard to fill, and I also agree that the NRA likely overstates the potential benefits, while understating the potential risks with being around guns in general.
I would be curious to know what the results of a similar study that covered a much larger cross section of the country. I don't know Philadelphia well, are there parts of Philadelphia that aren't considered inner city or lower income? I know that Chicago, Chicago Proper not suburbs, has relatively few neighborhoods that would be considered average.
|
|
| | | 1653 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 10:33
|
What happened to violent crime, home invasion, gun crime in the UK after law abiding citizens were prohibited from owning firearms?
|
|
| | | 1654 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 10:47
|
What happens when people mistake correlation for causation?
I could make the same argument about crime rates in the US after the federal assault weapons ban was signed.
But I wouldn't do that because, like attempting to show causation with crime rates and firearms restrictions in the UK, I know it's a specious, silly argument.
|
|
| | | 1655 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 11:10
|
So why did all of those crime categories in the UK increase after the gun ban? In the same period the US homicide rate declined 50% while gun ownership/rights expanded greatly?
|
|
| | | 1656 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 11:21
|
I'm no closer to being an expert on crime in the UK than you are, ChicagoTRS.
But I know enough about crime in general to know that there are innumerable factors that contribute to crime rates, and that it's really stupid to focus on a single factor in a correlating time period and decide that it must be the single or primary reason for any change that occurred.
|
|
| | | 1657 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 11:29
|
For example, what has happened to the violent crime rate in Chicago since June of 2010, when the Supreme Court decided McDonald v Chicago?
By how many factors of 10 has the number of legal handguns increased in that town in the past two and a half years, leading up to the spike in homicide rates in 2012?
Is your argument that crime rates following a gun ban in the UK are more reflective of the impact of gun laws in the US than crime rates in Chicago following the easing of gun restrictions there?
I'd think most gun rights advocates (particularly ones from Chicago) would probably give up on the argument at that point if gun rates in the decade following the AWB didn't already ruin it for him.
|
|
| | | 1658 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 16:37
|
How about the decade after the AWB was lifted and crime rates/homicides kept falling?
We know the answer to the issues in Chicago. Chicago does not prosecute criminals...cannot afford to incarcerate criminals...has the most liberal early release program in the country. More criminals released on the streets equals more violent crime. Looks like the increase in homicide last year was an outlier as this years numbers are back in line with 2009-2011. Last years increase likely had to do with an unseasonably warm February and March which accelerated homicides in those months.
|
|
| | | 1659 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 16:48
|
So if I understand correctly, you are saying that in the US after the AWB and in Chicago after McDonald there were other factors at play which had a greater impact on crime rates than changes in legal public access to firearms.
But you are certain for some reason that it doesn't work that way in the UK?
Do you see my point?
|
|
| | | 1660 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 17:47
|
"other factors at play which had a greater impact on crime rates than changes in legal public access to firearms"
Could not agree more! This has certainly been my main point from the start of the debate. Violent crime and homicide are far more complicated than legal access to firearms...these are societal issues that have little to nothing to do with the legality of law abiding firearm access.
The UK is just a good model and a society that shares at least some similarities to US society. UK banned guns for private citizens...violent crime/overall homicide increased. Why we would expect expanded background checks, banning assault rifles/large magazines in this country to have any affect on crime/homicides is deluded. Yet when I listen to most of the people pushing for increased regulations...these are the reasons given.
Framers of increased gun regulations should position them as simply sensible measures for effective gun ownership for law abiding and avoid the mantra of we need to do this to prevent criminals/mental defectives access to firearms. I would be much more on board with new regulations if they were positioned as sensible restrictions than solutions to crime/homicide. As soon as we go down the path of we need to have these regulations so we can prevent violent crime, homicide, mass shootings...you lose my support because I understand the proposed regulations will likely not be a meaningful solution to these problems. When new gun regulations are enacted and the same problems still exist it certainly makes me fear additional ineffective gun control measures that in the end will limit access to the law abiding but not have any effect on criminals/psychopaths.
|
|
| | | 1661 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 17:51
|
I would be much more on board with new regulations if they were positioned as sensible restrictions than solutions to crime/homicide
At least some of us have presented exactly this--I certainly believe this to be the case.
|
|
| | | 1662 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 17:55
|
Could not agree more!
I'm sorry but you obviously don't agree if out of the other side of your mouth you demand that there is a causal relationship between the UK gun ban and a spike in crime that occurred there for a few years afterward.
My point is that it works both ways. You agree with the general idea but then insist that it only works the way that happens to be convenient for your personal politics. Sorry I don't buy it.
|
|
| | | 1663 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 18:10
|
"causal relationship between the UK gun ban and a spike in crime"
The point of bringing up the UK...is to point out that gun regulations are likely NOT really related to crime/homicide.
Perm...I do agree that some on this board have made this point. But this has been mostly missing from the national debate. Nationally it has been positioned that we need to have these regulations because of the crime/homicide problems in this country. This definitely makes me fear ever expanding (ineffective) gun regulations to try and solve the crime/homicide problem.
|
|
| | | 1664 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 18:26
|
Well, part of the problem with this issue, CTRS, is that people keep asking others on the other "side" of this debate to speak for others on that side in lieu of working toward common goals we can agree with.
The issue (heck, all issues) would be better spent if we didn't have to spend all this time trying to react to those on the extremes of the issues.
|
|
| | | 1665 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 18:43
|
CTRS
to point out that gun regulations are likely NOT really related to crime/homicide.
If so then we are in agreement. Though honestly your question in post 1655 sure seemed to indicate otherwise.
|
|
| | | 1666 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 18:50
|
I think if we worked to limit gun ownership, particularly hand guns, on a national scale, we would see significant progress in decreasing gun violence over the scale of a generation.
And I think that hard work is something worth doing.
|
|
| | | 1667 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 19:18
|
CTRS has a good point, look nothing seems to show that gun regulations lower or increase crime. Maybe if the Gun control side maybe found a better argument because the way I see it argument is waste of productivity...would people not be better served if Washington was debating something that clearly has an effect on people.
|
|
| | | 1668 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 19:28
|
I believe part of the problem is that the gun laws are incredibly inconsistent across the country. We see this in that so many crimes are not only committed with guns, but that the guns themselves are largely coming from places with easier access.
|
|
| | | 1669 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 19:30
|
My point being that we can't tell whether gun regulations raise or lower crime because the control mechanisms have little to do with actual access when you just have to go across state lines, stop at a gun show, and pick up what you need--no muss, no fuss.
|
|
| | | 1670 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 416222423
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 00:13
|
Perm...Bili...you underestimate criminals/people intent on homicide. No matter how many regulations, restrictions, laws, etc...are put in place it will be next to impossible to keep guns from criminals. You are sort of proving the point I made in 1663. "If we just had consistent gun laws we might be able to fix this crime problem"... As long as you are associating guns with causing crime/homicide you are going down a failed path. Thinking new gun regulations effect criminals is failed thinking. Criminals may need to change tactics but in the end it is not going to prevent access to the tool.
We do have a model for that line of thinking....the UK...the fact is the UK should have been a far easier model for gun control to work. Compared to the US there were not nearly as many firearms in the UK, guns were highly restricted for many years, went down the path of ever increasing gun regulations until they reached confiscation and prohibition. Violent crime has increased, homicides have increased...I am not saying gun prohibition did or did not cause the increases but I do not think it is a stretch to infer that it has not helped much...the bad guys still have guns. Making gun black markets more profitable generally leads to greater availability of more lethal weapons...like grenades and still easy access to all firearms.
Gun regulations effect the good guys, have very little effect on the bad guys. It is much like the failed drug war. Gun regulations should be put in place to keep honest people honest not restrict them to such a degree that they turn the law abiding into criminals. It is a waste of resources to spend billions of dollars to restrict law abiding people when they are very rarely the cause of the negative issues associated with guns.
|
|
| | | 1671 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 07:26
|
CTRS
I agree with you on the general futility of gun laws preventing crime - though I do think they can make certain types of crimes less common or more difficult to commit. Mass shootings committed by deranged but otherwise generally law abiding people is probably one. This is why I'm on board with extending background checks, limiting magazine capacity and banning flash suppressors.
But curbing mass shootings, while sparing the country the occasional (tho increasingly frequent) national heartache of Sandy Hook and Centennial type incidents, won't do anything to change the rate of violent crimes committed with firearms, which is an immensely bigger problem.
In any case, I would really put the UK example down and step away. In point of fact the violent crime rates there did increase significantly in the 5 - 8 years after the ban as you say. But for the past decade or more they have actually been in steady decline. So a closer look at the UK example might actually support Bili's argument in 1666 (there's another example of why you do yourself a terrible disservice by ever relying on the NRA's interpretation of statistics).
The US is not the UK, our relationship and history with firearms and violence, our crime problems, our geography and our demographics are all so much different that I really think any comparison of the kind is a waste of time.
Bili & PD
In my opinion, the only kind of legislation that has a better than irrelevant chance of effectively changing the violent crime rate in the US is ending or at least drastically changing the war on drugs.
The overwhelming majority of homicides committed in the US happen when inner city young men shoot other inner city young men. Generally speaking, these young men have such easy access to guns because of the drug trade. And whether they have to get their weapons from rural counties or southern states or from Mexico and Honduras or wherever, they'll get them. If we enact firearm prohibition, just like heroine and cocaine, just like booze in the 1920s, despite our supposedly best efforts to keep them out, guns would get here. And they'd be used to kill people in the same alarming numbers we have now or worse. Whether or not the average person gets to legally keep a pistol in the house or carry one around is irrelevant to the greater figures.
|
|
| | | 1672 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 08:45
|
That's a good point, Mith. And a huge reason I have been an opponent of the war on drugs for decades.
|
|
| | | 1673 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 09:36
|
I agree--I don't doubt that the War on Drugs has not only largely been fueling the guns moving into criminal hands, but the paranoia and fear which puts more and more guns into the hands of non-criminals.
CTRS: it will be next to impossible to keep guns from criminals
This isn't the goal. The goal is to make it harder through more even application of the laws we already have (isn't this also your point, made several times, above--the better application of laws on the books?). We can't get all speeders, or prevent them, but a better and more consistent application of speeding laws will knock down speeding substantially and punish more of those who break those laws, making us all safer.
|
|
| | | 1674 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 11:11
|
So we are having the wrong argument here, it not does gun legislation work but what are the benefits/costs of the drug war? I think this is more reasonable discussion because drugs and fight against drugs have a definite effect on society.
|
|
| | | 1675 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 11:31
|
it not does gun legislation work
No I don't think we have settled the question of whether gun legislation "works".
|
|
| | | 1676 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 12:55
|
well if you can't test it then how can you claim it works, you already said post 1665, if interpreting correctly, that "gun regulations are likely NOT really related to crime/homicide." so where is the disagreement?
|
|
| | | 1677 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 13:09
|
The disagreement comes where you pigeonhole "gun legislation" into a narrow meaning of something that is only intended to curb broad crime rates.
This completely dismisses the part of the discussion where I said that certain measures can be effective in making mass shootings like Sandy Hook less common, or where CTRS indicates he could support some measures as "sensible restrictions".
|
|
| | | 1678 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 18:05
|
Response to post (Ironically 1 666) and I am an atheist
Bili reduxed by Nerve
I think if we worked to limit gun ownership, particularly hand guns, on a national scale, we would see significant progress in allowing fascism to increase over the scale of a generation.
And I think that objective is something worth stopping.
It's those with Children who will give up their freedom fastest as a trade off for perceived tranquility.
My non Republican perspective Bili...
|
|
| | | 1679 | walk
ID: 41019299
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 11:43
|
+ 1 for 1-666 (atheist, too). And, it's not just crime/homicides that could/would be impacted, but gun-related accidents and suicides. It's pretty easy to inflict a lot of (unintentional) harm with a handgun.
|
|
| | | 1680 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 12:03
|
Nerve- please expound on how the reduction in 9-millimeters and revolvers will impact the rise in fascism in the United States. Please avoid tired slippery slope arguments.
|
|
| | | 1681 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 12:11
|
And here is the where the debate turns to slippery slope arguments. The current national debate is mostly framed around military style guns. Even some good thoughts on that end are shot down by the likes of LaPierre. He'll frame it around, "first its these guns, next is t hose guns, finally we have nothing."
And here we already have the next. Why handguns as opposed to shot guns or rifles or semi-automatic/automatic or any other style of gun or type of gun?
A handgun ban was already shot down in Chicago by SCOTUS.
Again, its not the gun that is the problem but the people using them. Drifting into this territory is exactly what sidetracks good discussion on gun control (which I am all for). Because this is now suddenly a discussion on gun bans (which I am against and nothing anybody here says will change that. Just like nothing I and others who agree with me will change your minds on banning guns).
The best way to handle gun violence is to deal with the people committing the violence, not the tool they are using.
|
|
| | | 1682 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 12:32
|
Who said anything about bans? If you can justify legitimate use and need of a handgun, including targets, register the gun and have at it.
|
|
| | | 1683 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 14:58
|
justify legitimate use and need of a handgun
Sounds like a ban to me where we're told, "you can't have it unless...." then its on us to prove it. That is a ban.
'I want one.' That's all the legitimate use/need should be. The exception should be for people who can't have one. Not the other way around.
|
|
| | | 1684 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 15:03
|
One? Sure. I'd agree with that.
|
|
| | | 1685 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 15:51
|
Where is the magical line between reasonable and unreasonable when it comes to the number of guns that a person owns? Despite what movies would have you believe, using more than one at a time in impractical. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to own as many guns as they want?
|
|
| | | 1686 | Tree
ID: 1830412
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 15:52
|
i'm all for that as well.
one. and done.
|
|
| | | 1687 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 16:11
|
My wife's uncle has well over 200. I see no problem with that.
|
|
| | | 1688 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 16:49
|
Before people run with this whole, "one" gun concept, I'll just state I was using it in a more generic connotative way than as denotative counting number. I have no problem with people wanting more than 1 gun.
|
|
| | | 1689 | Tree
ID: 1830412
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 16:57
|
Sounds like a ban to me where we're told, "you can't have it unless...."
do you consider cars to be something that is banned? because you can't have a car unless...
what about voting? you're not allowed to vote unless....
|
|
| | | 1690 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 17:28
|
Are gun collectors (or people that own multiple firearms) a cause of gun violence in this country? I would bet most who commit gun violence only own one (illegal) gun.
I do not see any point in limiting the amount of firearms a law abiding person can own. What problem does it solve? Where is the data that says gun collectors are a problem?
Again when you guys go down these prohibition like paths it makes me doubt your motives and makes gun owners much more resolute in fighting against any regulation.
|
|
| | | 1691 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 34019238
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 17:32
|
In some good news today... the majority now support marijuana legalization.
Marijuana legalization...now there is something that will help decline gun violence. A multi-billion dollar illegal industry disappearing would certainly put a lot of violent criminals out of business. It is just a matter of time before marijuana is legal and the billion dollar industry is in the hands of the law abiding instead of cartels and criminals.
|
|
| | | 1692 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 17:38
|
I don't want to limit the number of guns. My grandpa had a walk-in safe full of hundreds of guns, including the gun my great- great uncle used to murder 22 men.
I want every gun linked to a name, I want every stolen gun reported, and I want penalties if your gun is found to have been used in a crime.
As conservatives say - i want accountability and personal responsibility. How can you be against that?
|
|
| | | 1693 | Tree
ID: 2838418
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 19:08
|
Are gun collectors (or people that own multiple firearms) a cause of gun violence in this country?
actually, mass killings are probably done by those who own, or have access to, multiple weapons.
but what bili said in 1692 is the point that most of us are trying to make -
I want every gun linked to a name, I want every stolen gun reported, and I want penalties if your gun is found to have been used in a crime.
As conservatives say - i want accountability and personal responsibility. How can you be against that?
i'd love Bili's question to get a thoughtful answer.
|
|
| | | 1694 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 23:00
|
At this point I can't support that sort of legislation. First I do not trust the government enough to not take the next step.
I do not believe it would have meaningful effect on gun violence. There are simply too many unregistered firearms in private hands of people who would oppose this sort of legislation. Many (MANY) millions of guns would not be registered. Gun war = drug war...it seems like we are making progress in the drug war (ending it)...seems like we are trying to go to war with another inanimate object that we can't possibly defeat. Waste of money and resources that will likely have very little effect on homicide and violent crime. Again you guys underestimate criminals...they will access and use firearms if that is their intent...far better off spending the money on filling the empty pot dealer prison cots with violent criminal offenders.
|
|
| | | 1695 | Boldwin
ID: 13330423
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 01:20
|
Obama will likely sign a UN gun control treaty in the near future despite the fact that he does not have the legal authority to do so. Treaties legally need a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify.
This is the soft creeping fascism that gloablists use for example with Agenda 21. They will act as if Obama's signature were binding and American gun laws were now governed by the UN. Rarely will this administration and future administrations act as if the law on ratification mattered.
|
|
| | | 1696 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 01:53
|
post 1694 says "meh. why bother?"
post 1695 says "cuckoo. cuckoo."
both accomplish the same thing. nothing.
|
|
| | | 1697 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 08:23
|
The notion of not trusting government to not take the next step fails to take the recent changes I gun laws into consideration. The 2nd A was incorporated into when SCOTUS decided McDonald. What next step? The right to bear arms is is never going away unless the culture changes enough to bring about the repeal of the 2nd. And if that's what you're worried about, there's nothing about preventing a national gun registry today could curb that imaginary cultural shift decades or centuries from now.
I think a gun registry is a sensible reform that will make other laws already on the books much easier to enforce and give law enforcement a better chance to solve a lot of viloent crimes.
|
|
| | | 1698 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 09:41
|
I would say your universal registry accomplishes the same thing...nothing.
Well I guess it would accomplish spending billions of dollars entering another unwinnable war.
|
|
| | | 1699 | biliruben
ID: 21841115
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 09:43
|
What war? We aren't suggesting a war, just an accounting.
|
|
| | | 1700 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 09:54
|
Well that's really silly. I can think of plenty that it would accomplish. And I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find very many experienced law enforcement investigators who would agree that a registry would serve no value in solving many crimes.
Really the notion is absurd and is the kind of ignorant obstruction the gun debate runs into at every turn.
Who would ever claim that registering cars "accomplishes nothing"?
|
|
| | | 1701 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 10:17
|
Mith...the point is very few weapons used in crime would ever be registered. There are approximately 310 million unregistered firearms in this country. As soon as registration takes effect...a significant portion of these weapons would go underground and feed an expanded firearm black market. Criminals are literally sitting on millions of firearms...enough to fuel the black market for centuries.
How would a universal registry have stopped any of the recent mass shooters? How would it stop criminal access to firearms? It might change criminal access but it certainly would not meaningfully prevent access.
|
|
| | | 1702 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 10:27
|
Finally, a study not just of gun violence in ea state, but one where guns sold in a state and used violently elsewhere, are counted.
link
Illinois, with its strict gun laws, ranks near the bottom. Indiana, with its easy access, ranks near the top. Precisely, what many of us have been saying, re the gun cultures claims of Chicago proving that gun laws dont work. They DO work. Its Indiana's LAX laws, that dont work.
|
|
| | | 1703 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 10:32
|
As a higher percentage of firearms in existence become registered the more effective the registry will be in helping to solve crimes. It creates a trail that can be used in a number of different ways to assist investigations.
How would a universal registry have stopped any of the recent mass shooters?
This is the kind of specious and obstructive argument I mentioned earlier. The notion of inability to have "stopped any of the recent mass shooters" as a reasonable argument is an insult to my intelligence - as if that's the standard we should measure every legal gun restriction against. Come on CTRS, I expect a lot better than that.
|
|
| | | 1704 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 10:55
|
How would a universal registry have stopped any of the recent mass shooters?
Again, I ask: Is that our goal? Our only goal? Because such a question, as MITH notes, isn't intended to solve anything. Will a universal registration help solve crimes and lower the homicide rate? Almost certainly. We shouldn't avoid it simply because it also doesn't solve a problem it isn't intended to solve.
|
|
| | | 1705 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 11:07
|
That's why I think it will take a generation for us to see significant impact.
Weapons degrade, especially those cheap handguns used in a majority of crimes. If you are working the drug trade, or sticking people up, your priorities don't probably lean towards cleaning and maintaining your 9-mil.
As guns are lost through solved crimes, buy-backs, and time, the registry becomes more and more effective.
|
|
| | | 1706 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 11:07
|
The least it would do would be to teach owners to treat their unregistered guns with more respect. ;)
|
|
| | | 1707 | Boldwin
ID: 28358512
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 15:05
|
We shouldn't avoid it simply because it also doesn't solve a problem it isn't intended to solve. - PD
And we shouldn't do it just because people have been driven into hysteria. When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly. - Glenn Reynolds
|
|
| | | 1708 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 17:37
|
NO. What they are really saying is; this moment only exists because we have failed to act previously, following earlier incidents. Dont let another incident occur, due to our inaction now.
|
|
| | | 1709 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 18:26
|
Funny, how dependent the Right has been on just this sort of hysteria in the recent past, now trying to paint the other side as using it.
You'd think they would show more remorse about it.
|
|
| | | 1710 | Boldwin
ID: 28358512
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 19:31
|
Humor me. What hysteria?
|
|
| | | 1711 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 21:25
|
There's a thousand of them.
Death camps! National Debt! Their gonna confiscate all our guns (I see these events as bringing the nation in-focus, but opinions clearly vary)! Hyper-inflation! Deflation!! Saddam has WMDs!!!! And on and on and on...
|
|
| | | 1712 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 21:47
|
There's an open war on Christmas you know...
|
|
| | | 1713 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 22:34
|
And on marriage. Christians, in particular, seem to be targeted just because of their beliefs in this country.
|
|
| | | 1714 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Sat, Apr 06, 2013, 02:48
|
the patriot act. talk about acting on hysteria.
|
|
| | | 1715 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 14:51
|
12 wounded and 4 airlifted in critical condition after stabbing in Houston, Tx college.
I think we should start looking at these simply as mass violence and really starting looking at the perpetrators, not the tools they used. Thankfully nobody is dead (yet...4 in critical condition).
The conversation about these mass acts of violence really needs to focus on people.
|
|
| | | 1716 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:02
|
loking at the perpetrators, not the tools they used. Thankfully nobody is dead (yet...4 in critical condition).
I'm sorry but this is very foolish. How many would likely not be dead (yet) if the suspect had a gun in stead of a knife?
Thank goodness he used that particular "tool" instead of a gun!
|
|
| | | 1717 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:11
|
my first reaction was "jeez, another one."
my second? "thank God he had a knife, and not a gun."
this is the difference here Khahan - this perp used a knife. if he used a gun, it would have been much, much worse.
|
|
| | | 1718 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:14
|
Also
...and really starting looking at the perpetrators
I don't understand what this means. Are you under the impression that we haven't taken a close look at people like Adam Lanza and James Holmes?
|
|
| | | 1719 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:27
|
How many would likely not be dead (yet)
Impossible to say, MITH. Not going to sit here and play 'what if' all day with possible scenarios. Likely there would be some deaths if there was a gun? You would think.
But you'd also think with a guy swinging a knife and slicing people up there would be death's too.
Unfortunately because some people just can't let go of an agenda in these discussions, we'll never truly get to the root cause - bad people.
Yes, I support background checks. I support licensing. I support mandatory training. Sarge has laid out some ideas for very good programs above which I've always agreed with. But I also believe if we outlawed guns and actually got them out of criminals hands, we'd see the mass acts of violence just with a different tool of choice.
And as the disarmed citizenry of another country has shown us, the results are not always any less fortunate than crazies with guns.
|
|
| | | 1720 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:30
|
Are you under the impression that we haven't taken a close look at people like Adam Lanza and James Holmes?
Oh I'm sure doctors and attorneys and courts have looked at them. But how we deal with them, what sets them off, what makes them tick - what have lawmakers done with that information? What discussions are there about reforming mental health treatment? This thread is a great example. Scroll back and you'll find the subject broached a few times. You'll see the start of some decent discussion. You'll then see that discussion destroyed by bringing it right back to guns.
|
|
| | | 1721 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:33
|
Impossible to say, MITH.
Here's what is not impossible to say Khahan:
It certainly would not have been any better if the suspect had a gun. I am absolutely certain that you can take that particular "what if" to the bank all day long.
Unfortunately because some people just can't let go of an agenda in these discussions
Funny, that's exactly what I thought when I read #1715.
But I also believe if we outlawed guns blahblahblah
I agree. Big deal. I'm still glad this guy didn't have a gun.
|
|
| | | 1722 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 15:38
|
Agree, tree.
There really should be a basic set of people who should be looked at more closely (and yes, should not have access to guns which would make things like this much worse). The problem is that those like the NRA feel it is far more important not to be inconvenienced than it is about keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
I continue to insist that one of the best and most recent advanced we have had against the problem of mental health disorders is Obamacare, which substantially increased coverage in this area. While I'm certain that the fact that those who consider themselves "pro-gun" are also anti-Obamacare has little to no overlap because of the mental health issue, it is a problem that those on that side of the issue have offered no substantive policy in the area and insist that Obamacare be repealed, in whole, which would only make this problem worse.
|
|
| | | 1723 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:06
|
The problem is that those like the NRA feel it is far more important not to be inconvenienced than it is about keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
this.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1725 | GO
ID: 120252515
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:14
|
You never hear stories about 50 people killed by a guy with a knife. Its a very different story if he had a gun. MITH and Tree are right, and this was the perfect illustration of that. That's why its topical, not an agenda.
|
|
| | | 1726 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:33
|
I'm still glad this guy didn't have a gun.
Yes, this guy in particular I agree - I'm glad he didnt' have a gun. I put him in the same category has Lanza & Holmes as far as his actions go.
Now the questions should be - what was the mental competency of this guy? Were there any signs of mental instability? If so, what was being done about it?
Funny, we're dealing with the same questions as a mass shooting. We're dealing with the same kind of violent attack as the mass shooting. We're dealing with the same everything except the death of people as a mass shooting. Yet all anybody wants to do is talk about the lack of deaths.
Does nobody want to talk about person involved in the stabbing? What caused it? What led to it? What possible measures can be done to prevent it so next time there aren't a few people killed?
You eliminate or restrict guns, you still have crazies going unchecked. That to me is a bigger problem than the tool those crazies use. To me, the gun is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the mental state and decision making process of people.
Make the conversation about the problem, not the symptom. I don't deny guns inherently have more wide ranging lethal capabilities. I'm not trying to argue that. Never have, never will. I am arguing to not downplay the lethal capabilities of other weapons just because they aren't as deadly as guns. And I am arguing that the best results we can hope for would come if we changed our attention to the root of the problem...which is not guns, but mental health.
Do you disagree with any of that?
|
|
| | | 1727 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:34
|
this most curious thing of the last dozen or so posts is Khahan's post initiating the conversation.
it baffles me that anyone could think this about anything OTHER than the weapon of choice, and how dramatically it illustrates what happens when you take a gun out of someone's hands.
imagine if Adam Lanza was armed with only a knife.
|
|
| | | 1728 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:42
|
Funny, we're dealing with the same questions as a mass shooting. We're dealing with the same kind of violent attack as the mass shooting. We're dealing with the same everything except the death of people as a mass shooting. Yet all anybody wants to do is talk about the lack of deaths.
Is this a trick question? Yes of course the first thing - with Centennial and Sandy Hook still so fresh in our memory - that just about anyone will think is to thank their god or whatever hat no one died (at least yet). And the next thing they'll naturally do is think about exactly what made this time different.
And you somehow find fault with this?
Does nobody want to talk about person involved in the stabbing? What caused it? What led to it? What possible measures can be done to prevent it so next time there aren't a few people killed?
The incident is hours old. I guarantee you the media will flesh out those very questions and then news media haters far and wide will respond by chastising the news media for "glorifying" the attacker (whom, I'll again note, we would be calling a "killer" if he had a gun).
You eliminate or restrict guns, you still have crazies going unchecked. That to me is a bigger problem than the tool those crazies use. To me, the gun is a symptom of the problem.
To me, there are two problems (mental health and access to guns). The scope of what we can do to correct each is limited in different ways. Why not try to deal with both problems?
|
|
| | | 1729 | Boldwin
ID: 3231898
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:45
|
Weapon of choice...considering that a gun is not the tool most often used to kill someone, just what would the weapon of choice be?
|
|
| | | 1730 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:49
|
In a lot of places minors cant buy spray paint cans. Spray paint cans are a tool. They never did anything to hurt anyone, they never damaged anyone's property. But we restrict access to them because young people are known to use them to nefarious ends.
On Halloween a lot of supermarkets won't sell eggs and toilet paper to minors. These items are simple, innocent everyday household things we all use. But we sometimes restrict access to them because some people sometimes use them to cause trouble.
How come we demonize these products for the actions of people who do bad things? Shouldn't we address the root problem? Aren't Charmin and Krylon really just the "symptoms"?
|
|
| | | 1731 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 16:52
|
1729, is inaccurate in its claim.
Guns ARE, the predominant weapon of choice, for homicides:
link
|
|
| | | 1732 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:00
|
That's only because murderers are, by and large, stupid.
Just run someone over, and as long as you did it while sober, and stayed and laughed at the corpse (no hit and run), you will almost always get off with a traffic ticket, tops.
Cars are my weapon of choice. I'm smart that way.
|
|
| | | 1733 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:01
|
considering that a gun is not the tool most often used to kill someone, just what would the weapon of choice be?
back this up with data. do it. show us the stats.
i want to see your source, because there is irrefutable evidence that guns are, without question, the took most often used to when one person opts to kill another.
|
|
| | | 1734 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:04
|
meh. never mind. i'm sure your source is that silly piece in Breitbart.
here's actually date, not a manipulate "news" article used to fool people like you.
Firearms are used in 68 percent of all homicides.
that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for something else.
|
|
| | | 1735 | Boldwin
ID: 3231898
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:14
|
How many are killed by assault rifle and how many by assault hammer?
|
|
| | | 1736 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:18
|
(A) assault rifles are not the only types of firearms out there. You said GUNS.
(B) I provided a link, to a chart, listing at 5 yr intervals, the various weapons used. Hammers, would come under OTHER.
|
|
| | | 1737 | Boldwin
ID: 3231898
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:22
|
And assault rifle would be a subset of rifle.
|
|
| | | 1738 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:25
|
<>How many are killed by assault rifle and how many by assault hammer?
the answer is 453 to 647. You, however, in post 1729, said "guns". you did not say "assault rifles", and even if you had, it's not relevant to the larger conversation.
oh, and i was right. like many others, Baldwin was made to look foolish by this article.
the headline is correct. the point is very much misleading and dishonest, and like a sheep, Baldwin allowed himself to be dragged along.
i don't expect you to be concerned with the truth or honesty now, as it's not concerned you much in the recent past.
|
|
| | | 1739 | Boldwin
ID: 3231898
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:35
|
I got the meme wording wrong. So shoot me.
|
|
| | | 1740 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:41
|
And assault rifle would be a subset of rifle.
Actually they're carbines, smart guy. And if you knew what you were talking about in your attempted smugness on this topic, you'd know that they're pretty much already illegal for the average consumer and that you're on record in support of that status.
Regarding Assault Weapons, a term you've frequently said you hate for its misnomer status out of one side your mouth while more often casually using (and reliably botching) out of the other, there is no national effort to ban or limit them, as the Dems have already omitted any such language from the forthcoming firearms legislation that some 1/3 of Senate Republicans have vowed to obstruct without having even seen it yet.
|
|
| | | 1741 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:44
|
In other words, your post 1735 is even more pointless than usual, Mr. Superstar.
|
|
| | | 1742 | Tree
ID: 53320910
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:56
|
I got the meme wording wrong. So shoot me.
it's not an issue of getting the wording wrong. it's changing the ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION.
it's what many of your news outlets do - Breitbart, Keefe, Crowder. they lie and deceive and mislead. and you fall for it every time, because you want so badly to believe.
to your credit, you did give A Baldwinian Mea Culpa, which are few and far between.
that being said, post 1729 is absolutely wrong, and your acknowledgment in 1739 shows this.
so far, then, your posts in this recent discussion can be dismissed. now, what's your point here?
|
|
| | | 1743 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 17:57
|
Which brings me to why Khahan and other supposed sensible moderate conservatives are so so so frustrating on this issue.
These people who are found of sounding reasonable by saying things like Yes, I support background checks. I support licensing etc., alway seem to follow that up with something like; But I also believe if we outlawed guns and blahblahblahblah
This is maddening! In the past 2 years the Supreme Court has awarded gun rights supporters stronger guarantees to the right to bear arms than they have ever enjoyed in the entire history of this country - and certainly moreso than was even intended by the founding fathers.
No one is going to outlaw guns! There is not even an assault weapons ban on the table in congress. So what we are down to are basically what kinds of measures like more universal background checks and registration and licensing and limiting magazine capacity can remain on the table.
But the supposed reasonable moderate wont have that discussion after he starts a conversation about a knife attack in a thread about gun control and wags his finger at the first person who says he's thankful the suspect didn't have a gun, before treating us all to his reason for why we shouldn't ban guns.
And he says the problem with the discussion is that 2 seconds after the suspect is in handcuffs, no one has psychoanalyzed him yet.
|
|
| | | 1744 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 18:48
|
For the record, I suspect that Breitbart writer knows as little about assault weapons and how they are classified as Boldwin.
The linked FBI page lists different firearm categories as handguns, rifles, shotguns and "Other guns or type not stated".
Most firearms that qualify as "assault weapons" are technically not rifles but carbines. Obviously most people aren't familiar with that term and would consider them to be types of rifles. But these reports come from data provided by law enforcement, who are much more likely to classify a Bushmaster .223 into the most technically applicable column. Without knowing more about their definitions and standards for datagathering, we can't be sure but I suspect that information isn't very reliable in it's support for the writers point.
Of course, the point itself is wholly mooty anyway, since the bugaboo of banning assault weapons has been slain by moderate Democrats in the US Senate. Interesting how the moderates on that side of the aisle did their part in face planting the more extreme kin while the supposed "moderates" on the other side can even muster believable lip service while their crazy siblings say vow that any and every measure is dead on arrival.
On behalf of Sandy Hook Elementary; gee, thanks.
|
|
| | | 1745 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 20:31
|
Actually they're carbines, smart guy. And if you knew what you were talking about in your attempted smugness on this topic, you'd know that they're pretty much already illegal for the average consumer and that you're on record in support of that status. - MITH
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and it is not currently illegal, altho every Dem gun-grabbing bill I've ever heard of would ban them based on appearance.
It is the most popular because it is extremely customizable.
Do entertain me tho. Explain why the word carbine is so important to you.
And you have never seen, nor will you ever see me approve of banning them.
|
|
| | | 1746 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 21:12
|
altho every Dem gun-grabbing bill I've ever heard of would ban them based on appearance.
unnecessary, inaccurate, partisan vitriol. Stop it Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 1747 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 21:22
|
Exactly what is going on. Empowering liberal tyrant wannabees by disarming their future victims.
|
|
| | | 1748 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 21:25
|
There are no provisos within current federal Legislation, to ban assault weapons. You know this. MITH pointed it out above. Yet you continue to deliberately LIE about it.
Go pray for forgiveness. No God I am aware of, condones blatant and deliberate misrepresentations.
|
|
| | | 1749 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 21:26
|
every Dem gun-grabbing bill I've ever heard of would ban them based on appearance.
This is fantasy.
Explain why the word carbine is so important
Well for one, it means that a lot of law enforcement personnel might know better than to classify an AR-15 or similar weapon as a rifle, calling into question the entire premise of the Breitbart article you site (which, as I said is moot anyway since the AWB won't be part of the gun proposal in congress).
|
|
| | | 1750 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 22:00
|
You and Sarge, get together and get your story straight, between the two of you.
While you are at it, please work up an excuse for blathering on about barrel length as if it was a big deal.
|
|
| | | 1751 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 22:23
|
story is straight...you lied...again. Got caught...again. Deflected...again.
|
|
| | | 1752 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 22:28
|
MITH tells me they're already illegal and that I approved of making them illegal, and Sarge tells me they aren't trying to outlaw them.
|
|
| | | 1753 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 22:28
|
|
|
| | | 1754 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 22:46
|
from MITH in 1743 B,,,for your clarification,
No one is going to outlaw guns! There is not even an assault weapons ban on the table in congress.
|
|
| | | 1755 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:04
|
To me, there are two problems (mental health and access to guns). The scope of what we can do to correct each is limited in different ways. Why not try to deal with both problems?
This I agree with. I just think that the one problem so greatly overshadows the other problem that we need to pull back a bit and redirect our focus.
|
|
| | | 1756 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:04
|
I am well aware even Harry Reid wasn't willing to go back on his word to the NRA.
Nevertheless, there isn't anyone who isn't perfectly aware that you are moving heaven and earth in your efforts to infringe on the second amendment in any way possible.
|
|
| | | 1757 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:08
|
The only reason "There are no provisos within current federal Legislation, to ban assault weapons." is because they knew they could not muster the votes at this time and it would have killed all of the proposed gun regulations had they included the ban. It was in the original proposal but was removed.
|
|
| | | 1758 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:21
|
1752 - No dumdum Mith is telling you assault weapons and assault rifles aren't the same thing. Assault rifles are what the military issues soldiers. Assault weapon is a term invented by congress to define weapons with somewhat arbitrary characteristics.
Assault rifles are already mostly prohibited from sale to average consumers - something you have said you agree with - right in this very thread if I'm not mistaken.
Assault weapon is a term you've previously chided other board members for using, with the accusation that real gun rights supporters wouldn't even use the phrase. Would a real gun rights supporter intend to use the phrase but mistakenly refer to a much more dangerous weapon that even they agree doesnt belong in tbe average Joe's hands? LAUGH OUT LOUD
If you were posting about a topic you even bothered keeping up with, you know that last month Senate Dems killed any clause which includes a ban on assault weapons from being included in the coming gun bill. But you don't know what you're talking about so we have yet another pointless discussion on gun control.
Next week when you're interrupting the next discussion in this thread to accuse libruls of grabbing handguns and banning "assault rifles" because you've once again forgotten everything you know about gun control except for who you're supposed to hate (let's be honest, the only thing you really care about) we can do all this again, Superstar.
|
|
| | | 1759 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:35
|
they knew they could not muster the votes
Diane Feinstein proposed the ban and it never made it out of committee. It didn't even come close. There are plenty of Midwestern Dens who know they wouldn't get through their next election if they supported an AWB. There are others who know an AWB is pointless garbage and stand on principles. Others would be fine with it except that they know its a dealbreaker for too many other senators and are focused on the priorities of passing sensible legislation. And there are a handful of Feinsteins, who were handily beaten out by Dems in all of the previously mentioned camps.
Like I said, the moderate Dems did their job and pushed out the more extreme positions to try to arrive at a more sensible bill. Where are the moderate Republicans to slap the extremists who vow to filibuster any gun bill before they even read it? Where are their moderate constituents?
What a bunch of pathetic cowards.
|
|
| | | 1760 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:39
|
you are moving heaven and earth in your efforts to infringe on the second amendment in any way possible.
It's as if your brain is made of sand and mortar.
|
|
| | | 1761 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:51
|
Mith...1759...what??? Rewriting history. The AWB came out of the Biden/Obama gun violence committee and certainly was in the original legislation proposed by the PRESIDENT. See post 1284.
The AWB ban was not removed because it was too extreme...it was only removed to protect democratic senate seats.
|
|
| | | 1762 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 23:56
|
Hypothetical questions...I am not looking for arguments why the hypothetical questions are wrong...looking for what we do next if the below scenarios proved true in the future.
Lets say universal background checks are implemented, large magazines banned, few years from now "assault weapons" are banned, universal registration, gun owner licensing. Then the next mass shooting occurs...another mental defective kills 50 kids using handguns and a shotgun ...psycho passed background checks/registration or acquired guns illegally. What is the next step?
Next scenario...universal background checks are implemented, large magazines banned, "assault weapons" banned, universal registration, gun owner licensing. Firearm homicide rates are mostly unchanged...criminals still have guns and are using them at the same rates or greater rates. What is the next step?
|
|
| | | 1763 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:08
|
Exactly where did I rewrite anything? The president is not a legislator. His call for renewing the ban - as disappointing as it was - was irrelevant. And nothing I said is contray to that.
And I won't give you an argument for why your questions are wrong, just point out that they indicate a level of paranoia that no reasonable person could possibly get through.
What do you mean what's next? I guess a failed attempt to amend the constitution. So, effectively nothing, which you obviously cannot believe because you're clinically paranoid.
|
|
| | | 1764 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:10
|
BTW the current betting line has all of the new proposed regulations failing to get through the Senate.
It makes me laugh when people blame the NRA. The democrats control the Senate...if they believe in the bill...pass the bill. The NRA does not get to cast one vote in the Senate...man up and vote for whatever you think is right.
|
|
| | | 1765 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:11
|
Sorry, I mean an army of brownshirts or jackboots or whatever fancy sounding word boldwin uses for the black union muslim liberal gay thugs Obama is going to send to your house to take your guns and rape your dog.
|
|
| | | 1766 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:14
|
democrats control the Senate...if they believe in the bill...pass the bill.
Wow. Are you really so ignorant as to not understand how asinine that is or are you just being obtuse?
|
|
| | | 1767 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:15
|
Exactly who in the Senate do you think is preventing them from manning up and having a vote? The Dems want nothing more.
|
|
| | | 1768 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:17
|
"Exactly where did I rewrite anything?"
"Diane Feinstein proposed the ban and it never made it out of committee. It didn't even come close."
President Obama proposed a renewed assault weapon ban. Are you trying to tell me the executive branch of our government is inconsequential? President Obama is not the leader of the democratic party? President Obama and the Biden committee are exactly who proposed the legislation.
If the democrats did not fear losing seats the AWB would certainly be making its way through the Senate. It was not the more moderate leadership that removed the ban...more fearful maybe.
|
|
| | | 1769 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:22
|
As for the hypothetical questions...they are very legitimate questions and very likely we will face these exact questions in the future.
Lets say universal background checks are implemented, large magazines banned, few years from now "assault weapons" are banned, universal registration, gun owner licensing. Then the next mass shooting occurs...another mental defective kills 50 kids using handguns and a shotgun ...psycho passed background checks/registration or acquired guns illegally. What is the next step?
Next scenario...universal background checks are implemented, large magazines banned, "assault weapons" banned, universal registration, gun owner licensing. Firearm homicide rates are mostly unchanged...criminals still have guns and are using them at the same rates or greater rates. What is the next step?
The answer could be...we have passed all of the gun regulations needed...we need to attack these problems from another angle. There are many possible answers. Just looking for real answers.
|
|
| | | 1770 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:24
|
You are wrong if you think the Democratic Senators are currently chomping on the bit to vote for new gun regulations. Some certainly are...but not enough to pass the bill.
|
|
| | | 1771 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:34
|
Assault rifles are already mostly prohibited from sale to average consumers - something you have said you agree with - right in this very thread if I'm not mistaken.
Assault rifle is a completely meaningless term. It means whatever liberals want it to mean. The only distinction with any merit is the distinction between full auto and semi-auto.
Full auto is the only rifle I have reluctantly agreed might not damage the 2nd amendment to ban.
For the record, best I can tell the only difference between a rifle and a carbine is that a carbine is a rifle with a barrel shorter than 15 inches. Absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the 2nd amendment or having anything to do with safety or lethality. Might as well as ban guns solely because they are painted black...wait...they actually wanna do that again.
|
|
| | | 1772 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 00:58
|
Are you trying to tell me the executive branch of our government is inconsequential?
I'm talking about the actual legislative proposal. The things that actually become bills and then become laws. Obama payed minimal lip service to the AWB (unlike the Recovery Act or the Affordable Care Act, for example) and then dropped it.
It was proposed as actual legislation by Feinstein and died a quick death in committee, without even a passing lamentation from the White House. Yes, his proposal or suggestion or whatever you care to call it was completely inconsequential. It went away. It's done. Gone. Couldn't possibly be more inconsequential.
If the democrats did not fear losing seats the AWB would certainly be making its way through the Senate.
We could take a harder look at which senators might implicitly support a ban and which would oppose and which would go along either way but I'm pretty sure you're much more concerned with simply hating Democrats in general so I don't see the point.
The hypotheticals are pointless because the Supreme Court has guaranteed that we cannot get to those places without an amendment - something that could not conceivably happen for decades or longer. This is why you're paranoid. Your guns are safer than they ever have been in history. Safer than even the FFs ever intended them to be.
But as long as there is even one member of congress who disagrees with the way you see things, you'll run around like your hair is on fire screaming about slippery slopes, effectively preventing any sensible changes to our gun laws that might become necessary.
And you are wrong if you think a simple majority in the current Senate is enough for the Democrats to even have a vote. If you're so sure they won't pass it, why not put the ball in their court and let them have at it? Why the filibuster? You are aware the Republicans vowed to filibuster any bill - even though they haven't seen it yet, right? You seem to think you have your finger on the pulse of the senate on this issue - are you even aware of how the filibuster has been abused by the GOP in the past two congresses? Because demanding that they just vote on it sure indicates you're pretty clueless.
|
|
| | | 1773 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 01:07
|
Assault rifle is a completely meaningless term.
BZZZZZT
Again, assault rifle is a military term that refers to carbines issued to soldiers. Depending on the model, they are most typically fully auto and often with optional burst settings, which most experienced soldiers will tell you is far more effective/deadly than just fully auto..
Assault weapon as in "assault weapons ban" is a legislative term invented by congress.
Gun rights advocates who know what they're talking about frequently use this distinction to tell gun control supporters that they don't know what they're talking about. /Irony
|
|
| | | 1774 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 01:13
|
Now go look it up, realize I'm right and you're wrong and stfu about it until next week when you forget again and come here crying that Obama wants to ban assault rifles.
|
|
| | | 1775 | Boldwin
ID: 8324919
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 09:10
|
The last assault weapon ban banned identical weapons with the only difference being pistol grips, color, barrel length, but otherwise identical characteristics. Liberals don't care about the characteristics. All they care about is getting the camel's nose of gun banning under the tent for starters.
|
|
| | | 1776 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 10:06
|
Liberals don't care about the characteristics. All they care about is getting the camel's nose
Am I a liberal? See posts 903, 904, 909, 1313, 1371, 1412, 1574, 1582, 1585 and 1654.
|
|
| | | 1777 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 10:10
|
The last assault weapon ban banned identical weapons with the only difference being pistol grips, color, barrel length, but otherwise identical characteristics.
It is simply amazing how consistently wrong you are. The exact opposite of this statement is true.
Things like pistol grips, color and barrel length are characteristics that assault rifles and assault weapons have in common, not distinguish them!
Absolutely astonishing.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1779 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 10:48
|
Shooting Illustrated decrying the news media's confusion over assault weapons and assault rifles
Guns and Ammo But wait, isn’t an “assault weapon” the same thing as an “assault rifle”? Actually, no they are not. And that is the second term we will take a look at: the assault rifle.
What, exactly, is an “assault rifle”? You can Google it if you want. I did and I found that Google defines an assault rifle as a “rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.” Now, I don’t know what authority Google has to define this, so let’s go further with Merriam Webster’s version which adds that assault rifles can “switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire”. It’s important to note the one crucial word included in both definitions: automatic. Automatic means that with one trigger pull, multiple rounds are fired. With an automatic rifle you could, conceivably, empty an entire magazine with a single trigger pull. This attribute also puts these types of rifles in the category of “machine guns”. Wikipedia An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.
In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles.
The assault weapons ban did not further restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[8]
In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term assault rifle. The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention,[9] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.[10] The Blaze “Make a promise to yourself that you will stop calling rifles ‘assault weapons.’”
That’s what Glenn Beck said on his morning radio show Thursday as he discussed AR-15s. But why? Is an AR-15 not an assault rifle? Does the “AR” in AR-15 not stand for “assault rifle”? Enough yet?
|
|
| | | 1780 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 13:04
|
Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey announce plan to expand background checks.
A conservative Dem from WV and a former Club for Growth head coming together on this makes it seem like there could be some forward motion on this small portion of the debate.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1783 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 14:44
|
You mean you mostly agree with the majority of the law enforcement officers who responded to that poll.
Generally I don't doubt that a majority of police officers feel that way, most cops are right-leaning social conservatives with an authoritarian bent. But posting a poll at a website is not a reliable way to get a representative sampling.
|
|
| | | 1784 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 14:48
|
"More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility."
"Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.
In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.
Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.
The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard."
|
|
| | | 1786 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 15:05
|
|
|
| | | 1787 | boikin
ID: 430211013
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 16:38
|
You should go read the script to the original Reddawn it pretty much realization of the comic...So even in Hollywood they believes this to be true.
|
|
| | | 1788 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 17:38
|
I see that the survey referenced in #1781 indicates that 61% of the responders would refuse to enforce the law if they were chief or sheriff. This is pretty troubling to me, frankly.
|
|
| | | 1790 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 18:32
|
I saw that. Another reason to take the thing with a hefty mound of salt.
I don't believe for a second that 61% of a representative group of American police officers would refuse to enforce a law they disagree with.
Though I do think it funny that this comes from the same group that tells us from the other side of their mouth that the violence problem stems from law enforcement officials who fail to enforce the law. I mean if you really believe that - and you also believe these results, then maybe the problem is that we just have really terrible cops. /sarcasm
Further, exactly what qualifies as a verified law enforcement professional? Does it include corrections officers? Bail bondsmen? Private security agents? Guards at private correctional facilities? Retirees?
But I'll stick with 1783 as the main reason to be skeptical. Unreasonably paranoid gun rights supporters are far more likely to respond to a poll like this than anyone else. Does anyone really doubt the likelihood that a much higher percentage of respondents are those types than actually exist in the ranks of America's police forces?
It's been amateur hour from the right side of this discussion since this thread began.
|
|
| | | 1791 | Tree
ID: 223401013
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 18:40
|
1780 - someone i know on Facebook just called Pat Toomey a RINO. PAT TOOMEY?!?!? are you serious...
|
|
| | | 1792 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 20:41
|
1790: I've had arguments today with people who insist, like a soldier disobeying an illegal order, that not following the law an officer believes was unconstitutional is a good thing. Idiots. Its all self-fulfilling, for one thing. Soldiers are allowed to disobey an illegal order, because an illegal order is one that forces the soldier to commit a crime. Declining to enforce a law isn't forcing an officer to commit a crime by definition (not to mention that asking SCOTUS to weigh in on the constitutionality of each law should raise some clear problems on its own!).
|
|
| | | 1793 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 553431023
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 00:44
|
Sad...pick out one of the more inconsequential questions in the poll. Read the PDF...80% of those polled are active duty LEOs. The boots on the ground understand the issue, they deal with it daily. They understand criminals, they understand criminal capabilities, they understand what works and what does not, they understand an inanimate object is not the cause of the problems. This was a 15000+ sample poll...certainly a significant sample and very likely a very accurate representation of what law enforcement across the country thinks of the various issues.
|
|
| | | 1794 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 01:32
|
pick out one of the more inconsequential questions in the poll
This isn't exactly "inconsequential" that they don't want to enforce the law.
certainly a significant sample and very likely a very accurate representation of what law enforcement across the country thinks of the various issues
Which is what makes their answer to that question not "inconsequential" at all. You can't really have it both ways--that this is an accurate peek into the mind of a cross section of police in this country, and the fact that they won't enforce the law something to be glossed over.
|
|
| | | 1795 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 07:48
|
likely a very accurate representation of what law enforcement across the country thinks of the various issues.
If you knew anything about the way polling works you wouldn't write that statement.
It might be representative but what is likely is a different story.
one of the more inconsequential questions in the poll
Thats funny I think law enforcement officials who refuse to uphold the law are rather consequential.
You sure were bent over that very thing about 1 week and 200 posts ago.
|
|
| | | 1796 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 08:25
|
For the record I do think it likely that a majority of cops side with gun rights activists on more issues than not.
But some of the numbers here are skewed enough (and some of the questions worded just right) that I think the results are exaggerated here. As previously noted, this is probably because people who feel strongest about an issue are the most likely people to anser a poll, and aside from family members of murder victims, no one feels more strongly about gun control than paranoid delusional rubes who have been convinced that the president is going to confiscate their guns.
Further, the 61% refusal to enforce response suggests that a lot of these cops answered the poll with their hearts rather than their brain, as people who respond to internet polls tend to do. For example, a Huffington Post poll from earlier this year found that fully 2/3 of Texas Republicans think the president should be impeached. And a PPP poll from around the same time asked respondents to choose whether they liked congress more or less than each thing in a list. Among things that a majority said they prefer to Congress were lice and cockroaches.
|
|
| | | 1797 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 09:33
|
I think this is more an indictment of our "peace officers", and the culture which attracts ex-military and those with authority issues to be recruited to these positions.
We need to figure out how to get more good cops, cops that care about the people they are trying to protect, not those that are constantly looking for confrontation and situations where they can legally abuse their authority to act out their authoritarian fantasies.
There are certainly many, many good police officers in this country, but not enough. Not nearly enough.
Going back to getting them out of their cars and out on the streets, talking with people, walking the beat, would be a good start. Cops who don't want to talk and interact every day with the people they are sworn to protect, shouldn't be cops.
|
|
| | | 1798 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 10:52
|
likely a very accurate representation of what law enforcement across the country thinks of the various issues.
More likely it's representative of the geographical divisions that can be illustrated by any red/blue map of counties across the country.
For instance, WorldNetDaily crows about 340 sheriffs who claim they'll refuse to enforce gun laws.
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” laws poised to go into effect in Colorado because it would be impossible to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.
He says the laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”
Cooke said he and other sheriffs are considering filing a lawsuit to block the laws.
As WND reported, similar sentiments have been expressed by Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and sheriffs in Missouri, California, Kansas, Montana and in dozens of counties in several states across the country. A growing list of now more than 340 sheriffs who have reportedly vowed to uphold the Constitution against efforts to undermine Americans’ gun rights is being accumulated by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
While Weld County does include a tiny bit of Denver's far north suburbs, according to Wiki,
As of the census[6] of 2000, there were 180,936 people, 63,247 households, and 45,221 families residing in the county. The population density was 45 people per square mile (18/km²). There were 66,194 housing units at an average density of 17 per square mile (6/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 81.71% White, 0.56% Black or African American, 0.87% Native American, 0.83% Asian, 0.08% Pacific Islander, 13.29% from other races, and 2.65% from two or more races. 27.05% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Law enforcement attitudes mirror general population attitudes. WND exposes their dishonesty by failing to cover President Obama's visit to the Denver Police Academy earlier this month.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed at Columbine High, said Obama particularly wanted to hear the perspectives of hunters and victims' families.
Mauser said Colorado showed it was in favor of increased gun control beginning in 2000, when 70 percent of Colorado voters approved Amendment 22, which requires background checks at gun shows. Further polling showed Colorado residents supported expanding background checks to all sales.
"We're very much a purple state and pro-gun state and highly educated state," Mauser said. "People understand that you can bear arms but also have restrictions at the same time. People are smart enough that you can have both."
link
It's interesting to read the comments from law enforcement responding to the survey results in #1781. While this response isn't representative of the mindset, it's probably highly representative of many urban and higher crime areas.
From what I've gathered so far, I believe the methodology used in this survey is flawed. Almost 84 of the "police officers" who participated in the survey identified themselves as working in areas that don't have a gun crime problem..."small" or "average" levels only. So if this is the case, then why would P1 ram this survey down everyone's throats when most of the cops participating are in rural areas that are already predisposed to have these "pro gun" viewpoints. In my 17 yrs I've pulled a lot of guns off people...most were gangsters, but enough of them were off-the-radar law abiding folks who lost control. I've had to face an AK-47 twice and there's enough guys on the job I know who've faced more than me. Maybe your little survey flies in Mayberry, but not in the big cities where shit actually happens. And sorry to offend you Mayberry cops, but a boot in my department can come to your town and show your detectives how to set up a crime scene. I'm starting to feel that P1 is an ultraconservative website that caters to ultraconservative members. I mean, for one video on here I had to watch a Mormon church advertisement before I could watch the video. So be a little suspect. link
|
|
| | | 1799 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:09
|
Worth repeating:Almost 84 of the "police officers" who participated in the survey identified themselves as working in areas that don't have a gun crime problem..."small" or "average" levels only...
Maybe your little survey flies in Mayberry, but not in the big cities where shit actually happens. So much for what the "boots on the ground" think.
|
|
| | | 1800 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:10
|
Link fixed
|
|
| | | 1801 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:27
|
Another response from someone who says he agrees with the majority opinions:He may be dead wrong about small town and rural policing, where the average beat cop or deputy has to handle everything, usually without much support from other officers or specialists, but the survey isn't really statistically reliable or valid. While I "agree" with the outcome, all it does is reflect the values and opinions of the people who chose to respond. Frankly, given the vitriol expressed here against anything that isn't hard-line conservatism, I'm surprised that as many respondents picked the less popular responses as did.
Anybody with a Survey Monkey account could do the same thing. Questions like whether citizens carrying concealed weapons could have stopped mass killings or reduced body count are asking for conjecture, nothing more. You can offer any opinion you want, but it would be nice to back it up with some cold, hard facts.
Gun laws are less restrictive now than they have been in decades. There are likely more civilians with legal carry options now than in the last 100 years or longer - remember that not only did NYC band concealed carry in the 1800s, but so did Tombstone and Dodge City. "Gun-Free zones" aren't a new thing; until recently, almost EVERYWHERE was a no-gun zone, with the exception of the relatively few jurisdictions that allowed concealed carry. The non-gun public is likely not looking at pro-gun/anti-gun issues other than emotionally, and acting on emotions and opinions. We shouldn't be doing the same. From another response:The survey mentions that the "survey sample size was broadly distributed by geography." It shows that departments with 26 to 100 Officers gave the most responses (26)and officers in large departments over 1,000 gave the fewest (8)? This means that Officers working in places like Conroe TX or Middlesboro KY opinions were overrepresented while those working in places like Chicago, NY orLA were very much underepresented. I don't see how they can claim this represents an accurate assessment of LE thinking.
I believe the survey should have asked 2 additional questions that would have further clarified things - is your department situated in a rural, surburban or urban area? And most importantly - do you work in a department whose chief was appointed or elected? This relates directly to #14 & 15 - supporting LE individuals who have said they won't enforce 'more restrictive gun laws.' The survey, I beleive, is not a fair sampling of opinions. It is apparent that there is a disconnect in this country between those who reside in rural areas and those who reside in major cities. This is true for both citizens and LE. Secondly, It's easy to say your not going to enforce new gun laws when you or your boss needs to be reelected every few years like rural Sheriffs.
|
|
| | | 1802 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:37
|
I realize that the survey was basically an opinion piece, but I would have been interested to see the answers broken out by those who felt that they had a serious gun problem in their area vs those who didn't.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1804 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 14:08
|
Nice. Move it forward for a vote.
|
|
| | | 1805 | Tree
ID: 33591113
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 14:59
|
i'm still shocked that some of them - like Toomey - are getting called RINOs now.
it's like if you don't fall lock, stock, barrel and goose step with the party line, you're obviously a traitor. that kind of thinking is frightening.
|
|
| | | 1806 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 15:01
|
The 1/3 of GOP Senators who voted to allow debate on the gun bill today:Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.)
Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Dean Heller (Nev.)
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
John McCain (Ariz.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.) Contrary to what CTRS seemed to think likely (see #1770) only two of the 53 Dems, Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) voted against ending the filibuster.
|
|
| | | 1807 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 16:46
|
Survey:
How big a problem do you feel gun crime is in your jurisdiction?
2317 officers responded Significant (16%)
6326 officers responded Average (44%)
5706 officers responded Small (39%)
There is no definition of average/sign/small. "Average" to a Chicago cop could mean like any other large city. It makes perfect sense to me...most officers in Chicago could respond average or small...just depends on the jurisdiction they are assigned too. Police in large cities are assigned to certain precincts...Chicago has 25 police precincts...the gun crime is mostly limited to 4-5 precincts. It is pretty much like that in this country...the majority of gun crime is limited to small percentage of the country.
Roughly half of the active LEOs surveyed work in departments with greater than 100 officers(which would equate to at least mid size cities). 20% (2917) of the officers surveyed are in departments of 1000+.
Some significant items I took from survey:
91.5% thought banning "assault weapons" would have no impact or negative impact on violent crime.
95.7% thought banning large magazines would have no impact on violent crime.
80%(no) vs 12%(yes) thought background checks for private sales would have a positive impact on violent crime.
60% were for increased penalties for gun trafficking
57% were for requiring safety training for citizens to buy guns
70% were against a national database tracking gun sales (this one surprised me)
91.5% were for stiff mandatory sentencing for gun crimes.
91.3% support conceal and carry for law abiding.
90% believe legally armed citizenry are effective in reducing violent crime.
4% believe guns availability is the primary cause of gun violence in the US.
What do the numbers mean? I am not sure...but I do believe police have a unique and informed perspective...far more than anyone on this board.
|
|
| | | 1808 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 16:59
|
As for the current legislation. I do believe they will get the watered down bill through the Senate.
Required background checks for any sales that take place at gun shows (even private - not sure how this can be enforced though? only through stings).
Required background checks for any guns that are advertised for sale via internet or print.
Increased funding for school security.
Increased penalties for gun trafficking.
I am not opposed to any of the above. I think all are reasonable. Do I think they will prevent criminals from accessing firearms...certainly not but they are reasonable regulations for law abiding citizens to comply too.
They will also attempt to pass separate legislation to ban large mags and assault weapons but it is mostly symbolic as there is very little support.
|
|
| | | 1809 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 18:18
|
The reality is if the bill passes it will be a win for gun owners as the federal level conceal and carry (licensed in one state for conceal and carry allows the license holder to carry in all states) IS very significant. Because of this inclusion I think the bill may get through the House. I would easily trade the very minor background check changes for more liberal conceal and carry.
|
|
| | | 1810 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 18:42
|
The Senate bill does *not* include private sales, but does extend to shows (which used the "private sale" loophole in the past). You sell a gun to your brother-in-law, and you don't need to have him fill out a background check--that won't change.
They will also attempt to pass separate legislation to ban large mags and assault weapons but it is mostly symbolic as there is very little support
Depends on your definition of "support," I suppose--56% of the public supports it. I agree that it probably won't pass and, in fact, Senate Dems pulled the bill some time ago. I don't think it'll even be voted upon.
|
|
| | | 1811 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 00:08
|
Much ado about nothing. The expanded regulations proposed are mostly symbolic. I think there is a chance this passes because there is benefit for both sides.
Background checks at gun shows for private/all sellers...not sure what this really does? Won't prevent people from exchanging information and then meeting in private away from gun shows. All licensed dealers already had to do background checks for all sales. Law abiding gun owners have very little problem with background checks anyway. Maybe it keeps criminals away from gun shows which is a plus for all.
Background checks on internet and advertised sales. Will probably cut down on private sales via local published advertisements. Internet sales sites already required guns to be transferred through a federal dealer who is required to background check. Closes the hole of in-state internet sales not requiring checks. Private to private sales are still legal without a background check.
Increased penalties for gun trafficking...no one is really against this. Would be great if the federal government would start actually investigating and prosecuting gun trafficking/straw purchases. Would have to report guns stolen within a period...if someone steals a law abiding persons guns pretty certain people would report them stolen law or no law.
CCW in one state allows a person to carry in any state. This would be a nice win for gun owners and allows CCW across the nation. Illinois is not happy about this as they are currently investigating how they can make CCW licenses as difficult as possible to obtain...residents will simply qualify in another state.
New regulation to allow gun dealers to sell across state lines. Something the pro gun side has wanted for awhile.
Compromise also would require states and the federal government to provide records on criminals and the "violently mentally ill" to the national background check system. This is something the NRA was pushing FOR and may be the most substantive thing in the bill.
Compromise includes language that prohibits creation of a national gun registry or misusing information from background checks. Another NRA add to the bill.
To me this is another loss for the anti-gun establishment. After the high profile emotional massacres...all of the grandstanding/campaigning, the Presidents initial list of recommendations, no chance for anything of real substance to get accomplished.
|
|
| | | 1812 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 07:00
|
Agreed. Closed a few loopholes and little more. Mostly a loss. The national gun registry clause tells you just how paranoid the obstructive gun rights base is. Creating a gun registry has been illegal since the 1980s.
|
|
| | | 1813 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 08:20
|
1810 From Washington Post story: "In a nod to groups seeking tighter gun restrictions, several Democratic senators plan to support amendments to ban military-style assault weapons and to limit the size of ammunition clips, but those measures are expected to fail."
|
|
| | | 1814 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 10:16
|
For the record that isn't separate legislation. Those are amendments to the current bill that some senators are expected to propose.
An AWB provision doesn't stand a chance. Reaction to a magazine limit amendment might be harder to predict.
In any case this watered down version is pretty close to what most people who have paid attention expected. I'd love to know where you got the idea that most Democrats would be opposed to it.
|
|
| | | 1815 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 10:25
|
Did not say they would oppose this watered down version. Once they eliminated the AWB, magazine limits, private to private sales background checks, registry language...anything of real substance. Pretty much safe for anyone now to vote on the bill.
|
|
| | | 1816 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 11:12
|
OK, though all of that except possibly background checks on private sale had already been long removed from the discussion.
Of course you wouldn't know that if you were relying on a lot of conservative media outlets for your information.
|
|
| | | 1817 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 11:16
|
And it's also noteworthy that none of those omissions stopped 2/3 of the Republicans in the senate from voting against even allowing a debate on the bill.
|
|
| | | 1818 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 11:19
|
had already been long removed from the discussion
That's exactly right. The NRA has whipped up the Right about this issue. They no longer even say "The liberals might..." and have gone right to "The liberals are trying..."
When the wingers define the issue (like gun control) there is little chance of even common sense stuff moving forward. We see this on other issues in which the Left has a stranglehold on the conversation as well, such as the chained CPI for Social Security.
|
|
| | | 1820 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 12:13
|
ChicagoTRS
Actually I don't regard you as a right-winger, but you are obviously highly susceptible to right-wing alarmist propaganda on gun rights issues.
I'm sorry if you think I'm a a frucking idiot for observing that your sources for news on the coming gun legislation seem anything but objective, but just look at some of the things coming out of your keyboard this week; like "the current betting line has all of the new proposed regulations failing to get through the Senate" ...and those ridiculous hypotheticals that included all sorts of things that senate Dems were specifically not pushing in the led up to finalizing the proposal.
So that's terrific that you're your own man and all that but I'm going to continue to call out disinformation when I see it.
And I'm also going to continue make note of it when I recognize where it comes from, even if you think that makes me one kind of idiot or another.
|
|
| | | 1821 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 416222423
Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 00:53
|
Kind of funny they are starting to realize that not only is there nothing of substance likely to pass but the end result could be expanded rights. If reciprocity makes it way to the main bill I could see the democrats killing the entire bill.
"“Congress should recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines,” NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox said in a statement issued last month, when the proposal was introduced in the Senate.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the measure this week as “the most pernicious” proposal under consideration.
“Somebody could come from Wyoming to the big cities of New York or New Haven or Bridgeport and carry a concealed weapon, which is so against our way of life, and the needs here in New York,” Schumer said."
So against our way of life? What way of life is that? A life where only the bad guys are armed?
Chicago politicians and the governor are up in arms with the thought that all states CCW permits would be allowed to conceal and carry. Reciprocity bill almost passed in 2009...had 58 of the 60 needed votes.
|
|
| | | 1822 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 05:41
|
What way of life is that?
The American way of life as the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to work. That's what way of life.
|
|
| | | 1823 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 15:08
|
Ted Cruz admits gun bill doesn't create a registry.
Good for him, finally facing reality.
Bad for him, however, as he apparently is still against the bill as it would "motivate" people to create one.
What an idiot.
|
|
| | | 1824 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 18:35
|
And once again the filthy lying frarmongering scum suckers win the day.
But you know we're on the verge of totalitarian gun control.
Morons.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1826 | Boldwin
ID: 463291715
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:20
|
But you know we're on the verge of totalitarian gun control. - MITH
Yup, unfortunately. The second amendment never can afford to lose. One loss and it is over forever.
This is how European countries are swallowed up by the EU against the wishes of their people. They never give up. They just keep asking and asking and asking, and one manufactured crisis, one depression, one freak electoral outcome and the country is lost.
|
|
| | | 1827 | Boldwin
ID: 463291715
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:27
|
BTW, Obama really has introduced a new wrinkle to dishonest American politics.
Whatever sneaky thing he wants to do, he writes the lie right in the bill. It says right in there, 'this bill does not do pernicious thing X' and then they write in the enabling language to eventually bring about X.
I can't remember this trick being used before Obama. Certainly not on such crucial issues.
|
|
| | | 1828 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:32
|
One loss and it is over forever.
Like the federal assault weapons ban?
Like every municipal handgun ban in the history of America?
Like many states' concealed carry prohibitions in the past two decades?
Morons.
|
|
| | | 1829 | Boldwin
ID: 463291715
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:45
|
They want this so desperately sometimes they actually admit how far they intend to go. They think it's so obvious they should have total control they actually come right out and tell you.
Is Diane Feinstein a moron for admitting it or for believing it?
|
|
| | | 1830 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:57
|
Feinstein is an extremist. There are far fewer gun control extremists in congress than there are gun rights extremists these days.
The morons are the ones who support the extremists.
|
|
| | | 1831 | Tree
ID: 123221715
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:58
|
They want this so desperately sometimes they actually admit how far they intend to go. They think it's so obvious they should have total control they actually come right out and tell you.
Is Diane Feinstein a moron for admitting it or for believing it?
i'm wondering who the moron is here. do you even know what this law was about?
are you aware that it was just to expand background checks to gun shows and the internet, to bring those sales inline with gun shop sales?
are you aware the other part of the bill was to BAN a national registry of gun owners?
it's also funny to read all your posts that say things like dishonest American politics and Whatever sneaky thing and I can't remember this trick being used when your heroes like Crowder and O'Keefe are constantly dishonest, constantly do sneaky things, and constantly use tricks.
i also realize you'll deny that the do, despite the fact that it's not even a point that can be argued, rather a 100 percent verified fact.
|
|
| | | 1832 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 21:59
|
gun rights extremists filthy lying fearmongering scum suckers
|
|
| | | 1833 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 22:11
|
Exactly. The reason we have so many guns in the hands of criminals right now is that there is a group of people willingly holding open the loopholes which make it easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get as many as they want without bother.
|
|
| | | 1834 | Boldwin
ID: 463291715
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 22:45
|
Greg Ridgeway DOJ memo. Goodnight.
|
|
| | | 1835 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 553431023
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 22:46
|
How many Democrats voted against the bill?
It was mostly a meaningless bill that did nothing to solve the stated problems. This country has limited law enforcement resources as is, adding symbolic regulations that would be lightly enforced and provide no benefit is a waste.
|
|
| | | 1836 | Tree
ID: 40328723
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 23:03
|
How many Democrats voted against the bill?
i can't speak for MITH or PD or anyone else, but i'm not interested in the political party of those who voted against the bill; the fact that they voted against it is evil. party affiliation doesn't matter.
|
|
| | | 1837 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 23:04
|
5 Dems voted against the bill (one, Reid, did so for procedural reasons). Three of the others are up for re-election in red states.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1839 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 05:57
|
No.
There are only two choices.
Government in the people's grip.
The people in the government's grip.
|
|
| | | 1840 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 07:43
|
The only people who would utter that are committed anarchists and anyone lacking integrity enough to say any fancy-sounding thing with no regard for whether he means it.
Boldwin, defender of laws that put Americans citizens in jail for what they do in their bedrooms with other consenting adults, would qualify as the latter.
|
|
| | | 1841 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:09
|
Anarchy and sodomy laws, which you've never seen me take a position on, have nothing to do with it. Nor is freedom a 'fancy-sounding' thing.
But fine, have it your way, let's add a third. There is either:
Government in the people's grip.
The people in the government's grip.
The people in the grip of anarchy.
|
|
| | | 1842 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:17
|
And it should be pointed out that Gifford's hysterical take on politicians acting on their fears of being thrown out of office for disobeying the will of the people...
[as they rightly should - that's the whole point of democracy]
...are just...hysterical.
Notice they don't believe Obama's recent 90% meme.
|
|
| | | 1843 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:44
|
the will of the people?
Better than 70% o the people SUPPORT expanded background checks.
|
|
| | | 1844 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:48
|
Obviously the people fear Obama's gun control agenda more than they support his proposals. If they were popular then politicians would fear voting them down. Instead even Harry read fears voting for Obama's proposals.
|
|
| | | 1845 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:50
|
Further, this whole kurfuffle isn't even about passing it or not passing it.
Everyone knows this wasn't going to pass the House anyway.
This whole thing is about ginning up Obama's base to retake the House in '14.
|
|
| | | 1846 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 08:52
|
A minor point is that it is also a measure of Obama's 'lame-duckedness' and lack of pull in the process and with the people. Which explains why he took this symbolic loss so personally and so hard.
|
|
| | | 1847 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 09:35
|
The people in the government's grip.
How do you believe the "people" should accomplish this?
By voting?
|
|
| | | 1848 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 10:31
|
Why would the people want to be in the government's grip?
|
|
| | | 1849 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 10:32
|
A minor point is that it is also a measure of Obama's 'lame-duckedness' and lack of pull in the process and with the people.
The senate vote was 54-46, a somewhat substantial majority, so I don't know that it's a reflection of Obama's lack of pull in the process and with the people as much as it is a dysfunctional system of passing legislation.
|
|
| | | 1850 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 10:45
|
A better question: Why doesn't the Right want the people to be in the people's grip?
This bill was demagogged by a minority of people with financial interest in gun sales, using tactics that the Right goes ballistic against unless used by their handlers.
Compliant tools, dutifully spitting out the talking points handed to them, even when they contradict talking points they shouted only just previously.
This is a turning point in the minority's grip on a political process they hold in such contempt.
|
|
| | | 1851 | Boldwin
ID: 43318184
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 11:14
|
This is a turning point.
I tend to agree. I don't expect America to survive.
|
|
| | | 1852 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 11:20
|
FWIW, my email to Pat Toomey:
Senator,
I couldn't be prouder of the way you represented a great gun state like Pennsylvania. Like millions of responsible gun owners, you saw that responsible gun ownership required closing the loopholes in background check laws which allows criminals much easier access to guns they shouldn't have.
I'm sorry that the NRA and others took to essentially lying about your bill in order to defeat it. I hope you'll continue to push for responsible gun laws such as this one, as the public becomes more aware that a slim but rabid minority of people have taken a stranglehold on the narrative on this issue. Keep up the good fight!
|
|
| | | 1853 | Tree
ID: 563131811
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 12:14
|
I don't expect America to survive
you say this about almost everything. you truly are Chicken Little.
|
|
| | | 1854 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 15:03
|
1852 werent you the one who was embarrassed to have him as your US Senator. hmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
| | | 1855 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 15:34
|
On another issue, sure. And I'm in disagreement with Toomey 90% of the time. Which is what make it such a stir that he resisted the lies surrounding this issue, some of which are still going on as the gun lobby celebrates the "death of the registry" and other nonsense.
Surely you allow that people might differ on some issues, yet agree on others? If two people agree 100% on all the issues, only one of them is doing any thinking.
|
|
| | | 1856 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 15:47
|
The FBI said Tuesday that gunpowder, along with pieces of metal and ball bearings, were packed into at least one pressure cooker and another device to make the crude bombs that killed three people—including an 8-year-old boy—and wounded more than 170 more during the Boston Marathon Monday.
But a crucial piece of evidence called a taggant that could be used to trace the gunpowder used in the bombs to a buyer at a point of sale is not available to investigators.
“If you had a good taggant this would be a good thing for this kind of crime. It could help identify the point of manufacturer, and chain of custody,” Bob Morhard, an explosives consultant and chief executive officer of Zukovich, Morhard & Wade, LLC., in Pennsylvania, who has traced explosives and detonators in use in the United States and Saudi Arabia, told MSNBC.com. “The problem is nobody wants to know what the material is.”
Explosives manufacturers are required to place tracing elements known as identification taggants only in plastic explosives but not in gunpowder, thanks to lobbying efforts by the NRA and large gun manufacturing groups.
NRA officials at the group’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia declined to respond to calls and emails from MSNBC.com requesting comment.
|
|
| | | 1857 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 16:54
|
Yeah that's the response I figured I get from the gun rights crowd.
|
|
| | | 1858 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 17:20
|
Accountability and personal responsibility.
|
|
| | | 1859 | Boldwin
ID: 163511813
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 17:49
|
Amazingly rights are a balancing act. Since you guys in your gut think the government should be all powerful and the individual has no individual rights, only collective ones...you can't even imagine doing a balance calculation between law enforcement effectiveness vs infringement of individual rights and citizen power vs government power.
|
|
| | | 1860 | Tree
ID: 563131811
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:20
|
Since you guys in your gut think the government should be all powerful and the individual has no individual rights...
yes, because this is exactly what MITH, or any of the rest of us said.
|
|
| | | 1861 | Boldwin
ID: 163511813
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:40
|
You guys have no understanding of the basic underlying philosophy of your thot leaders. Tragic.
|
|
| | | 1862 | Tree
ID: 563131811
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:46
|
LMAO. well, you're the superstar. albeit one who celebrates death, praises dishonesty, and doesn't bother to fact check, so i guess we'll take your word for it about what we do and do not understand.
|
|
| | | 1863 | Mith
ID: 29182720
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 19:48
|
Don't forget defends sodomy laws. That one was particularly striking.
|
|
| | | 1864 | Boldwin
ID: 163511813
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 23:02
|
Do show the forum where in my posts you were 'struck' by my defending sodomy laws.
There will be sodomy laws in God's Kingdom. Until then we'll just see what a mess you make of things as you freely sod off.
|
|
| | | 1866 | GO
ID: 120252515
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 16:15
|
|
|
| | | 1867 | Tree
ID: 40328723
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 17:17
|
There will be sodomy laws in God's Kingdom. Until then we'll just see what a mess you make of things as you freely sod off.
it's a damned shame you've never had sodomy, because you are truly missing out. so is any partner you've ever had.
|
|
| | | 1868 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 17:19
|
He wants government out of his life, but into his bedroom.
|
|
| | | 1869 | Boldwin
ID: 47321920
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 21:48
|
it's a damned shame you've never had sodomy, because you are truly missing out. so is any partner you've ever had.
He wants government out of his life, but into his bedroom.
Not a word of it based on anything I've ever said. Not one word. Certainly I don't want human governments having anything to do with my bedroom.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1871 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 00:31
|
GOP insanity, without limits
The Missouri Senate voted to eliminate all funding for the state’s driver’s license bureau on Monday due to concerns about its keeping records of concealed-carry holders. The Raw Story reports that the chairman of the appropriations committee, Kurt Schaefer (R), admitted that the cut was made to send a message to Governor Jay Nixon (D) and his administration, and said, “They will not be able to issue any drivers’ licenses.”
If the state ceases issuing licenses, would they not then lose the ability to fine someone for driving w/o one?
|
|
| | | 1872 | Boldwin
ID: 25332317
Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 00:38
|
If you don't need them even to vote, what's the point of them?
|
|
| | | 1873 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 00:43
|
Dem illegals will be running over granny. Lookout!
|
|
| | | 1874 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 00:56
|
Signal received. But like the old game of "Telephone" is isn't exactly the signal he thought was being sent.
|
|
| | | 1875 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Apr 29, 2013, 18:51
|
Conspiracy nutters vs NRA for the minds of the House GOP. Who will win? Guess before clicking.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 1878 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Thu, May 02, 2013, 13:45
|
National Child Mortality
They have been making these for close to 15 years, how many other times has this happened? Some families like to shoot guns. I know several, granted one of the key differences is they would also never let their kids play with a real gun. It doesn't matter if you know that the gun isn't loaded, a gun is never to be pointed at another person. One of the commenters on the link wants the parents tried and convicted for neglect and homicide. Would you feel the same for a parent who let their kids drown in a swimming pool? Those deaths are much more common.
|
|
| | | 1879 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, May 02, 2013, 13:57
|
I couldn't possibly care any less about anything than I do what some anonymous person comments under a news piece on the internet. You must be mistaking me for Boldwin or someone else who does.
I have no problem with families who like to shoot guns, who supervise their kids while they learn how to handle guns.
|
|
| | | 1880 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Thu, May 02, 2013, 15:07
|
So what could go wrong then?
The story is a sensationalist and designed to inflame people who want more gun control restrictions. I don't have a problem with more gun control restrictions, I would support a national registry of firearms, not just handguns, but all firearms, including rifles and shotguns. But that doesn't have the same emotional draw.
|
|
| | | 1881 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, May 02, 2013, 15:09
|
I agree, Frick. Good responsible gun ownership begins, with many, by teaching children gun responsibility, and having their own gun is an important part of a kid owning the responsibility just as they would own a gun.
|
|
| | | 1882 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, May 02, 2013, 15:25
|
Maybe its just me but marketing rifles made for young people with a smiling cartoon insect spokesperson does not lead to what I'd regard as an impression of gun safety.
It's a tool, a very dangerous one at that. If I were teaching my young nephew to use an electric miter saw it would be a very serious lesson. It would definitely not be a lesson that involved cartoon characters.
|
|
| | | 1883 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Thu, May 02, 2013, 16:41
|
If a parent is not watching over their five and two year old kids while they are swimming, and the 2 year old drowns, there is a good chance the parent would be prosecuted for child neglect.
If the parent is not watching over the kids while the parent has left a loaded rifle in the area the kids are playing, and a death results, the parent may very well be prosecuted.
|
|
| | | 1884 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, May 02, 2013, 22:44
|
and IMHO bibA, they SHOULD be prosecuted.
Leave a child unattended in a car, and they rightfully get prosecuted. No rationale reason, to treat this any differently.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1886 | Tree
ID: 38322228
Sun, May 05, 2013, 23:13
|
We don't trust you and you've given us every reason not to.
sooo..a senior in college is your guiding light here?
|
|
| | | 1887 | Boldwin
ID: 24433519
Mon, May 06, 2013, 03:34
|
...twelve years old, sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them. But all those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers. Out of the mouth of babes.
|
|
| | | 1888 | Tree
ID: 31426612
Mon, May 06, 2013, 13:26
|
and if he said "we need tighter gun restrictions," i'm sure you'd be mocking him...or spreading lies about him.
|
|
| | | 1889 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, May 06, 2013, 14:50
|
Now he's Jesus. For upholding gun rights.
|
|
| | | 1890 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 16:40
|
Eric Holder threatens Sam Brownback, Gov of Kansas.Attorney General Eric Holder is threatening Federal Action against the State of Kansas after they passed a gun control nullification bill that banned federal authorities from violating is residents second amendment rights.
The Bill, SB102, made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating firearms and ammunition made, sold and kept in the state, all of which is 100% constitutional since the Federal government does not have interstate commerce authority to regulate items made inside the State. The bill also allows local law enforcement to arrest anyone, including federal agents, who try to enforce federal regulation of guns in the state.
We should also mention that they have no authority to regulate any type of firearms since they are forbidden to do so in the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, but we’ll skip over that obvious argument for now and deal with the State Rights issue.
|
|
| | | 1891 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 16:45
|
My point was only..."Let no man ever look down on your youth."
|
|
| | | 1892 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Mon, May 06, 2013, 16:46
|
We should also mention that they have no authority to regulate any type of firearms since they are forbidden to do so in the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution
Would you please quote the part of the 2nd amendment which states such?
|
|
| | | 1893 | Tree
ID: 56456615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 16:57
|
Eric Holder threatens Sam Brownback, Gov of Kansas.
i like how the article doesn't mention Brownback, or the office of the Governor once, yet you decided to editorialize and invent a headline.
fast and loose with the facts, as always.
|
|
| | | 1894 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 17:44
|
Oh, don't you doubt it. It's personal.The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.
This first sentence of Brownback’s letter is the most important. Holder’s letter took the position that the new Kansas law is unconstitutional – without question. And because of Holder’s view that he is the decider of all that is constitutional or not in this country, he threatened the state – and thus the People – of Kansas.
Brownback showed quite a bit of savvy with that sentence. He absolutely brushed off Holder by pointing out that his letter only represented “the view of the Obama Administration…”
Just because Eric Holder claims that the Kansas law is unconstitutional, doesn’t make it so. And Holder’s claim that he had no idea about “fast and furious” probably doesn’t make that so either.
Sam Brownback did a great service to the People of Kansas by reminding them that Holder is just sharing his opinion.
He also noted that the Kansas nullification law comes from the source of political power to which no American government is above – the People themselves.
“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.”
Eric Holder doesn’t get to tell the People what THEIR constitution means. It’s the other way around.
|
|
| | | 1895 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 17:45
|
PV
Shall not be Infringed. IE. not even a little bit.
|
|
| | | 1896 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Mon, May 06, 2013, 18:05
|
That's not the entire sentence, so please desist from insulting our intelligence while minimizing your own.
|
|
| | | 1897 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 18:50
|
When it comes to the question, 'How much right to bear arms can the government eliminate' that is the operative, deciding and final word.
|
|
| | | 1898 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Mon, May 06, 2013, 18:57
|
You're not a person who is mentally competent to answer that question.
Shall not be Infringed. IE. not even a little bit.
Sure, you can bring those guns onto this airplane.
Sure, you can bring bombs into Yankee Stadium
Sure, you can buy a gun after the judge has just issued a protective order against you.
And on and on and on, not even a little bit.
|
|
| | | 1899 | Boldwin
ID: 56439615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 19:15
|
Yes yes, no atom bombs, I get it Mr. Reasonable.
|
|
| | | 1900 | Tree
ID: 56456615
Mon, May 06, 2013, 19:28
|
says the guy who doesn't even know the definition of the word "reasonable".
|
|
| | | 1901 | Tree
ID: 38322228
Tue, May 07, 2013, 09:04
|
one thing i am baffled by - and i would love the opinion of the pro-gun crowd here like ChicagoTRS - is this new law in arizona that prohibits police from destroying guns they purchase in gun buybacks.
i see all sorts of issues about this, from it defeating the purpose of police removing guns from the streets to a law telling someone what they can and cannot do with something they purchase.
|
|
| | | 1902 | Boldwin
ID: 3418620
Tue, May 07, 2013, 10:01
|
The legislature can't tell a government agency what they can do with something they purchase?
|
|
| | | 1903 | Tree
ID: 1844279
Tue, May 07, 2013, 10:44
|
The legislature can't tell a government agency what they can do with something they purchase?
they're telling them what they CAN'T do.
but since you're responding, i'll put the question to you simply - why should the police be forced to sell the guns they buy back. why can't they destroy them, if that's the entire premise of the program.
|
|
| | | 1904 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Tue, May 07, 2013, 11:45
|
I would just chalk the AZ law up to gun nuts being well, nuts. The guns could have more value being sold as firearms, but from what I've seen many of the guns don't work or are in such rough shape that they aren't worth much more than scrap. But, in the fiscally tough gun nuts want to do the less economically feasible option, just another example of the hypocrisy.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1906 | Boldwin
ID: 13444718
Tue, May 07, 2013, 19:54
|
It's real simple. The buyback policy is a backdoor attack on the RTBA. The people in the person of their representatives have pushed back and reasserted their constitutional interests.
The police do not have a license to legislate the laws governing them.
|
|
| | | 1907 | Boldwin
ID: 13444718
Tue, May 07, 2013, 19:56
|
PD
Is it really inciting violence against women or is it a safety relief valve? I'm not sure myself to tell you the truth.
|
|
| | | 1908 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Tue, May 07, 2013, 20:53
|
It's plain you have never been an ex-girlfriend.
|
|
| | | 1909 | Tree
ID: 38322228
Wed, May 08, 2013, 10:21
|
The buyback policy is a backdoor attack on the RTBA
that's idiotic.
it's police getting guns off the street and purchasing them, and then destroying them. buybacks have been going on for decades, and police and buyback organizers are currently figuring out ways to circumvent the law, such as selling guns to artists who will in turn melt them down on the spot to use for art projects, and so forth.
it's a stupid, needless law from people like Baldwin who claim to want smaller government, but don't really want smaller government at all - they just want laws to prevent things they don't like, and laws to enact things they do. small government claims by people such as that are a lie.
|
|
| | | 1910 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, May 08, 2013, 15:49
|
The whole point is that people who want to can sell their guns to the police. No one is forced to do so.
|
|
| | | 1911 | Boldwin
ID: 524281815
Sat, May 18, 2013, 17:20
|
Wonders never cease. Piers Morgan discovers there actually is a real thing called government tyranny which one needs to be concerned about.
|
|
| | | 1912 | Boldwin
ID: 434372312
Thu, May 23, 2013, 19:58
|
Shocking story in Mother Jones.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1914 | Tree
ID: 52516612
Thu, Jun 06, 2013, 13:16
|
ugh.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 1917 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813
Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 21:20
|
NRA not opposing Jones' nomination to head ATF.
Maybe they are keeping their powder dry, I dunno. But the fact that, for the first time, an ATF Director will actually be confirmed is a good thing.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1919 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 34019238
Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 12:29
|
Obama ordered CDC Gun research study released...
The CDC confirms most of the findings that the NRA regularly publishes concerning defensive uses of guns, the deterrent value of guns and the ineffectiveness of gun "turn-in" programs. Conclusion...law abiding citizens are rarely the problem and new regulations have very limited effectiveness vs the cost associated. Imagine that.
|
|
| | | 1920 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813
Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 15:14
|
You read the report already? Much of the report doesn't come to that conclusion at all, but calls for more specific research on the very questions you say are settled in the report.
But this should be expected, given the very title of the report.
When it does offer suggestions, it is contrary to your point. For example, they talk about the usefulness of addressing gun violence in a similar multifaceted way as we did with auto deaths ("For example, in both motor vehicle and gun use, there is a need to balance health and safety with the practical reality of a potentially dangerous tool that is embedded in U.S. society"]. They then specifically include licensing as one of those efforts in auto safety.
All in all, this is a call for research, not a list of conclusions supporting the "pro gun" position.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1922 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 21:49
|
and it gets over turned by the courts in 3....2.....
I mean seriously. You want the very road map to tyranny? Make it illegal for the federal govt to enforce federal law. 50 states, with between them say 100 total federal laws they don't like. 2 in this state, 2 different ones in that state, 2 other ones over here,.....You couldn't travel across state lines, without legal counsel accompanying you.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1924 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Fri, Aug 30, 2013, 00:34
|
Guess they forgot about the Wickard case.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1926 | Tree
ID: 32861717
Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 18:06
|
that meme was so September 16 PD.
|
|
| | | 1927 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 18:46
|
Heh. Yeah, but conservative memes are zombies.
|
|
| | | 1928 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Mon, Sep 30, 2013, 17:26
|
Surprise, surprise!
Data suggest guns do in fact kill people
There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022. How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.
|
|
| | | 1929 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 18:25
|
I've stated elsewhere that the problem with guns is that they are very very good at what they are designed to do: Kill people.
This is why suicides are carried out with guns to a much larger degree than suicides by other means.
|
|
| | | 1930 | Boldwin
ID: 18933159
Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 10:36
|
|
|
| | | 1931 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 16:42
|
the second meme above - the only one that attempts to use actual data to make a point - couldn't be more laughable.
1. when you remove the number of murders in Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington DC, the number drops from 14,168 to 13,001, as those four cities combined for 1,167 murders in 2012 - just over 8 percent of the total murders in this country.
2. Before you deduct those cities, the United States isn't 3rd, it's 9th.and when you do deduct those cities, the US drops to 15th. that's nowhere near "4th from the bottom". ( source )
3. Where on earth did they get the information that New Orleans is in the top 4 of "toughest gun laws"? Louisiana is widely regarded as being one of the most lax states in regards to gun law.
heck, Louisiana made it even easier this year, signing into law that it is a " fundamental right to owns guns - and a judge backed that up by allowing certain felons can legally obtain guns too.
this is why you left here in the first place - your work went down hill. instead of well-researched opinions, you began to post meme after meme after meme - not even caring if the information was true or could at least, in some way, be verified.
|
|
| | | 1932 | Boldwin
ID: 18933159
Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 17:36
|
Maybe Mayor Daley can talk a couple more big city mayors into going midaevil on gun owners and we can be number one.
|
|
| | | 1933 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Wed, Oct 16, 2013, 17:20
|
go back into your hole. you can't even respond reasonably to a counter post citing exactly why your meme was wrong.
|
|
| | | 1934 | Perm Dude
ID: 339541411
Wed, Oct 16, 2013, 17:23
|
Which is why we shouldn't feed the trolls...
|
|
| | | 1936 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 23:12
|
Spam butt
|
|
| | | 1937 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Mon, Jan 06, 2014, 12:45
|
Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns
Which is worse, firing a guy for wondering aloud if there could be a valid restriction upon the right to possess a firearm, or never writing a bad review of the products produced by manufacturers who are your advertisers?
In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air... Reporters and editors say that reviews are often written in close consultation with manufacturers. If a gun is judged to be of poor quality, magazines will quietly send it back for improvements rather than writing a negative review. The system is broadly accepted at these publications, gun writers say. Mr. Venola, the former Guns & Ammo editor, described the relationship between the magazine’s editors and the gun makers as a necessarily cozy one. “You have to be in cahoots with the manufacturer, in order to make the publication appeal to the readership,”
What a pathetic indictment of your own readership.
|
|
| | | 1938 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 17:06
|
Most car magazines are the same way. And Ferrari is pathological in the way they allow car writers to test their cars.
I wonder how true this is for other industries? If you are a magazine for a niche market, and the majority of your advertisers are the products you are reviewing, do you often write scathing negative reviews?
But Metcalf is correct, the Constitution does not necessarily say that we have the write to any and all arms.
|
|
| | | 1939 | Frick
ID: 432501512
Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 08:31
|
I saw a special on Today this morning that Giffords is going to parachute again. Nice to see that she is recovering some what.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1941 | Boldwin
ID: 275392617
Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 18:40
|
You would be surprised at the number of times 'just coincidentally' the government is openly advertising for 'crisis actors' right before events like that.Similar ads were identified following the incident at Sandy Hook, the bombing at the Boston Marathon and the mass shooting at Fort Hood Kinda similar to the way there is always a drill of similar scenarios right around terrorist events.
The Boston Marathon bomb drill that happened right alongside the actual bombing was no exception. It seems to be the rule.
The London subway bombing happened concurrently with a drill featuring multiple bomb attacks on the subway.
The principles of three security companies from the UK, Canada and the USA which design and run 'mock' terrorist exercizes were having lunch together close to the London bombings.
On exactly 9/11 a pre-planned simulation was run to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building was held at the CIA Chantilly Virginia Reconnaissance Office.
Sometimes the fact that something is too bizarre to be true is exactly why they work and are employed. In plain sight.
|
|
| | | 1942 | Boldwin
ID: 275392617
Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 18:45
|
I don't have all the answers on Sandyhook but I will promise you that the photos of the incident don't match the story and there is something very 'Twilight Zone/Stepford' about that town and those people who were portrayed as the families of the victims. It's a trip down the rabbit hole investigating it. I always take the red pill of course. I'm just curious that way.
|
|
| | | 1943 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 01:46
|
1941 and 1942, do a damn fine job of illustrating precisely why it is a waste of time, energy and sound reasoning, to "debate" Boldwin. Facts are irrelevant to him. The only meaningful question in his mind, "Are you parroting what I already believe?"
|
|
| | | 1944 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 02:23
|
Yup. Tossing up trial balloons about Sandy Hook being fake is simply par for the course, these days.
|
|
| | | 1945 | Boldwin
ID: 5756120
Mon, Jun 01, 2015, 21:07
|
Sandyhook
|
|
| | | 1946 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 14:06
|
Do you have a point? 45 minute Radio show with commercials and everything, they didnt even start talking about ANYTHING until 3 minutes into the show. Summarize it for us please, nobody wants to waste that kind of time.
|
|
| | | 1947 | Boldwin
ID: 485770
Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 01:08
|
There is enuff evidence it was staged to write a book. If you don't think that's interesting, I can only lead you to water.
|
|
| | | 1948 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 09:09
|
No B, there is not enough "evidence" to support your RWNJ theories. There is ZERO actual evidence to support you. But that has never slowed you down before.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1950 | Boldwin
ID: 485770
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 04:55
|
That only answered one out of a hundred questions raised in that interview. How about the point that the 'parents of the victims' all bought their houses on the same day and have all moved out since then? What are those odds?
|
|
| | | 1951 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 08:10
|
That's interesting B, you got a link to this report from someone who the left would consider reputable?
|
|
| | | 1952 | Khahan
ID: 48549910
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 11:49
|
1950 - those odds are beyond calculable and also not true facts.
Not all the victims families moved. Some that moved stayed in Newton but moved out of the house with all the memories of their children.
You can very easily verify this claim Baldwin. Just visit Fairfield Co. web site and do a property records search.
|
|
| | | 1953 | Boldwin
ID: 485770
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 12:02
|
Before I go thru that chase I'm curious what level of improbable you are willing to be impressed with.
How many VF's can buy a house on Christmas day of the same year [if I remember correctly] before your statistician's antenna start twitching?
|
|
| | | 1954 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 14:58
|
debunk?
|
|
| | | 1955 | Khahan
ID: 54152322
Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 17:48
|
Those are reassesments Boldwin. Again, information that is actually VERY readily available in the link I gave you in 1952.
|
|
| | | 1956 | bibA
ID: 24043919
Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 15:34
|
My daughter lives in New York's Westchester County. She has a business wherein she travels quite a bit, including to nearby Connecticut, and just knows a lot of people in the area. Although she does not personally know anyone from the village of Sandy Hook, she does know a couple of gals from Newton. They do know people who had kids that attended the elementary school.
These people, especially the ones from Sandy Hook, have been really traumatized by what happened. They think that people who used to drive by the school to view the site were ghouls. I can't imagine what they must think of people who claim that the massacre did not even occur.
These people who deny the event - would they makes these accusations directly to families of the victims? To the kids and faculty who went through their ordeal, but survived? To the cops and rescue personnel who responded to the bloody nightmare? Or would they just make these accusations from behind their keyboards?
|
|
| | | 1957 | Khahan
ID: 54152322
Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 19:39
|
The answer to all those questions bibA is No. They'll make them only the anonymous safety of the internet where others who WANT a conspiracy can thump their chests and make them feel good about themselves.
|
|
| | | 1958 | weykool
ID: 472331022
Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 20:48
|
90% of the things posted on a message board would never be said in person.
As for conspiracies, I always ask the question...why?
Just like the 9/11 conspiracy there is no logical answer so you have to reject it.
|
|
| | | 1959 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 21:48
|
echoing what Biba said above - my cousin, her husband, and their kids live in Southbury, CT. they are literally a 10 minute drive from Sandy Hook.
they too, are traumatized, because it could easily have been their kids, and many in the area know each other, know families who lost children.
those would point to a conspiracy, those who would deny that Sandy Hook was the result of a mad man, those who would desecrate the memory of the people who died, are cowards at best, and beyond that, awful human beings.
that's how you think about someone who believes that the murders of 20 children was some sort of hoax.
|
|
| | | 1960 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Thu, Jun 11, 2015, 00:34
|
Revisited this thread and somehow started thinking of the famous War of the Worlds broadcast...Not sure why.
|
|
| | | 1961 | Boldwin
ID: 54523922
Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 12:59
|
I'd be happy, thrilled in fact to let them try and convince me it actually happened and wasn't just a drill and a show. I don't believe the school was even open and running at the time.
|
|
| | | 1962 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 23:29
|
What you believe, is fast becoming irrelevant. It was open, it did happen, and your biased partisan garbage, doesnt bring those kids back.
|
|
| | | 1964 | bibA
ID: 275441414
Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 11:57
|
B would be happy, thrilled in fact to let them try and convince him it actually happened. Have to think that as one of the victim's parents are emotionally attempting to convince him that they really did suffer such a loss, and B is becoming so happy and thrilled, that the parent would be even happier if B was able to convince them that no, it really didn't happen.
|
|
| | | 1965 | Boldwin
ID: 335571715
Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 17:06
|
Photos allegedly had mold on the inside walls of the school. Something that wouldn't have been tolerated for a second in an open funtioning school.
|
|
| | | 1966 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 22:51
|
gonna kill this forum B, with your nonsense.
|
|
| | | 1967 | weykool
ID: 472331022
Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 10:43
|
LOL
The forum is dead already .
Killed off by the left win censors and nonsense post by kooky liberals.
Case in point the accidental shooting archives.
|
|
| | | 1968 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 12:47
|
wait--B now believes Sandy Hook was a hoax?
Dear Lord.
|
|
| | | 1969 | biliruben
ID: 561162511
Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 13:22
|
Mold, PD. Moooolllldddd!!!
You probably think we've been to the moon too. Pftt.
|
|
| | | 1970 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 21:45
|
So far, some of the reasons given for the Charleston shooting:
-A plot by the government to start a race war (Alex Jones)
-An "accident" caused by prescription drugs and Obama's attempt to "ban guns" (Rick Perry)
-it is an "assault on religious liberty" (Rick Santorum)
-whites being called "racists" and more talk of this will see more church shootings (Jesse Lee Peterson)
-acceptance of transgender people prevents us from discussing the evil that led to the tragedy (Erick Erickson)
-gun-free zones (John Lott)
-"I don't know" (Jeb Bush)
-"We don't know the motivation" (Rudy Giuliani)
-"you are raping our women and taking over the country.” - Dylann Roof
|
|
| | | 1971 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 15:39
|
I'd be happy, thrilled in fact to let them try and convince me it actually happened and wasn't just a drill and a show.
yes, your most holy. they'll kneel, kiss your ring, and explain why their dead children prove this wasn't a hoax.
I don't believe the school was even open and running at the time.
you just had two different people on this forum, each with two to three degrees of separation from people who had kids at that school.
there's a relatively small chance that two people, on this forum, are that closely connected.
yet, here we are.
i can't speak to Biba, but why on earth would my cousins lie to me about knowing people who's kids went to that school?
|
|
| | | 1972 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 19:53
|
Why would an upscale Conn community allow their kids to go to a school with mold on the walls. It is a head-scratcher indeed.
|
|
| | | 1973 | biliruben
ID: 28420307
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 19:59
|
Please post a documented (or not, whatever) photo of said mold. Sounds like a steaming pile of bull feces to me. But I wouldn't want to compromise my "critical thinking skills" so please provide something to think critically about.
|
|
| | | 1974 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 20:21
|
Christmas presents.
|
|
| | | 1975 | Khahan
ID: 53526258
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 09:26
|
Boldwin we've already address points raised in that video. They have been proven false. Bringing them up again does not suddenly make them true. See the link in post 1952 and all the information you need to see how false and how poor of a research job that video maker did is right at your fingertips.
|
|
| | | 1976 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 12:40
|
Virtually every house on the street of the school had their mortgage paid off on Christmas day. You saw it with your own eyes as he looked up each property in the records.
What has been disproved about that?
How is that in any way regular.
How many government offices are open on Christmas to record that?
What are the odds every house had a transaction on the same day?
You don't have a thing going for you except your own desire to sweep this under the carpet, being in a lib echo chamber and the power of the official coverup.
|
|
| | | 1977 | biliruben
ID: 561162511
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 13:50
|
Be clear about what you are trying to infer.
The government paid their mortgages so that they would participate in a massive cover-up because - profit!
I need motive and understanding of what you are suggesting.
I confess, I trust the government more than some conspiracy theory whack-job with some amorphous ax to grind.
|
|
| | | 1978 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 14:11
|
I'm not inferring anything.
I'm just looking an an impossible series of 'coincidences' and going, "Hmmm...there's something they're not telling us, going on here."
It can't be nothing.
No one, not even the government goes around paying off mortgages to everyone in the area without a purpose.
|
|
| | | 1979 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 14:13
|
But we do know exactly what the government wanted from this incident.
They wanted to break the NRA's grip on their guns.
Ya'think there might be a connection?
|
|
| | | 1980 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 14:26
|
WTFO read the link in 1954 and just stfu. You are a basket case dude. Get some help. There is no conspiracy.
|
|
| | | 1981 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 14:33
|
I used to be in real estate and I used to go to thru the county records and I've never seen anything like that.
Maybe Conn is different but I'm gonna need something better than a shill like Metabunk.
|
|
| | | 1982 | biliruben
ID: 561162511
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 15:19
|
If the last dozen shootings didn't succeed, why do you think one more mass-tragedy, with huge possibilities for discovery if faked, would "break the NRA's grip..."
Implausible. The upside is tiny and the downside and high risk of discovery is massive.
This only makes sense in a world of make-believe.
|
|
| | | 1983 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 15:27
|
Well, I'm not going to fight that explanation of the Christmas gifting.
I'm looking for things that have no possible innocent explanation. While I don't trust the motives of Metabunk as I've seen them attack credible people, again...even tho it's an unlikely combination of bizzare guilty looking facts, maybe Conn record-keepers deliberately pick zero and Christmas to indicate the entry they just made is not a transaction even tho it's in the transaction column. A strange twist.
I'm also not going to fight the 'mold' fight. I've lately looked at the photos in great detail and the disrepair is well within the range of normal government incompetence.
I'm also going to admit the caller to 911 was one hell of a crisis actor if she was one.
|
|
| | | 1984 | Khahan
ID: 335562514
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 15:56
|
Those are not mortgage pay offs. Those are countywide reassessments. That's something you can easily discern for yourself by reviewing the actual county link I posted in post 1952.
|
|
| | | 1985 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 16:45
|
Link to the actual list.
Select a Registry to begin your search.
I don't see New Town or Sandy Hook listed.
The most recent property transactions recorded may be obtained through the Office of the Town Clerk.
Real Estate data is available in electronic form. Please contact the Assessor's office with specific data requests.
I'm not finding it.
|
|
| | | 1986 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 16:51
|
https://www.uslandrecords.com/ctlr/controller
This doesn't give me a list of property and transactions.
|
|
| | | 1987 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 05:45
|
Then there's this data point:
That swift response is telling.
Kinda like Breitbart announcing he was producing a blockbuster expose on Obama that would surely end his chances...
...and then dieing the next day in an unusual explosive fashion.
Timing like that can't just be blithely dismissed.
|
|
| | | 1988 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 19:13
|
of course, Kennedy never said the above, but the foolish are easily fooled.
find one speech from that day, where JFK uttered those words. just one.
|
|
| | | 1989 | Perm Dude
ID: 53520299
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 22:22
|
When you don't have facts, make some up! Because the point isn't to expose something new, it is to re-affirm what is already believed.
|
|
| | | 1990 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 17:45
|
|
|
| | | 1991 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 17:55
|
A deeper and more poisonous problem is the breakdown in trust. Again and again, progressives insist that their goals are reasonable and limited. Proponents of gay marriage insisted that they merely wanted the same rights to marry as everyone else. They mocked, scorned and belittled anyone who suggested that polygamy would be next on their agenda. Until they started winning. In 2013, a headline in Slate declared "Legalize Polygamy!" and a writer at the Economist editorialized, "And now on to polygamy." The Atlantic ran a fawning piece on Diana Adams and her quest for a polyamorous "alternative to marriage."
We were also told that the fight for marriage equality had nothing to do with a larger war against organized religion and religious freedom. But we now know that was a lie too. The ACLU has reversed its position on religious freedom laws, in line with the left's scorched-earth attacks on religious institutions and private businesses that won't — or can't — embrace the secular fatwa that everyone must celebrate "love" as defined by the left.
I very much doubt we'll get a constitutional right for teams of people to get "married," but I have every confidence the drumbeat will grow louder. Social justice — forever ill-defined so as to maximize the power of its champions — has become not just an industry but also a permanent psychological orientation among journalists, lawyers, educators and other members of the new class of eternal reformers.
By no means are social justice warriors always wrong. But they are untrustworthy, because they aren't driven by a philosophy so much as an insatiable appetite that cannot take yes for an answer. No cookie will ever satisfy them. Our politics will only get uglier, as those who resist this agenda realize that compromise is just another word for appeasement.
|
|
| | |
| | | 1993 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 18:08
|
Hero Arron Russo
|
|
| | | 1994 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 18:19
|
Speech that got Andrew Breitbart murdered the next day.
|
|
| | | 1995 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 18:27
|
Which led to the disapearance of the only witness to Breitbart's death, Christopher Lasseter, Then, within hours of the release of Breitbart’s preliminary autopsy report, Michael Cormier, age 61, a forensic technician who worked as a photographer in the Los Angeles County coroner’s office, died suddenly from what is suspected to be arsenic poisoning.
Which I suppose doesn't interest all the statistics geeks at Rotoguru. The odds of all that. Bunch'a coincidence theorists.
|
|
| | | 1996 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 18:53
|
While we are at it...
|
|
| | | 1997 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 19:13
|
We need a crackpot thread...
|
|
| | | 1998 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 20:23
|
We need a crackpot thread...
at this point, they're all crackpot threads...
btw Baldwin, maybe i missed it, but at one point are the words in 1987 uttered in the video in post 1990.
also, that speech in 1990 - it took 2 1/2 years for Kennedy to get killed? he gave that in the spring of 1961.
|
|
| | | 1999 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 21:06
|
It's not a direct quote but it's a perfectly accurate summation fitting on an E-mail or caption for low information readers who don't have the attention span to read/listen to it all.
I notice you aren't brave enuff to call Kennedy what you call me for the exact same belief.
|
|
| | | 2000 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 21:22
|
Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. W. Clement Stone --and regardless of its source
|
|
| | | 2001 | Khahan
ID: 54152322
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 21:57
|
1995 - that one is definitely sour Boldwin. But in that one, unlike so many other theories thrown out, there is a clear link without taking leaps and bounds. Brietbard killed. A witness killed then a forensic photographer involved in the case is killed. That is a much stronger link than:
1. mold was in the schoolhouse
2. some guy on the internet pointed to random people in pictures and claims, "they are paid actors"
3. there are multiple instances of 'training sessions' from various government agencies which reflect actual tragedies happening at the same time and place those tragedies happen (except when the training sessions are in a different town or a month apart or given by a hospital as a normal course that you'd expect to find in a hospital instead of by the government).
|
|
| | | 2002 | biliruben
ID: 28420307
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 01:21
|
Coincidence? I think not!!
|
|
| | | 2003 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 01:37
|
Khahan
I don't see why the Aurora case and the London bombing aren't easily as slam dunk.
Addendum. Very strange town, that Sandy Hook. It's the dream site for a staged event. I'll expand on that later but the kicker I ran into lately...
[off the cuff, stuff I recall]...They've got this motif going with 26 stars decorating various government facades and roof displays. They set up a 26 christmas tree display to honor the victims afterwards.
Look at the staged march pointlessly circling the school building and you discover the 26 christmas trees propositioned off to the side in back.
|
|
| | | 2004 | bibA
ID: 275441414
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 07:57
|
Yup, they're all in on it.
|
|
| | | 2005 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 09:18
|
You guys are why 'false flag' events were invented.
Because they work.
|
|
| | | 2006 | Khahan
ID: 3166111
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 12:07
|
Khahan
I don't see why the Aurora case and the London bombing aren't easily as slam dunk.
I'm guessing here you mean the training classes that we discussed in the other thread? For starters the shooting happened in Aurora, the classes you referenced in ASD thread were hospital classes for med students in Parker, Colorado. They aren't even in the same counties. Parker is in Douglas County and Aurora is in Arapahoe and Adams counties.
Second, its a hospital training medical students, not an 'active shooter drill' from a government agency. So one of the biggest examples you hold up as proof of a government or UN conspiracy isn't even a government function and doesn't fit the criteria laid out (by you, see post 18 in the active shooter drill thread) because it doesn't even happen in the same place. Not even the same county.
Next you have talked about the Boston Marathon bombing and in the ASD thread you mentioned Operation Urban Shield which was a drill for a backpack bomb going off. But OUS occurred months before the Boston Bombing. So again, an example you hold up to us does not meet the criteria you laid out as happening simultaneously.
2 of the biggest examples held up as proof of this conspiracy do not meet muster. They fail to meet multiple criteria that you yourself have said proves they are part of the conspiracy. That is why they aren't as easily slam dunks as Breitbart.
And keep in mind the deaths with breitbart are not proof of a conspiracy. Rather they are red flags (and rather strong ones) that an investigation needs to take place. That investigation may provide proof of the conspiracy to kill him and its cover up. But the deaths of the photographer and witness are not, in and of themselves, proof.
|
|
| | | 2007 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 12:35
|
Khahan
Douglas County is directly adjoining Aurora Colorado
How is that some kind of significant separation?
Sorry, "Let's imagine backpacks+propane bombs+guns+theater and see how well we react."
At the same time.
This was self-evidently evidence of those in the know reviewing their plan and then measuring it against actual performance.
---------
They had actual Active Shooter Drill people on the scene at Boston and it's not even clear if they knew it wasn't a drill as they are making announcements over the loudspeakers in real time.
---------
London which you didn't even mention...c'mon.
They call the exact stations. Sit yards away from the incident. Have their man riding in the tube reporting on the results...
...and it doesn't even register for you.
Forget spidey senses. It's a wonder they let you drive. How is defensive driving even possible for you? You see no red flags.
|
|
| | | 2008 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 13:29
|
It's not a direct quote
it's in quotation marks, indicating it's a direct quote.
it also came, according to your source, 7 days before JFK's assassination, not 18 months.
so, i'll ask again:
find one speech from that day, where JFK uttered those words? just one?
Very strange town, that Sandy Hook.
you've been there?
|
|
| | | 2009 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 14:12
|
Would it be possible to make a thread entitled, Conspiracy theory, you wont believe what I think they're doing this time, where we could move all of this crap to? Pretty sure none of this has anythng to do with Gabrielle Gifford.
|
|
| | | 2010 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 15:53
|
man, i second that. lol
|
|
| | | 2011 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 16:59
|
JFK's words speak for themselves and hearing them all is far more damning and expansive than the abbreviated version.
----------------
Sandy Hook is a special town. A Company town as in 'The Company'. A "Nest" like Langley. All silver and black government worker cars.
It's a Transition Town A model town for experimenting with all those new agey, agenda 21, sustainability obsessed, evolving, transhuman trendy movements.
. A mystical globalist utopian Baha'i kinda town.
Baha'i has big goals. A world super-state. A world legislature. A World Parliament. A world police force. A single world currency. A world taxation system. Implementation of agenda 21 and the Earth Charter.
It's the home of Harvard Dr. John Woodall's Baha'i Unity Project.
The Unity Council and the personal, group and institutional capacity it develops, acts as a “bowl” to receive aid from outside sources in times of response to a crisis. The same “bowl” can be used to engender personal, community and economic development when crisis has passed As early as the day of December 14th, James Woodall was quoted in a statement to the Associated Press:Quote I do this for a living—I do trauma work for a living. I ran programs overseas for the State Department. I’ve worked in school shootings before. But all that—none of that counts. All that counts at that moment is that another human being is there for you … It’s a strong community. It’s a resilient community. The task now is for the community to give this a meaning. A Baha'i meaning.
It's about the Sexton and Greenberg families.
A FEMA capstone event. Brought to you by DHS to model human behavior and control.
.
The guy escaping into the woods, in camo, heading towards the Masonic lodge on the other side of the woods. Who lived behind the Lanza House...nothing suspicious there.
Look away.
The "da-da-da-DAH!* *Official Version of Events* is all there is.
|
|
| | | 2012 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 18:08
|
Then there is Fairfield Hills, Newtown. Mental institution famous for gruesome lobotomies, etc. Inspiration for many famous horror movies.
|
|
| | | 2013 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 18:16
|
Then there is Susan McGuinness Getzinger. Whistle-blower on official misconduct in Newtown, the law offices attached to the city council. Treatment of children, mentally damaging children.
Her husband killed in car accident day after one of those hostile city council meetings.
Her husband:
Scott Getzinger, is a prop master who provided props for more than 25 films, including the maps used in both the viral marketing, and film. Mr Getzinger also just so happened to live in Sandy Hook.
Unfortunately, nobody can ask Mr Getzinger why he added Sandy Hook to the maps in the film [Batman - B], because he was killed in a car accident in Sandy Hook back in April 7, 2012. His injuries were described by police as "not life threatening", on the scene, but he later died in hospital.
Feb 6 2013 - In another interesting twist, Scott Getzinger's wife, Susan McGuinness Getzinger came forward regarding shady actions in the Connecticut school system, in an attempt to expose abuse, stating that her husband was killed in a fatal car accident the night after she protested local corruption at a previous public hearing.
Her rambling, mostly incoherent speech makes it clear she believes there is a conspiracy involving the Connecticut education system, and that she is extremely suspicious about the events surrounding Sandy Hook and her husbands death. She is interrupted and asked to stop when she begins mentioning Adam Lanza.
"You walk into your PPT or Educational Hearing, they are all in on it." - Susan McGuinness Getzinger
|
|
| | | 2014 | bibA
ID: 275441414
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 18:41
|
Quoting JFK....you don't mean to tell us that you really believe he was shot? How long ago did you fall for that one?
|
|
| | | 2015 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 22:27
|
Saw Elvis at the local Walmart yesterday
|
|
| | | 2016 | Khahan
ID: 54152322
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 23:27
|
That was not Elvis, Bean. It was Andy Kaufman in disguise.
|
|
| | | 2017 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 00:19
|
I heard the Greys and the Grays are at war. Watch out for the anal probes from both the left and the right.
|
|
| | | 2018 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 00:34
|
The reference wasn't too otherworldly was it?
|
|
| | | 2019 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 05:00
|
Holmes father [Aurora] was the inventor of the algorithm that discovered the monumentally important 'LIBOR' scandal.
Lanza's father was the tax director of GE. Three people who worked under him went to prison for their part in the 'LIBOR" scandal.
But notice Lanza's father wasn't one of the guilty parties. I presume he revealed their part in it.
The 'LIBOR' scandal for those not following along, was where banks were gaming the interbank interest rates.
The next door neighbor to Adam Lanza was John Trentacosta. John Trentacosta was a new member of a FED advisory board set up by the new Dodd Frank law just a year prior. He was president of the Sandy Hook bank that set up the United Way fund to receive contributions for the massacre. A charity which managed to put together the charity drive, the website for it, the artwork, set up the banking...and they managed to do it BEFORE the massacre.
Curiously the crime scene helicopter misidentified the Lanza house and focused on the Trentacosta house instead because that was where all the activity of the day was focused on. Cop cars blocking off his driveway, lined up outside his house, but not the Lanzas. Driving all over Trentacosta's lawn. From the photos it looks to me like they orginally were all up in the driveway, with spillover up on his lawn, and then they were pulled back to the street later.
They stick together, don't they, Sarge? Always plenty of brothers in the police dept.
No aliens involved tho. *wink
|
|
| | | 2020 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 05:04
|
Mess with our gravy-train and we'll drug yer kid and plop him down in a mass shooting.
|
|
| | | 2021 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 06:11
|
From the Batman Movie: Dark Knight RisesDent: "The night is always darker just before the dawn, and I promise you, the dawn is coming."
---
Blake: Sir, that could all just be a coincidence.
Commissioner Gordon: You’re a detective now, son. You’re not allowed to believe in coincidence anymore.
The city skyline has a skyscraper named Aurora.
The movie map of the kill list:
Sandy Hook Beach
|
|
| | | 2022 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 07:01
|
The LIBOR case the father of Adam Lanza was scheduled to testify at, and later did testify at:The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, the banks systematically stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from "virtually every state, district and territory in the United States," according to one settlement. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being cheated. No thumbs were broken, and nobody ended up in a landfill in New Jersey, but money disappeared, lots and lots of it, and its manner of disappearance had a familiar name: organized crime.
---
More recently, a major international investigation has been launched into the manipulation of Libor, the interbank lending index that is used to calculate global interest rates for products worth more than $3 trillion a year. If and when that case is presented to the public at trial – there are several major civil suits in the works here in the States – we may yet find out that the world's most powerful banks have, for years, been fixing the prices of almost every adjustable-rate vehicle on earth, from mortgages and credit cards to interest-rate swaps and even currencies.
But USA v. Carollo marks the first time we actually got incontrovertible evidence that Wall Street has moved into this cartel-type brand of criminality. It also offered a disgusting glimpse into the enabling and grossly cynical role played by politicians, who took Super Bowl tickets and bribe-stuffed envelopes to look the other way while gangsters raided the public kitty. And though the punishments that were ultimately handed down in the trial – minor convictions of three bit players – felt deeply unsatisfying, it was still a watershed moment in the ongoing story of America's gradual awakening to the realities of financial corruption. In a post-crash era where Wall Street trials almost never make it into court, and even the harshest settlements end with the evidence buried by the government and the offending banks permitted to escape with no admission of wrongdoing, this case finally dragged the whole ugly truth of American finance out into the open – and it was a hell of a show.
"Even though some aspects of municipal bond finance are complex, the fraud here was simple," she told the jurors. "It was about lying and cheating cities and towns in a bidding process that was in place to protect them."
The "simple fraud" Waszmer described centered around public borrowing. Say your town wants to build a new elementary school. So it goes to Wall Street, which issues a bond in your town's name to raise $100 million, attracting cash from investors all over the globe. Once Wall Street raises all that money, it dumps it in a tax-exempt account, which your town then uses to pay builders, plumbers, the chalkboard company and whoever else winds up working on the project.
But here's the catch: Most towns, when they raise all that money, don't spend it all at once. Often it takes years to complete a construction project, and the last contractor isn't paid until long after the original bond is issued. While that unspent money is sitting in the town's account, local officials go looking for a financial company on Wall Street to invest it for them.
To do that, officials hire a middleman firm known as a broker to set up a public auction and invite banks to compete for the town's business. For the $100 million you borrowed on your elementary school bond, Bank A might offer you 5 percent interest. Bank B goes further and offers 5.25 percent. But Bank C, the winner of the auction, offers 5.5 percent.
n most cases, towns and cities, called issuers, are legally required to submit their bonds to a competitive auction of at least three banks, called providers. The scam Wall Street cooked up to beat this fair-market system was to devise phony auctions. Instead of submitting competitive bids and letting the highest rate win, providers like Chase, Bank of America and GE secretly divvied up the business of all the different cities and towns that came to Wall Street to borrow money. One company would be allowed to "win" the bid on an elementary school, the second would be handed a hospital, the third a hockey rink, and so on.
How did they rig the auctions? Simple: By bribing the auctioneers, those middlemen brokers hired to ensure the town got the best possible interest rate the market could offer. Instead of holding honest auctions in which none of the parties knew the size of one another's bids, the broker would tell the prearranged "winner" what the other two bids were, allowing the bank to lower its offer and come in with an interest rate just high enough to "beat" its supposed competitors. This simple but effective cheat – telling the winner what its rivals had bid – was called giving them a "last look." The winning bank would then reward the broker by providing it with kickbacks disguised as "fees" for swap deals that the brokers weren't even involved in.
The end result of this (at least) decade-long conspiracy was that towns and cities systematically lost, while banks and brokers won big. By shaving tiny fractions of a percent off their winning bids, the banks pocketed fantastic sums over the life of these multimillion-dollar bond deals. Lowering a bid by just one-100th of a percent, called a basis point, could cheat a town out of tens of thousands of dollars it would otherwise have earned on its bond deposits.
That doesn't sound like much. But when added to the other fractions of a percent stolen from basically every other town in America on every other bond issued by Wall Street in the past 10 to 15 years, it starts to turn into an enormous sum of money. In short, this was like the scam in Office Space, multiplied by a factor of about 10 gazillion: Banks stole pennies at a time from towns all over America, only they did it a few hundred bazillion times.
|
|
| | | 2023 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 07:10
|
And the wife of the man who put that map in that movie, screaming at the Sandy Hook city council, ~"I've got the information on all you crooks and the shady law firms covering yer @$$e$ and I'm naming names". Just after her husband was whacked.
|
|
| | | 2024 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 07:14
|
And Metabunk banned the contributor with the best info on this, Quantum Believer.
So don't expect to learn the truth at Metabunk. They ban that stuff.
|
|
| | | 2025 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 07:26
|
The disinfo plants at metabunk had the boys sneering at the idea Lanza's father was even involved in a LIBOR trial.
Then Quantum Believer provides the Matt Tabitai Rolling Stone article describing that exact trial.
Then Metabunk instead of thanking QB and spanking the smoke blowers...
...bans Quantum Believer and quick closes the thread.
Don't anyone ever use Metabunk on me ever again as if that was a trusted source.
|
|
| | | 2026 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 09:27
|
New record: No “major” hurricane–defined as a Category 3 or above–has made landfall on the continental United States since 2005, according to records compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division.
That is the longest stretch of time the United States has gone without a Category 3 or above hurricane striking somewhere on the mainland of the country, according to NOAA hurricane records going back to 1851.
“It’s easily the record — with all the necessary caveats,” the National Hurricane Center’s Eric Blake told CNSNews.com. (*cough...'cept for that 'Sandy' that hooked into...)
I blame global warming myself.
|
|
| | | 2027 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 11:04
|
Looking forward to the movie, Boldy. Sounds full of random synapse firings. Who ya think they'll get to play Holmes, I'd go with the dude from Big Bang Theory.
I'll even spring for popcorn and soda when it comes out. I still go to the theater, but only matinees, though it has nothing to do with Holmes' actions.
|
|
| | | 2028 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:53
|
Don't go if there's an active shooter drill nearby.
|
|
| | | 2029 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 20:19
|
it's really difficult to see someone disrespect the deaths of 20+ children. it's hard to stomach that there are people on this earth, people on this board, who feel that mocking parents mourning their dead kids, is something that is acceptable.
for all the railing that is done against humanity on this board, that's the problem in a nutshell. that people like this exist.
|
|
| | | 2030 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 21:11
|
What's funny is that the 'tolerant' over at Oberlin college can't have feminist Christina Hoff Summers deliver a speech anywhere nearby without curling up into a hysterical ball in a nearby safe-zone complete with crayons and support animals, what with all the triggering...
But no one worries about triggering me when they discuss the inadvisability of allowing me to breathe air.
|
|
| | | 2031 | Boldwin
ID: 2711516
Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 21:53
|
Remember that time you lectured us about a target sign and the vast importance of civility?
Yeah, good times.
|
|
| | | 2032 | bibA
ID: 275441414
Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 15:30
|
Damn, just read about the slaughter in Roseburg, Oregon. Came to this site hoping to hear from Baldwin that it was all a conspiracy, that it really didn't happen.
|
|
| | | 2033 | biliruben
ID: 137281811
Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 16:00
|
Give him time. Brietbart or Newsmax hasn't yet told him what to say and why.
|
|
| | | 2034 | biliruben
ID: 137281811
Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 17:14
|
Everyone moody loner with "mental problems" needs 13 guns.
God bless America!
|
|
| | | 2035 | Tree
ID: 161036918
Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 09:29
|
but they were bought legally! he wasn't a criminal! or, whatever.
|
|
| | | 2036 | Boldwin
ID: 2711516
Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 03:48
|
Hey, anything goes. Who are we to judge the value system of anyone else? His truth is just as valid as ours.
Heaven forbid we impose our morality on others.
Thank a moral relativist.
|
|
|
|